In the event of a Trump win in the 2024 US Presidential election there would be a decisive foreign policy shift of a rather dramatic significance. It is a given that Donald Trump would immediately adopt policies leading to greater oil production with the intent of having the United States becoming energy independent and a competitive exporter of petroleum and/or natural gas. This singular policy would shift market share of oil sales and profit away from Russia and Iran. With Russia engaged in a war requiring significant expenditure of men and materiel, a reduction of sustaining income would be a strong inducement to seek an end to continued conflict with Ukraine. Similarly, Iran would be reduced in their cash inflow and that would decrease its ability to fund proxy attacks, by Hezbollah, Hothi and Hamas, on United States and Israeli military resources throughout the middle East region.
During a Trump Presidency shift of proactive foreign policy with global effect would be more positive than reactive current policy. A China, Russia and Iran alliance, in opposition to United States interests, would be less likely to militarily challenge the United States in fear of exceeding the unknown limit beyond which Trump would take strong global action. The unpredictability of Trump’s action gives pause to any foreign aggression against USA interests.
Under Trump there would be a strengthening of the armed military defense and who’s to say that there would not be an increase in the emerging malodorous essence of Pepe de Pew at the skunkworks of CIA on a more globally focused scale.
As President, Trump would strongly support and help defend Israel in its effort to destroy the terrorist organization of Hamas.
It is further expected that a Trump Presidency would require NATO partners pay more of the expense of military preparedness. This might be interpreted as negatively affecting global security by the reaction of nations dissatisfied with the requirement to pay more. Trump’s unwillingness to have the United States bear to great a proportional cost thereby unilaterally reducing support given NATO gives pause to recognize the appropriate spending level for each NATO member.
About a Kamala Harris Presidency, there is little doubt of a lessening of support of Israel to somewhat satisfy the Palestinian supporters found in a vociferous segment of the Democratic Party. If indeed Kamala accepts fracking as an acceptable means of oil production, who is to say that the green thumb of environmental balance will not reduce some other method of production. Then there is also the policy of flipping on past record positions for the election only to flop after election.
The Harris foreign policy would seem to remain essentially unchanged from President Biden’s policy of reacting to global events by allowing significant damage to be done during the period needed to properly evaluate the significance of the threat. One example is found in the Chinese intelligence billion floating over sensitive military areas across the entire USA, transmitting information to China, to be destroyed only after covering the continent. It is of note that no action has been taken to identify and rebuke China for its lack of control of the Covid epidemic when timely delivery of information would have significantly reduced the global effect of viral transmission. It is also a troubling fact that China has increased the threat to Taiwan by military exercises and frequent fly by threats to US military aircraft in the area.
Although Harris’ past position on the influx of unvetted immigrants by the millions would seem to be a domestic issue, one has no measure of the flow of people from through the world and the global impact as a result. Further the definite border entry of fentanyl from China into the hands of drug cartels to be distributed within the USA poses a clear and present danger to tens of thousands of current drug users, not to mention the reported tens of thousands already killed. A campaign promise of increased prosecution of offenders needs to be carefully weighed against the reality of border influx since the inauguration of the Biden – Harris administration and stated position to see no one entering the USA be deprived of food, shelter, medical care and education, a burden placed on directly on individual states by the presence of the entrants, or by imposition of federal tax burden in some form (borrowed money is future taxation). We digress to report that Harris now, like Trump, proposes no federal taxation on TIP money.
We at ivotemyvote.com seek full information regarding the change of position from previous stand on any issue, and reason/s given as to why the change was necessary, as well as commitment to maintaining the change into office. Join as members to have your voice heard equally during the campaign and office tenure.
