Why would you be laughed at? Ukraine has 0 chance of going anywhere with this war if the USA pulls back its support. It's basically a NATO proxy war. If the USA goes public in pulling back support, many Ukrainian soldiers and international volunteers would abandon their fighting positions because they would also see it as hopeless. Ukraine basically loses. That means, they'd be forced to accept conditions. Russia would be happy with the Donbass area and Ukraine going full neutral. Part of that could be the dismantling of Azov and the formal declaration of "Nazism" as not being tolerated in Ukraine. This actually comes from the USA because it's the CIA that has been pushing a lot of the Nazi sentiment in the Ukraine so if the USA says they're stop with their propaganda, that would be a good position.
There's nothing about this strategy that wouldn't work.
Taking an isolationist stance will not give you the massive boost you imagine it to give.
Being isolationist helps in the primaries but it arguably will even hurt you in the general election because "educated" voters parrot the media's stances.
He's probably going to say that they have to say one thing or be neutral when running the general, then do the complete opposite once in office. "Hide your power level." Or maybe that's your opinion as well.
When we're talking about politicians vs. the media that sounds like an endless race to the bottom, and one that really depends on us paying attention and keeping them accountable, and basically having tight networks of influence and control over the party from the grassroots. It's not very realistic, but perhaps neither is the alternative.
My point is to deal in reality and push actual conservative policies that can be passed and continue to push the Overton Window in our favor.
We have to get good candidates elected first. Rhetoric is important. Our candidates need to learn to emulate the left's strategy of hiding your power level.
Leftists run as moderates and govern as hard leftists.
Hard right Conservatives run as hard right conservatives and lose the election and never get to govern.
We need less idiot candidates. Mastriano is a prime example of what NOT to do.
My point is that we are not screwed and that we must not give up electoral politics.
Having been reading his comments for ages now, part of it is also knowing what candidates are even able to win in specific places. Purple states unfortunately need purple candidates to win because the suburbs exist, already red states can run more stringent right wing candidates, and you have to run purple candidates in blue states because again, suburbs.
To be fair: Trump might not have been the best president but his best area of expertise was foreign policy and actually starting some deals. If we had Trump for president still I doubt there would have been a Ukraine war. Weirdly enough, even people who hate Trump begrudgingly have to admit that he's dealt with foreign policy the best out of any presidents in living memory.
Personally I dunno if he will win or not, just saying a Trump at least in the administration would do wonders for foreign relations and potentially ease the tention we currently experience globally. But yeah, not really something to solely run on.
Bolton and Pompeo worked for him, though. Is it a wise move to blame people in his own administration for fucking shit up?
There is no fucking way Trump will/can end the war in one day.
This is just another grandiose statement pulled out from his ass.
Foreign policy is never the most important issue in any election let alone the primaries.
Using the term "Meatball Ron" shows us you are incredibly cringe and that you parrot Trump.
Trump 2024ers like you keep claiming foreign policy is the most important issue because it is the one area where Trump has skill in.
Trump's chances of winning the primary won't magically shoot up due to his foreign policy.
The war could be ended in 1 day.
This would pretty much end the war on day 1.
This is as realistic as you growing a second dick.
If you think you can run on a policy platform where this is your solution on how to end the war in one day, you would be laughed out of the room.
Why would you be laughed at? Ukraine has 0 chance of going anywhere with this war if the USA pulls back its support. It's basically a NATO proxy war. If the USA goes public in pulling back support, many Ukrainian soldiers and international volunteers would abandon their fighting positions because they would also see it as hopeless. Ukraine basically loses. That means, they'd be forced to accept conditions. Russia would be happy with the Donbass area and Ukraine going full neutral. Part of that could be the dismantling of Azov and the formal declaration of "Nazism" as not being tolerated in Ukraine. This actually comes from the USA because it's the CIA that has been pushing a lot of the Nazi sentiment in the Ukraine so if the USA says they're stop with their propaganda, that would be a good position.
There's nothing about this strategy that wouldn't work.
This strategy is unrealistic because almost all of the European leaders would NEVER agree to these concessions.
They view this war as an opportunity to ruin Russia. They don't want an end to the war at the cost of harming their primary objective.
One must operate in reality.
These concessions seem okay to you but it is absolutely DOA in real life.
USA announces it will leave NATO if Europe doesn't agree.
A U.S. president saying he will leave NATO is the height of masturbatory theorizing.
It will NEVER happen.
Letting Russia expand over the Dnieper worsens the security situation of the entirety of Europe to the worst its been since the fall of the USSR.
That matters, why?
Because a full scale European war would trigger WW3, duh.
If the Europeans are weak without the USA why would they start WW3?
Because if you're cornered and you have nukes you might as well use your nukes.
Most Americans sadly parrot what the media says.
The media is always pro-war.
Taking an isolationist stance will not give you the massive boost you imagine it to give.
Being isolationist helps in the primaries but it arguably will even hurt you in the general election because "educated" voters parrot the media's stances.
It is what it is.
The media will frame such stances as isolationism and it will hurt in the general.
Saying you would let China takeover Taiwan without any pushback is not the boon you think it to be in a general election.
That is a repulsive position to many voters like me who despise China.
Taiwan must not be abandoned to China.
This is a terrible policy position.
Trump's stance on immigration, the open Supreme court seat and his promises to drain the swamp won him 2016.
Foreign policy will never be the biggest issue in any recent election but taking repulsive positions like abandoning Taiwan will hurt you.
Taiwan is key to American national interests unlike Ukraine.
The U.S. definitely doesn't want China to have full control of the Pacific shipping lanes.
Letting China take Taiwan freely is just disastrous for the U.S.'s national interests.
This scenario is nothing like Ukraine.
Protecting Taiwan is something that is truly crucial in the balance of power against China.
Preventing war is generally a good thing but letting China of all countries have free reign in Asia in order to prevent a war is beyond stupid.
China is an actual humongous threat that needs to be treated as such.
He's probably going to say that they have to say one thing or be neutral when running the general, then do the complete opposite once in office. "Hide your power level." Or maybe that's your opinion as well.
When we're talking about politicians vs. the media that sounds like an endless race to the bottom, and one that really depends on us paying attention and keeping them accountable, and basically having tight networks of influence and control over the party from the grassroots. It's not very realistic, but perhaps neither is the alternative.
They're all hanging out over at c/greatawakening.
That is not my point.
My point is to deal in reality and push actual conservative policies that can be passed and continue to push the Overton Window in our favor.
We have to get good candidates elected first. Rhetoric is important. Our candidates need to learn to emulate the left's strategy of hiding your power level.
Leftists run as moderates and govern as hard leftists.
Hard right Conservatives run as hard right conservatives and lose the election and never get to govern.
We need less idiot candidates. Mastriano is a prime example of what NOT to do.
My point is that we are not screwed and that we must not give up electoral politics.
We need to be smarter.
Having been reading his comments for ages now, part of it is also knowing what candidates are even able to win in specific places. Purple states unfortunately need purple candidates to win because the suburbs exist, already red states can run more stringent right wing candidates, and you have to run purple candidates in blue states because again, suburbs.
To be fair: Trump might not have been the best president but his best area of expertise was foreign policy and actually starting some deals. If we had Trump for president still I doubt there would have been a Ukraine war. Weirdly enough, even people who hate Trump begrudgingly have to admit that he's dealt with foreign policy the best out of any presidents in living memory.
Personally I dunno if he will win or not, just saying a Trump at least in the administration would do wonders for foreign relations and potentially ease the tention we currently experience globally. But yeah, not really something to solely run on.
Holy irony Batman!
Thanks to ceding power to Biden back on Jan. 20, 2021.