What do you think about Trump's proposed budget cuts or the American First Policy choices?

@sarabee: really? this is nothing but waffle and recycled tabloid headlines! it takes no account of why US invests in UN, World Bank; of why it provides military assistance to nations it sees as essential regional stabilisers. and it totally ignores what will happen to fill the vacuum left by US withdrawal.

understanding of climate change is no more limited than understanding of anything else! the science is pretty much established. and US is about to become a lot less active in reducing carbon emissions.

if you really believe in putting america first, put it first in the world, not first in isolationism. america will not prosper if it steps back from the world, it will simply leave space in which others will prosper.

we need to have a serious talk soon...

@Yulianna: Oh, there is plenty of reason for the US to be investing in the UN and the World Bank. Both work for global stabilization, the protection of human rights, and economic development. All of which are noble and worthy causes. However, the US has been heavily invested in all of them for a long time. Their success has been limited and the US has faced a lot of ridicule domestically and abroad for their involvement. Also other countries are depending on the US to fund and solve their issues. These are expenses that the US honestly cannot afford to pay until it solves its troubles domestically. The US debt is getting out of control. At some point it becomes irresponsible to keep spending money you do not have.

We are not talking about a total withdraw of US forces and influence here. We are talking about a gradual decrease over the next few years. It might be high time to see that.

Actually the study of climate change is quite a lot more limited than many other fields. Manly by the scope and relatively short time window we have been able to track it with any sense of accuracy. Also because we know for a fact that the world has experienced drastic and gradual climate change many times over the course of its existences without any aid from mankind. Also whether or not climate change is at all preventable and the effects that it will have are greatly debated. The US produces a lot of carbon, mostly because almost everyone has electricity and a car. The systems the US uses are actually the most efficient to date and are still being improved. There is a lot of regulation already in place. Don't get me wrong, I love the planet, the wild and breathing fresh air. I am totally against pollution and want to limit it as much as possible. But we must also look at the cost/benefit pay of.

Again I am not talking about America turning to policy of Isolation, nobody is. We are talking about a decrease on American activity on the global platform. And policy decisions that focus moreso on the needs of americans. I would love to see more resources available for the millions of veterans that are suffering from PTSD and other ailments from fighting other people's wars abroad. I would love to see more development in the inners cities and the reduction of racial divide through education and integration programs.

@MarsSword: america invests in UN and World Bank not because they support noble causes but because it is in america's political and commercial interests to do so. if UN and WB become less dependent on US, the influence of US in the world willbe dimished.

you say that it is "high time" to see that. but any redution in US influence means an increase in the influence of china,india, russia... are you prepared to live in a world where chinese or indian or russian values - social, commercial, political - are more prevalent? to say nothing of the rise in militant islam.

it is hard to be america. sometimes it may seem you have no friends. sometimes the burden may seem too heavy. but america is there for a reason, for all it's imperfections, as an example to the world. turn your back now, you may never be able to face us again.

on climate change, the bast science supports the facts of man made global warming, outside the influence of short and long term cyclical adjustments. to fall back on the counter argument is the work of propaganda. crying "false news" and "false facts" changes neither the news or the facts.

@Yulianna: Yes, I realize that. The US's global influence is never going to last forever. Right now the US is buying influence at great expense with money they don't have. It will come crashing down. Backing off a little bit now might hurt American influence a bit, but might prevent a crash or lessen it.

Russian values on the whole are actually not so different anymore. I am talking about asking the other western countries to step it up to help share the burden. Militant islam is a problem. A problem the US doesn't have a good strategy for dealing with. The track record of the US involvement in the middle east goes something like this: solve one problem and create 2 more. I don't want to see a complete withdraw of the US, but perhaps making it a bit less active.

It is hard to be America, everybody wants to benefit and nobody wants to bear the cost or the blame. Allies are fickle and can turn on the most understandable mistakes. Again, I am not, nor is anybody else, talking about turning their backs. They are talking about reducing their activities by some degree. Especially when it comes to funding other people's militaries.

Climate change, like I said is not perfect and still being developed. I am not crying false news or false facts. I am simply saying that the interpretation of the data is by no means certain or simple.