Biden seems like he's not fully there at times due to age, but Trump was literally laughed at by world leaders.

He often makes himself sound like an insecure unintelligent narccisist with bizzare unsubstantiated claims.
Those speeches may work on the MAGA crowd, but in a room full of people who are probably mostly academics and qualified for these positions, you instead get this situation where they failed to contain their laughter.

Other times world leaders were caught on tape making fun of how dumb he is. And several of his former close associates described him as an idiot after they left.

But if that was all, it wouldn't be as big of a problem. He also actively weakened USA's relations to UN and NATO allies, expressing desire to leave the alliance. Which is very much against the west's interests, and what Putin (and China) would like to see.

So I'm not surprised if Biden is more heavily critisized in China and Russia than Trump was.

It's very annoying when people try to both sides things. People think AOC and Bernie are the "far left". And forget many dems are right of centre. It's just the republican have gone so far right they are into fascism. And also, is anarchism as bad as fascism? And does anarchism have any power anywhere? That's the far left. Do actual communists have any power? Do socialists have any power or representation? Socialists aren't even the far left. And what's bad or scary about socialism? Are the "far left" and "far right" equally dangerous? 

The furthest left the US has with any real power I'd a guy who wants to give universal Healthcare and wants a progressive tax system plus affordable education.  That's the middle for Americans if you poll them. So where is the "far left" again? 

You keep ignoring what I am saying and making bad comparisons that you know are disingenuous.  You are taking away democracy from the people if you let a monarchist or fascist run. Your democracy won't survive. The putin example you made, it's exactly how putin got in power in the first place. Same with Orban. They ran in a vulnerable democrats with no protections against bad faith actors and then they dismantled democracy. If you don't protect your democrats you end up like Russia or Hungary or turkey or India. Trump wanted to do this too. 

You are taking choice away from all future people just for one instance of a decision. What about the future people who will be forced to live under a monarch with no democracy anymore? So your argument is let the people kill democracy and offer no protections for its continued existence?

1. The Roman Republic, especially in its early days, had a very small franchise. It was much more of an oligarchy of land-owners than a democracy. As time passed, more plebeians (but not slaves or women) were enfranchised, but even calling the late Roman Republic a "democracy" is wrong. 

2. Similar can be said of the Republic of Venice which was both an oligarchy and plutocracy. 

3. The early U.S was intentionally non-democratic. That is why there was a party called the "Democratic-Republican Party." The franchise was mostly isolated to those who owned land over a certain value. If the Federalists had their way the U.S would be even less democratic than it became. Instead they wished for there to be mixed government (which has democratic, aristocratic, and monarchic elements) akin to that idealized by classical republicans like Niccolo Machiavelli. 

From the "classical republicanism" wikipedia. This is the sense where the American right-wing (originating as far back as the Federalists) seems to be using "republican." as opposed to "democracy." 

"Although modern republicanism rejected monarchy (whether hereditary or otherwise autocratic) in favour of rule by the people, classical republicanism treated monarchy as one form of government among others. Classical republicanism was rather aimed against any form of tyranny, whether monarchic, aristocratic, or democratic (tyranny of the majority). The notions of what constituted an ideal republic to classical republicans themselves depended on personal view. However, the most ideal republic featured form of mixed government and was based on the pursuit of civility."

4. North Korea is nominally a "republic" calling itself "Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)" but it certainly never was a democracy, and especially today the "republic" qualifier seems like a stretch too. 

5. It would be a stretch to call countries like Russia, China, and arguably the current U.S (at least at the national level)  "democracies" given that popular will doesn't really affect public policy much, and oligarchs have much more influence on national politics. All of these are republics. 

The US is a federal republic. 

Oh there is a lot of extreme left going on.  Bailing out riotors, trial by the media, etc.  School curriculum is so poor my kids are being home schooled.  As somebody who is born and raised in this country, the middle is absolutely gone.  Both parties are nuts.

The fact you view one party as the problem and the other as being right simply reflects there is no middle anymore.  And the fact that I'm supposedly "misguided" because I don't agree with you also highlights the problem with US politics.  All or nothing, there is no middle.

I've always been curious about something but I wonder if the US and the rest of the world are using a different definition of left and right wing politics. 

Anarchy is the most extreme version of far right politics while Fascism is ironically near the farthest end of the left, with a dictatorship being I believe the farthest left. And that's not some sort of cultural hot take, it is the truth by definition. 

Right wing politics are about LESS government involvement in one's life and country. Less control, fewer restrictions, less taxes, fewer laws, and more freedom to do whatever they want while getting the least help/interference from the government. extreme right wing politics strive for less government. So, by logical extremism, Anarchy (The idea of a decentralized or nonexistent system in place to control people) is the farthest right you can go because it basically turns the world into a lawless hellscape where anyone can do anything. 

Left-wing politics are about MORE government involvement and control and influence. So, Ironically, fascism is a far left ideal where a political party has a charismatic leader that has a death grip on the laws and regulations of the land. Starting from Center it goes Democracy, socialism, Communism, fascism, then dictatorship. On the right it goes Demoracy, capitalism, then a few steps before Anarchy. 

The irony here is that Trump was absolutely a figurehead of fascism, in a party that unironically hates the left even though it seems nobody actually knows what left vs right actually means. 

Furthermore, what people don't understand is that slightly left of center is the best because it basically gives people most or all of the freedoms they want while only stopping people from doing things that are deemed irresponsible or bad. You know, criminal law, market regulations, etc. The right treats anything 'to the left' as some sort of dystopia where they have no freedoms but the actual purpose of government is to ensure the best outcome for the largest number of people, and 99% of the time that means shit like pumping money into education and social services and healthcare and all that. It means fixing the roads and making the world safe. 

Republicans just hate the idea of paying more in taxes because they don't see the bigger picture. They don't see that if everyone pitches in then everyone benefits, because they hate the idea that someone who they feel didn't earn it also gets helped. To them it's not a collective benefit, it's the gub-mint taking money from their pockets and giving it to someone who doesn't deserve it. 

the idea that 'someone who doesn't deserve it' is Black lives or Mexicans or trans people (as a distinctly republican take) is pretty recent.

Which is why I said for years that Republicans used to be generally decent people who simply had a different take on how budgets should be allocated whereas now they're mostly racist or xenophobic. It's also why they like to use the 'it was the democrats who did slavery and the republicans who saved us' narrative. Because in the past, it absolutely was democrats who were using the extra government control to perpetuate racism and lots of shitty shitty shit. 

But trying to explain all of this to anyone is basically a waste of time because I've learned that, for the most part, people are just smart enough to learn how to justify their attitudes and behaviours while just missing the level of self-awareness needed to re-assess one's actual stance or be willing to reconsider. I try to not act like I'm superior or that I'm 'smarter than you' (With 'you' being the royal you, not you in particular, Eagleman), but every time I look around I'm so astoundingly baffled at how much people are actively avoiding the point or the historical context or the science behind things. I hate that we live in a world where everything is 'us vs them', but I hate even more that we live in a world where WAY too many people are outright villains. I WANT to understand. I want to work together, but it's so hard to do that when so many people are unwilling to even humour the idea that maybe their understanding of the issue was tainted by the fact they didn't 'get' some of the facts or were internally misrepresenting the historical context surrounding it. 

So even when people on 'my' side get things wrong, I feel like I have to correct them. Not to be smug or anything, but to ensure everyone has equal access to the right information. HArd data and proper interpretation of that data guided by ample historical context and nuance. All of that matters, and it's so easy to pinpoint one bad fact or data point to prove even a wrong argument. And like here, I think the core concept of 'left' vs 'right' politics needs to be corrected. 

Unless I am misinterpreting something you said. In which case, do correct me. I still think the context needs to be shared. 

You have it backwards. Anarchism (the political philosophy) originated on the far-left. Early anarchists like Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Joseph Déjacque were all leftists and socialists (in Godwin's case proto-socialist.) 

It wasn't until the 1950's when the right-wing liberal Murray Rothbard tried to synthesize certain forms of American individualist anarchism (Benjamin Tucker's "Boston Anarchism") which was still a far-left ideology, with the so-called Austrian School of Economics (right-wing liberalism) that there ever was a so-called "right-wing anarchism" and most actual anarchists don't see "propertarian anarchists" or "anarcho-capitalists" as genuine anarchists. 

What? What? What? That Iis objectively wrong. Mate you need to look into politics. Fascism is far right and anarchism is far left everywhere in the world. I am not American. Nazis, Italian Fascists, imperial Japan were all far right. 

You are the one confused. Trump is fascist and so it the Republican party and they are far right. That is fascism. Same with Putin, Orban, Modhi. They are far right aka fascists. If you wanna go farther right maybe monarchists. 

"Anarcho-capitalists" aren't anarchists. 

You want actual left to right its anarchist, communists, socialists, socdems, liberal, neoliberal, conservative, neoconservative, right libertarian, "anarcho-capitalists"( basically same as libertarians with fancy name), fascists, monarchists. There are others but that is broadly the universal left to right axis. 

That is why it's laughable that anyone thinks the "far left" exists in the US. Far left people don't believe in nations and state. They don't belive in money. They want the elimination of all hierarchies. They have no power in the US. 

Edit:  learn about anarchy please: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#:~:text=Anarchy%20is%20a%20society%20without,%22an%20absence%20of%20government%22.

It's about eliminating hierarchies. The bolded in your reply is not anarchy. 

No, I don't. It's the people who don't like democracy if they vote for abolishing it. If you don't let someone who's intentions are to abolish democracy to run for a position where this someone can do so, then YOU don't like democracy and want it to fall. You can't protect democracy by preventing it from happening. 

Also, monarchy does not contradict democracy.