[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Quibbling over semantics.

Definitely not semantics. That’s why I detailed the example from one of my assignments at GM. I had zero power to decide what engines / transmissions would be made when and where, or what vehicles they would go in. I had to work through the Chief Engineers, Superintendents, and VPs who did have the power. The best I could do was give them the information they needed to make the decisions in the direction I wanted the decisions to fall. That’s influence, not power. Power is saying “this engine will be produced at Plant 1 and installed in Vehicle A.” I DID NOT have that kind of juice.

Originally Posted by snizzle

I think the original point stands that our country has influence over others, even if only because we send billions (we don't have) in foreign aid to not only allies but countries that hate us. >30% of total to middle east. So our energy policy influences the world to a degree. They will say publicly what they need to so the checks clear, especially if the monies are earmarked to combat climate change.

Let’s go about this a different way… Think about all of the connections you have that are important to you. Now, list the ones that have either the power or influence to have you publicly state something that is directly opposite of what you truly believe (Tucker Carlson doesn’t count ). I’m guessing that second part would be an amazingly short list.

Now, let’s apply that to UAE and John Kerry. What “power” or even influence can John Kerry have over UAE to have one of their top ministers publicly say something they don’t believe in when it would be much simpler to just say nothing?