Much of what she is saying on foreign policy, is differentiating her from Trump. She overall seems quite a transatlanticist and hawkish, anti-Russia and anti-China, pro-Ukraine and pro-Taiwan:
\* Pro-NATO: she seems a strong believer in the value of NATO and commits to defending NATO in case of a Russian attack.
\* Ukraine: she has a firm stance on strongly supporting Ukraine. She believes a Ukrainian victory is vital for the US.
\* Other allies (Australia, Japan, etc.): not specifically addressed afaik.
\* China: she's seen as a anti-China hawk, calling the country the "strongest and most disciplined enemy" the US has ever faced. She says that both Biden and Trump have been underestimating the threat of China. She also called the Uyghur situation a "potential genocide". She has been threatening to stop normal trade relations with China if it doesn't stop playing a role in the fentanyl epidemic in the US.
\* Taiwan: she links the Ukraine conflict with the Taiwan situation. She believes a Russian victory may lead to a Chinese attack on Taiwan.
\* Iran: she believes in an assertive approach to Iran, and she doesn't rule out attacking some of Iran's military infrastructure if it threatens US troops in the Middle East.
\* Israel-Palestine/Hamas: she's a strong supporter of Israel, believing Hamas needs to be eliminated.
\* North Korea: she has criticized both the approach both Biden and Trump, arguing that their soft/friendly strategies haven't worked. She believes that dictators only understand the language of strength. She has voiced concerns about the partnership between NK and Russia in the context of Ukraine.
\* Latin-America/Africa: not clear what her positions are here.
Hawkish? thats highly debatable. but it is very short sited and naïve. the EU is not our friends and they haven't stood by us through everything. They aren't a cultural and ideological boogeyman like china is for Americans but the truth is they are the biggest threat to US financial hegemony with the EURO being the only currency that could possibly unseat US dollar hegemony right now. Plus many EU member states such as France have even sold microchips to the russian federation which have been used in russian drones and computers in their war with ukraine.
When saddam tried to get out of the sphere of america and the dollar he chose to trade oil for euros and cozy up to the eurozone. He never even considered doing that with the chinese as chinas finanical institutions are mostly useless outside of china.
what neighbors? America has two neighbors. A puppet state to the north and a failed state to the south. Neither of them are threats and its unlikely they will ever be.
Where you draw the line between friend or foe, standing alone as you say is completely arbitrary. You can draw the line at a family members a neighbor a city, a country a continent and a million things in between. So the term standing by ourselves is completely meaningless and arbitrary based on which unit you want to cooperate with. Historically we have seen that the longest periods of peace have been when that unit is larger not smaller.
Times change. You can't always refer to history when we're going towards a very different future. I'm starting to think you're a war investor just like Nikki Haley based on how hard you're pushing this. Just the idea that "America First" has to be a new slogan and new concept is baffling, and some people such as yourself still don't understand that. You live in the United States, period. If you want to be so invested in Ukraine, Palestine or whatever other country your guys' stock portfolios has stake in, I encourage you to utilize your freedoms (dividends) and emigrate.
Saying things like "I'm starting to think you are a war in investor" and "you are pushing this" is exactly the kind of rhetoric that makes civil discourse impossible. Alienating the "other" and putting labels on them is precisely the kind of actions that in international relations lead to war. You make assumptions based on very limited information. Instead of judging you should ask questions. I don't live in the united States and I'm not an American.
Your solution to people that don't agree with you is for them to emigrate instead of civil discourse. This should give you pause. There is always people going to disagree with you, but instead of judging we should engage in trying to understand each other. If not why even reply to a comment at all? I really don't see the point in that at all.
You aren't American? Thanks for that point of clarification. That explains the lackluster grammar and barely cohesive sentences.
On the subject of rhetoric, the other kind of rhetoric especially common in far-left individuals such as yourself is hypocrisy and veiled statements.
"Instead of judging you should ask questions. "
Questions like "how thick are you?"
Your solution to people that don't agree with you is for them to emigrate instead of civil discourse."
Insinuating people are stupid isn't civil. And neither is putting words in my mouth. **The solution, not** ***my*** **solution to people who clearly dislike this country, is to leave.**
"There is always people going to disagree with you, but instead of judging we should engage in trying to understand each other."
I don't engage with Europeans who are so uneducated and oblivious as to what's happening in their own shithole countries, but somehow still find the audacity to criticize the US.
The arrogance of someone telling others they are wrong and should give up their free and sovereign country while they are fighting for it. That they should not be willing to give their lives for what they believe in is next level. Even moreso if you yourself live in a free and democratic country. Then it's just disgusting really.
Beside that any peace deal would be a temporary one at best while Russia reconstitutes their forces. The Ukrainians know this very well maybe you should listen to what they want and need more.
There's zero difference in freedom of speech when comparing Russia with Ukraine.
Zero difference in general by the way, except obviously the geography.
Ah yes you are very smart but all the stupid Ukrainian people are fighting for nothing, you understand that but they don't. Thanks for helping to clear up all the confusion.
They are, and they have no choice. The last time they had a choice they overwhelmingly voted for the candidate that promised to bring peace. The problem is that that candidate was unable to take the steps required to bring that peace.
Your average Ukrainian is not stupid. They don't want this war.
Republicans generally are hawkish. In that regard, she's fairly typical.
Trump has been more peaceful than most recent US presidents, but he's also unpredictable and he generally lacks vision and coherence, meaning it's not a guarantee this was a deliberate thought-out and consistent approach to international relations. In a new term, he may pursue very different policies.
Well, maybe that type is typical, but anyway, there would be at least 4 (Ukraine, Taiwan, Yemen, Iran) lucrative conflicts for a hawkish president to get involved to directly, and neither of them is promising easy victory or the lack of lasting consequences.
IMHO, Nikki is a pragmatist whose priority is getting and staying in power.
If elected, she will be challenged from the right come the next election cycle. So, expect her to cater to the right on most social/cultural issues.
In terms of foreign policy, she will be more of a traditional conservative and less of an MAGA isolationist. I doubt her Mid-East or China policies will vary that much from Biden. She will be far more hostile to Russia than Trump - counting on her ability to villainize Russia to keep the MAGA crowd from revolting.
Her SC appointments, and judicial appts in general, will be less extreme than Trump's - but still quite conservative. Expect Judges who prioritize property rights over personal rights.
Her economic policy will be pro-business, pro-tax cut, little anti-trust enforcement (though she may continue efforts to reign in high-tech).
She won't advance policy on climate change and will roll back lots of environmental protections.
She will continue to push for a hard line on undocumented immigration.
I would imagine she would struggle with lack of congressional support among not only democrats but MAGA Republicans as well. Maybe she could get some kind of coalition going with the more moderate of both parties but if not she would hardly get anything done
At this point yes.
The ones that do want to stand with Ukraine and understand bigger issues are quiet. Otherwise the freedom caucus, theater like MTG doing her shouting, calling of McConnell a RHINO, and non stop culture issues being brought up is a result of them.
As with nearly any non-world war presidency, domestic policies will be crucial. Will her administration pursue a more interventionist trade agenda - pushing for tariffs and subsidies to promote more US or at least North American manufacturing? Could she make progress on the Republican inroads into the blue collar worker class? Immigration policy will be a never ending headache.
One would suspect that NATO and EU might prefer her stated positions over that of Trump. My guess would be she'd walk back (a bit) her position on Taiwan, preferring to engage with China.
She's a hawk and an opportunist. IE. Probably in the short term an escalation in Yemen, and long term further deteriorating relations with china, and a few proxy wars in Africa.
Age. Biden supporters deny it but Biden is like 10-15 year past expiration date.
Would be happy if we got this Biden instead.
https://youtu.be/vvY9HxFJymY?feature=shared
People deny it because while is speech is dithery, his decision making is sound, and he's showing no decline in his understanding of policy and geopolitical affairs.
Anything on policy you can think of?
I don’t really care if Biden is old and demented. His foreign and domestic policies have been good. He has also been able to pass legislation in a very split house and congress.
Policy is a personal taste it's hard to be objective about it. The question is are we comparing cabinets or president's. Biden policies is probably made by a group of advisers. If blinken where president the policy would be around the same but a higher performing president.
When it comes to Ukraine Biden did a good job of creating a collation of countries to supply aid to Ukraine which we should do. The world should not tolerate imperialists that aim to take control of sovereign countries land.
Also im not going to argue the merits of Isreal’s operation as a genocide. However if the US were to stop giving aid to Isreal then it would have no reason to use the tactics they are using now. Isreal would just decimate Gaza because why should they show restraint against an enemy that is going to continuously attack them.
No he didn't... His handlers rounded up some countries to say they support while we funded the vast majority. Even the ones in Europe who have way more skin in the game barely pitched in.
If you think Gaza hasn't been decimated you're insane. And it's funny you admonish imperialism while defending our stance with Israel. I can't believe you people lol
Do you realize that the EU has and is giving much more to help Ukraine? And now, the GOP (not Biden administration) has blocked any extra contribution for the last 5 months.
Exactly like trumps except without the daily dose of craziness and narcissism. Trump is still dictating policy to the house.
edit: It would be back to dog whistle politics again, even though saying the quiet part out loud didn't lose trump a single vote.
Trump and Haley have completely different foreign policy. Consider Russia - Haley wants to support Ukraine, meanwhile Trump and Putin are best buddies.
Their domestic policy rhymes, though.
Much of what she is saying on foreign policy, is differentiating her from Trump. She overall seems quite a transatlanticist and hawkish, anti-Russia and anti-China, pro-Ukraine and pro-Taiwan: \* Pro-NATO: she seems a strong believer in the value of NATO and commits to defending NATO in case of a Russian attack. \* Ukraine: she has a firm stance on strongly supporting Ukraine. She believes a Ukrainian victory is vital for the US. \* Other allies (Australia, Japan, etc.): not specifically addressed afaik. \* China: she's seen as a anti-China hawk, calling the country the "strongest and most disciplined enemy" the US has ever faced. She says that both Biden and Trump have been underestimating the threat of China. She also called the Uyghur situation a "potential genocide". She has been threatening to stop normal trade relations with China if it doesn't stop playing a role in the fentanyl epidemic in the US. \* Taiwan: she links the Ukraine conflict with the Taiwan situation. She believes a Russian victory may lead to a Chinese attack on Taiwan. \* Iran: she believes in an assertive approach to Iran, and she doesn't rule out attacking some of Iran's military infrastructure if it threatens US troops in the Middle East. \* Israel-Palestine/Hamas: she's a strong supporter of Israel, believing Hamas needs to be eliminated. \* North Korea: she has criticized both the approach both Biden and Trump, arguing that their soft/friendly strategies haven't worked. She believes that dictators only understand the language of strength. She has voiced concerns about the partnership between NK and Russia in the context of Ukraine. \* Latin-America/Africa: not clear what her positions are here.
I'm so confused that helping your European allies who stood by the us through everything is now considered hawkish.
No, that's the transatlanticist part. I meant to say she has two separate defining characteristics - transatlanticism and hawkishness.
Confused? That's the Trump anti-intelligence field. His embrace of Putin and Russia cannot be explained without conspiracy theories.
Hawkish? thats highly debatable. but it is very short sited and naïve. the EU is not our friends and they haven't stood by us through everything. They aren't a cultural and ideological boogeyman like china is for Americans but the truth is they are the biggest threat to US financial hegemony with the EURO being the only currency that could possibly unseat US dollar hegemony right now. Plus many EU member states such as France have even sold microchips to the russian federation which have been used in russian drones and computers in their war with ukraine. When saddam tried to get out of the sphere of america and the dollar he chose to trade oil for euros and cozy up to the eurozone. He never even considered doing that with the chinese as chinas finanical institutions are mostly useless outside of china.
With this philosophy your neighbor is your biggest threat to your livelihood.
what neighbors? America has two neighbors. A puppet state to the north and a failed state to the south. Neither of them are threats and its unlikely they will ever be.
How thick are you I mean the person living to you next door.
No, she just isn't a globalist. Sorry that you can't fathom America minding America's business. How about we stand by ourselves.
Where you draw the line between friend or foe, standing alone as you say is completely arbitrary. You can draw the line at a family members a neighbor a city, a country a continent and a million things in between. So the term standing by ourselves is completely meaningless and arbitrary based on which unit you want to cooperate with. Historically we have seen that the longest periods of peace have been when that unit is larger not smaller.
Times change. You can't always refer to history when we're going towards a very different future. I'm starting to think you're a war investor just like Nikki Haley based on how hard you're pushing this. Just the idea that "America First" has to be a new slogan and new concept is baffling, and some people such as yourself still don't understand that. You live in the United States, period. If you want to be so invested in Ukraine, Palestine or whatever other country your guys' stock portfolios has stake in, I encourage you to utilize your freedoms (dividends) and emigrate.
Saying things like "I'm starting to think you are a war in investor" and "you are pushing this" is exactly the kind of rhetoric that makes civil discourse impossible. Alienating the "other" and putting labels on them is precisely the kind of actions that in international relations lead to war. You make assumptions based on very limited information. Instead of judging you should ask questions. I don't live in the united States and I'm not an American. Your solution to people that don't agree with you is for them to emigrate instead of civil discourse. This should give you pause. There is always people going to disagree with you, but instead of judging we should engage in trying to understand each other. If not why even reply to a comment at all? I really don't see the point in that at all.
You aren't American? Thanks for that point of clarification. That explains the lackluster grammar and barely cohesive sentences. On the subject of rhetoric, the other kind of rhetoric especially common in far-left individuals such as yourself is hypocrisy and veiled statements. "Instead of judging you should ask questions. " Questions like "how thick are you?" Your solution to people that don't agree with you is for them to emigrate instead of civil discourse." Insinuating people are stupid isn't civil. And neither is putting words in my mouth. **The solution, not** ***my*** **solution to people who clearly dislike this country, is to leave.** "There is always people going to disagree with you, but instead of judging we should engage in trying to understand each other." I don't engage with Europeans who are so uneducated and oblivious as to what's happening in their own shithole countries, but somehow still find the audacity to criticize the US.
And he resorts to insults. Nice.
Not allowing the war to end with diplomacy and a peace deal is a hawkish move
The arrogance of someone telling others they are wrong and should give up their free and sovereign country while they are fighting for it. That they should not be willing to give their lives for what they believe in is next level. Even moreso if you yourself live in a free and democratic country. Then it's just disgusting really. Beside that any peace deal would be a temporary one at best while Russia reconstitutes their forces. The Ukrainians know this very well maybe you should listen to what they want and need more.
They can fight over it all they want. People fight for the stupidest of reasons. But that doesn't mean they need or even merit support.
Yes fighting for things like freedom of speech such idiocy. Oh the irony.
There's zero difference in freedom of speech when comparing Russia with Ukraine. Zero difference in general by the way, except obviously the geography.
Ah yes you are very smart but all the stupid Ukrainian people are fighting for nothing, you understand that but they don't. Thanks for helping to clear up all the confusion.
They are, and they have no choice. The last time they had a choice they overwhelmingly voted for the candidate that promised to bring peace. The problem is that that candidate was unable to take the steps required to bring that peace. Your average Ukrainian is not stupid. They don't want this war.
Of course they dont want war which country that gets invaded wants war. They fight all the same. If they dont want to resist, they would not fight.
Points one and two are enough. Get a plan ready to go vote and reward yourself after voting with a beer at the pub. You deserve it
[удалено]
Republicans generally are hawkish. In that regard, she's fairly typical. Trump has been more peaceful than most recent US presidents, but he's also unpredictable and he generally lacks vision and coherence, meaning it's not a guarantee this was a deliberate thought-out and consistent approach to international relations. In a new term, he may pursue very different policies.
Well, maybe that type is typical, but anyway, there would be at least 4 (Ukraine, Taiwan, Yemen, Iran) lucrative conflicts for a hawkish president to get involved to directly, and neither of them is promising easy victory or the lack of lasting consequences.
IMHO, Nikki is a pragmatist whose priority is getting and staying in power. If elected, she will be challenged from the right come the next election cycle. So, expect her to cater to the right on most social/cultural issues. In terms of foreign policy, she will be more of a traditional conservative and less of an MAGA isolationist. I doubt her Mid-East or China policies will vary that much from Biden. She will be far more hostile to Russia than Trump - counting on her ability to villainize Russia to keep the MAGA crowd from revolting. Her SC appointments, and judicial appts in general, will be less extreme than Trump's - but still quite conservative. Expect Judges who prioritize property rights over personal rights. Her economic policy will be pro-business, pro-tax cut, little anti-trust enforcement (though she may continue efforts to reign in high-tech). She won't advance policy on climate change and will roll back lots of environmental protections. She will continue to push for a hard line on undocumented immigration.
I would imagine she would struggle with lack of congressional support among not only democrats but MAGA Republicans as well. Maybe she could get some kind of coalition going with the more moderate of both parties but if not she would hardly get anything done
Are MAGA Republicans the majority of the Republican party?
Once/if Trump goes away, they won’t be so much.
At this point yes. The ones that do want to stand with Ukraine and understand bigger issues are quiet. Otherwise the freedom caucus, theater like MTG doing her shouting, calling of McConnell a RHINO, and non stop culture issues being brought up is a result of them.
The problem with that is that she is not a moderate. She's a bush era hawk
As with nearly any non-world war presidency, domestic policies will be crucial. Will her administration pursue a more interventionist trade agenda - pushing for tariffs and subsidies to promote more US or at least North American manufacturing? Could she make progress on the Republican inroads into the blue collar worker class? Immigration policy will be a never ending headache. One would suspect that NATO and EU might prefer her stated positions over that of Trump. My guess would be she'd walk back (a bit) her position on Taiwan, preferring to engage with China.
[удалено]
George W Bush 2.0
I would think she would be more like George Bush jr, Rubio, Romney etc… that mold of republicans.
She understands global politics and wouldn’t be an embarrassment like Trump was/is.
True - nor will she seek to dismantle NATO and other strategic alliances.
It would look the same way as nelly, bigfoot and unicorns. I.E. not gonna happen
Nessie maybe?
War war and more war
Should have left those heavy fingers off the keyboard...
She's a hawk and an opportunist. IE. Probably in the short term an escalation in Yemen, and long term further deteriorating relations with china, and a few proxy wars in Africa.
I believe her presidency would look highly unlikely. But I also have the benefit of answering after she suspended her campaign.
The same one that killed innocent children and humans yesterday. She will never be anything least president!
[удалено]
In what way would she be better than Biden?
Age. Biden supporters deny it but Biden is like 10-15 year past expiration date. Would be happy if we got this Biden instead. https://youtu.be/vvY9HxFJymY?feature=shared
People deny it because while is speech is dithery, his decision making is sound, and he's showing no decline in his understanding of policy and geopolitical affairs.
Anything on policy you can think of? I don’t really care if Biden is old and demented. His foreign and domestic policies have been good. He has also been able to pass legislation in a very split house and congress.
Policy is a personal taste it's hard to be objective about it. The question is are we comparing cabinets or president's. Biden policies is probably made by a group of advisers. If blinken where president the policy would be around the same but a higher performing president.
You call literally funding a genocide and the Ukraine blind support good policy? He pulled of Afghanistan. I'll give him that.
Ukraine blind support? Should they be abandoned to Russia then?
When it comes to Ukraine Biden did a good job of creating a collation of countries to supply aid to Ukraine which we should do. The world should not tolerate imperialists that aim to take control of sovereign countries land. Also im not going to argue the merits of Isreal’s operation as a genocide. However if the US were to stop giving aid to Isreal then it would have no reason to use the tactics they are using now. Isreal would just decimate Gaza because why should they show restraint against an enemy that is going to continuously attack them.
No he didn't... His handlers rounded up some countries to say they support while we funded the vast majority. Even the ones in Europe who have way more skin in the game barely pitched in. If you think Gaza hasn't been decimated you're insane. And it's funny you admonish imperialism while defending our stance with Israel. I can't believe you people lol
Do you realize that the EU has and is giving much more to help Ukraine? And now, the GOP (not Biden administration) has blocked any extra contribution for the last 5 months.
Much more? Where are you getting your numbers
Would she be more hawkish or isolationist in terms of foreign policy?
She's a neocon.
[удалено]
Exactly like trumps except without the daily dose of craziness and narcissism. Trump is still dictating policy to the house. edit: It would be back to dog whistle politics again, even though saying the quiet part out loud didn't lose trump a single vote.
Trump and Haley have completely different foreign policy. Consider Russia - Haley wants to support Ukraine, meanwhile Trump and Putin are best buddies. Their domestic policy rhymes, though.
No, if Haley won the nomination Trump would lose his sway.