Biden's Anticipated Foreign Policy (3 Viewers)

[Steve R.]

Since the topic of the next Presidential election came-up, Trump should not run again. As @AccessBlaster wrote: "he has already spent his political capital during his presidency." Trump has had significant foreign policy successes that he did not get credit for (actually those successes were suppressed., dirty politics). Which is a misfortune. It is simply time to bring in New younger leadership.

Gabbard as a potential vice-presidental is interesting. But will she give-up the Democratic party? She, more or less, went along with the fraudulent Democratic impeachment of Trump. But this also leads to the need of Republicans to put together a coalition. The win in Virginia and the near win in New Jersey points to a body of voters who would be willing to join such a coalition.

 

[AccessBlaster]

But will she give-up the Democratic party?

It would be better in my opinion if she didn't. This would give the Republicans a chance to reach across the divide and signal country before politics.

 

[Steve R.]

It would be better in my opinion if she didn't. This would give the Republicans a chance to reach across the divide and signal country before politics.

Gabbard probably has a large following that could be incorporated into a Republican led coalition. But the Democratic Party has gone hyperbolic for autocratic BIG government. Gabbard appears opposed to that and appears to support liberty, but what about smaller/leaner government?

 

[oleronesoftwares]

It would be better in my opinion if she didn't. This would give the Republicans a chance to reach across the divide and signal country before politics.

You are correct,the republican party should look inwardly for the idea candidates

 

[AccessBlaster]

You are correct,the republican party should look inwardly for the idea candidates

I'm not a member of either party but the democrats are not exactly a paragon of virtue, just saying

 

[Isaac]

Tulsi gabbard seems great but I doubt she can be elected.

Definitely leaning towards DeSantis myself!

 

[Pat Hartman]

Ron DeSantis for President

Sorry, Florida needs him more.

Trump will want someone very submissive as running mate

Please name a president who wanted his VP to be outspoken. The VP's job has always been to keep a low profile, do what the President asks and be the designated survivor when necessary.

 

[Isaac]

Sorry, Florida needs him more.

Please name a president who wanted his VP to be outspoken. The VP's job has always been to keep a low profile, do what the President asks and be the designated survivor when necessary.

I was reflecting on your comment just now and realized you are right. I mustn't just root for my favorite candidate, but an electable one instead.

For the Republican presidential candidate in 2024, we need someone electable, who has not yet generated too many volumes of controversy on their own. I think Pence has a chance.

DeSantis on the other hand, he's good at what he does but would struggle to get moderate votes perhaps. He needs to stay and keep Florida going.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I would not vote for Pence - EVER - after the way he screwed Trump on Jan 6th. All he needed to do was to agree to audit some election results. If the GOP runs Pence, I will almost certainly vote for the Democrat unless he is a Socialist. I would prefer that Trump actually not run. That is why I voted against him in the primary. I was very happy that he was a contender because he forced the rest of the people to get out of their political correctness mode He is too much for many people and he loves a fight too much so he spends way too much time fighting. I voted for him and was actually pleasantly surprised that he accomplished as much as he did. Think about what he could have done if he had just kept his mouth shut and had someone edit his tweets.

I love the idea of Trump as Speaker of the House He could really set them straight and do it all behind the scenes. We are in the mess we are in because Congress has failed us totally. Look at that scumbag Mitch McConnell. McCarthy is only a smidgen better. We won't even talk about Pelosi. Whenever the GOP asks for money, my response for 5 years has been "ditch Mitch" or not a penny.

 

[Isaac]

As far as Pence, I can see reasonable people disagreeing on this. Fair enough.

But:

He could really set them straight and do it all behind the scenes

But would he perform that noble action "behind the scenes" ?

Regardless of the good he did, he likes the camera, the crowds, the satisfaction (that we all like) from as many people as possible knowing the good or valuable thing we have done.

In 2016, these two things coincided - Trump had good plans and the crowds like it, and he got elected. Everything good there.

Would we find that he wasn't capable of doing all that if not out in front of the crowds?

 

[oleronesoftwares]

All he needed to do was to agree to audit some election results

I still wonder why he refused, did he not believe trump will win the election?

 

[Pat Hartman]

Pence, like many old-school Republicans is a never-Trumper. He held his peace and didn't publicly contradict Trump but he was never a true supporter. You could always tell by his politically correct remarks when pressed. I don't know if he actively worked against Trump the way Paul Ryan (Speaker of the House for Trump's first 2 years) and Mitch McConnel did. They actively impeded Trump's agenda rather than working to implement it. In fact, Ryan pushed a number of Republicans to retire so that the Democrats could take the house. McCarthy who took the minority leadership when the Democrats took the house is also very much against Trump.

Trump came out of left field and surprised everyone when he won. Trump's win is a symptom of how p***** off the American public is at their "representatives". I don't believe Trump would win in 2024 because nothing has been done to fix the corruption that caused the 2020 election to be stolen. The cheaters know the mistakes they made and will have had four years to get it right. Why do you think the Democrats were so dead set against forensic audits? Certainly not because they thought their cheating would survive scrutiny. If they didn't cheat, why the big deal about preventing any examination whatsoever? Why destroy evidence? Why the full court press to keep any audits from happening? You know that they would have loved pushing the Republican's faces in the dirt if they thought that the audits would come out in their favor. But they couldn't control the audits so they couldn't risk letting them happen. In each case where a judge actually looked at evidence and allowed an audit to proceed, sufficient anomalies were uncovered which would have rendered Trump the winner had they not happened. But most judges including the Supremes (the "judges", not the singing group, but who can tell these days), rejected the cases on some version of "lack of standing" rather than insufficient evidence. If you don't look at the evidence, you can't be guiltily of making an unpopular judgement.

Republicans are not interested in changing the way Washington works. Trump was. That was why he won and that is why the Republicans hate him with a purple passion. They hate him so much that they were willing to let the Democrats cheat and Pence let them get away with it so he is dog shit as far as I am concerned. This was a serious mistake on the part of Republicans because they have identified themselves clearly as part of the problem rather than the solution.

 

[oleronesoftwares]

Pence, like many old-school Republicans is a never-Trumper. He held his peace and didn't publicly contradict Trump but he was never a true supporter. You could always tell by his politically correct remarks when pressed

He should not have taken the role of Trump's running mate, loyalty is key in working with someone.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Trump got a lot of backlash from the lame-stream media for asking for loyalty from the people who worked for him. Biden automatically got loyalty because they all agree with him. Look at the FDA. They approved the COVID vaccines WITHOUT any long term testing. Why? Biden needed that to happen to push his draconian -- you must be vaccinated or I will take your livelihood policy out from OSHA - who also went along with the joke but they did have their standards unlike the FDA. They knew the law had zero chance of success if the vaccines were still "emergency use only". That had to change first.

Can we ever trust the FDA again after this approval of an untested vaccine?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Can we ever trust the FDA again after this approval of an untested vaccine?

The answer to that has always been a resounding no, FDA has always been in the pocket of big pharma.

 

[oleronesoftwares]

Please name a president who wanted his VP to be outspoken. The VP's job has always been to keep a low profile, do what the President asks and be the designated survivor when necessary.

The role of a VP in the constitution limits the duties of the VP a lot, and makes the VP dependent on the President.

Not being outspoken differs from being submissive.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The VP can be replaced if necessary so they tend to avoid annoying the boss. As a subordinate, you do what the boss tells you to do. If you don't like it and you have integrity, you hand in your resignation. You don't just do what you want because you think you know better.

Several of the Joint Chiefs should have resigned when Trump was President. Instead, they committed treason by lying to him about troop levels and what was going on in Iraq. The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The generals don't get to lie to him or undermine his orders. They have only two choices. 1. Do what he says to do or 2. Resign. Too bad they won't ever have to face the music. The armed forces have also become a joke of wokness and the Chinese and Russians have taken note of this. We put adds on TV about "inclusiveness". We've lost sight of "excellence" which was what we used to expect from the military. Now we worry about flight suits for pregnant piolets. Things will not go well for us if our enemies decide we are weak enough to take out.

 

[Steve R.]

US pledges to help Ukraine shore up border with Russia, Belarus: report

The pledge comes just before Biden and Putin hold a second talk over security concerns ahead of a major meeting in January.

www.foxnews.com

Fox News, regretfully, keeps increasing the volume of the "war trumpets" concerning Russia. The essential premise of Fox News's is that the US has the moral authority to tell Russia what to do. Russia is a sovereign independent country.

Nevertheless, there needs to be an acknowledgment that Russia is playing a dangerous game too. Russia annexed Crimea 2014. For several years, Russia has armed and supported Ukrainian separatists. In 2008 Russia and Georgia brief war (it may not be over).

Why this tirade?
While riding home today, the war mongering Fox News pundits spoke of how the US needs to teach Russia a "lesson". That the US needs to start imposing sanctions on Russia now to deter Russia from taking any aggressive actions. One ludicrous unbelievable comment (by one of the Fox News pundits) was that the Ukraine was not in Russia's sphere of influence, even-though Russia and the Ukraine share a border. That person also went on to say that protecting the Ukraine was in out national interest. These remarks may sound superficially laudable, but there is a lot wrong, besides the arrogance behind those remarks.

• Biden is a "tough-guy" wannabe. A bully, That makes Biden very dangerous.
• The Democrats discuss their (humanitarian globalist) foreign policy as being in conformance with international standards, coalition building, and the United Nations. Yet here, the Biden administration is essentially proposing to bully Russia into compliance. (Has the US even gone to the UN to seek a resolution with Russia? So far all the US has done in the UN under Biden is to condem itself as a vile racist country.) It also demonstrates that the Biden administration is not listening (tone death) to Russia's national interests. See the NATO bullet point
• Evidently, the US wants the Ukraine to become a member of NATO. The original premise of NATO was to protect western Europe from Soviet aggression. The Soviet Union is now gone, yet NATO keeps expanding. From the Russian viewpoint this is aggression against them. Instead of talking to Putin, Biden (who is supposed to be the great unifier seeking common ground) it appears is putting the "screws" on Russia. This is not good.
• The very need for NATO, today, needs to be questioned. It should be up to the countries in western Europe to stand-up and protect themselves and not rely on the US. As one example, the US has no business in interfering with the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. That is an issue between Germany and Russia.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Obama should have objected to the Russian annexation of the Crimea. NOT gone to war but objected in the UN and in the world press. Once he let that pass, the die was cast. Putin, when the time was right, would annex the entire Ukraine. The US is attempting to thwart that move by pushing Ukraine into NATO and essentially forcing the rest of Europe into the fight. Biden should be objecting vociferously about Putin financing the dissidents. I'm not sure what moral high ground we have here having done that ourselves and somehow we always chose the wrong side to back. It's like voting for Biden because you hate Trump and not even considering that disliking a person's personality wasn't a good reason to vote against him. Trump makes mean tweets so I'll fix him, I'll vote for Biden. So far I've refrained from asking my left leaning friends if they'd prefer a few mean tweets to Marxism.

 

[Steve R.]

Kneeling before Russia, Germany's new Chancellor betrays Biden and NATO

Were it not for the new foreign minister Annalena Baerbock, Germany would be a totally lost cause as a U.S. ally.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

"Not even one month into office, Scholz's government has abandoned the 2%-of-GDP basic minimum NATO defense spending target and has pulled German support for NATO's nuclear deterrence posture. Now Scholz is taking the natural next step: calling for new appeasement of Putin even as the Russian president dangles war upon the European continent."

My concern with the article above, is what it does not cover. Democrats, with Biden being the person in charge, endlessly proclaim with great moral authority, how they are the "adults in the room" and that they are superb coalition builders. This chest thumping foreign policy arrogance is fictitious, there is nothing behind the curtain.

Cracks are appearing, in that it appears that the Scholz's government is abandoning some of its commitments to NATO. Then there was this gem: UK Parliament Holds Biden ‘In Contempt’ Over ‘Catastrophic,’ ‘Shameful’ Unilateral U.S. Withdrawal From Afghanistan. Not to be left out, the French: France Accuses Biden Admin, Australia Of ‘Lying,’ ‘Duplicity’ In What Is Now A ‘Serious Crisis’. So in less than a year, Biden has evidently miffed our European allies. Not only Europe, but China, at a meeting in Anchorage, AK in March tossed the Democratic narrative of racism back into our face. Just to toss in a final "bone", Kamala Harris has miffed our Central American neighbors. Doesn't seem that the Democrats know what they are doing on the international stage.