2020 elections – USA Gov Policy

In his four years as President, Donald Trump has, to an unprecedented degree, taken on difficult and at times politically unrewarding measures aimed at enhancing U.S. national security and tackling trade and espionage endeavors that have harmed the American economy.

Those nations most affected by these initiatives, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran would like nothing more than to see the 45^th President replaced by a more traditional politician. The fact that all of Trump’s Democratic opponents favor non-confrontational, defense funding reduction policies make them all the more eager to do everything they can to get him out of office. Expect them to do everything they can to make 2020 as difficult as possible to attain that goal.

The president’s restoration of funds to America’s armed forces, his realistic policy towards Iran, his determination to end North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, his bid to slash Russian influence in Europe by replacing it as a major source of energy and, perhaps above all, his get-tough attitude towards China’s espionage and trade aggression have motivated those nations to do all they can to insure his tenure ends at a single term.

Expect Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang and Tehran to do all that they can to harm Trump’s reputation in 2020. They will do so secure in the knowledge that the utterly left-wing biased American media, in their own bid to unseat the president, will print, broadcast, and upload all they can to end his presidency, without reviewing the critical goals of those four countries.

A Voice of America article noted that: “With North Korea signaling bigger provocations in 2020, some analysts worry the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, could overplay his hand and make a dangerous miscalculation, especially if Kim believes he can affect U.S. President Donald Trump’s reelection chances…The moves suggest an emboldened Kim believes he can hold out for a better deal, possibly because he sees Trump as weakened by impeachment and a tough reelection campaign that is set to enter a more intense phase.”

China’s potential gain from a Trump defeat is vast. Before the 45^th president took office, Beijing’s stunning record of intellectual property theft and unfair trade practices were met with little substantive resistance. The same could be said for its massive increase in conventional and strategic weaponry.

One example typifies the reluctance of prior administrations to met the challenges. During the Obama Administration, China blatantly invaded the Philippines’ offshore Exclusive Economic Zone, a move that was eventually condemned by the World Court at the Hague. Despite the long-standing ties between Washington and Manila, President Obama failed to even lodge a diplomatic protest. It was an unprecedented betrayal, and a green light for further PRC adventurism and aggression.

Whatever may be the cause for ED, other evidence has suggested it otherwise. sample generic viagra Clinical studies have shown that men who consume 5 mg of Proscar for treating prostate issues), it is currently viagra sale in india available as Propecia or the generic finasteride. The very first step cialis no prescription discover for source in the erectile dysfunction treatment is now available. visit for source purchase viagra Discuss whatever concerns you have with your personal doctor, annoying doctor visits, losing precious time and waiting rooms.

Much the same could be said for Russia. During the Obama Administration, the U.S. did little beyond imposing relatively weak sanctions in response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s annexation of the Crimea. Early in the former president’s tenure, the White House agreed to a nuclear arms deal that gave Moscow, for the first time in history, a lead in nuclear weaponry. China was left totally unrestricted.

It got even worse. In 2012, Obama, believing that his microphone was shut off, told Russia’s Dimitry Medvedev during a meeting in South Korea that he would be “more flexible” in reducing America’s missile defenses after the U.S. elections.

The most significant kowtowing towards Moscow was a side-result of the anti-energy producing policies espoused by the prior president, and his refusal to confront Russia’s use of energy to blackmail Europe.

The controversy over President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal, and his imposition of tough sanctions on the Tehran regime was a total reversal from his predecessor. Obama championed the agreement, which, even if fully complied with, gave Iran the complete legal right to develop nuclear weapons by 2025. His administration sent, quite literally, pallet-loads of untraceable cash to the Mullahs. Overall, Obama’s policies were a significant tilt away from Israel and moderate Arab states and towards the extremists in Tehran. The Mullahs would like nothing more than to see Trump out of office.

Expect Russia, China, Iran and North Korea to engage in a number of endeavors meant to weaken Trump’s image going into the 2020 election.

Illustration: Pixabay

President Trump has had a tough and realistic set of foreign policies towards Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. Those nations, more accustomed to administrations that sacrifice U.S. national security in return for the ability to portray a rosy but false picture of global relations, would like nothing more than to see him lose the next election. They can be expected to do all they can to achieve that goal.

Russia will continue its drive to stay ahead of the U.S. in nuclear arms, a position it achieved thanks to negotiations with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the New Start talks.

North Korea will veer away from compromising on its nuclear program any further in the hope of a getting a new occupant in the White House who will be less militant on sanctions and less willing to fund a U.S. military that will be sufficiently capable of a kinetic solution.

Iran and the terrorists it sponsors had the benefit of eight years of the Obama presidency which, bizarrely and still inexplicably, did all that it could to strengthen and enrich the Mullah-led, deeply anti-U.S. and anti-Israel regime. After suffering through Trump’s stringent sanctions, it will vigorously do everything possible to get another Democrat back in office.

China will do all that it can to increase tensions in Asia and the Pacific.

More importantly, from a domestic American perspective, it will refuse to compromise in trade talks, and will engage in actions that cause pain to U.S. consumers, farmers, and others. This is a particularly frustrating problem for Washington. Beijing’s outrageous practices of intellectual property theft, technological espionage, marketplace dumping, and barriers to U.S. goods seriously damage America’s economy.

If the issue was appropriately settled, the You will need medications, exercise and strict cialis in weight-reduction plan to preserve your health. Alcohol is a lifestyle habit which left the person depressive which is women viagra australia not good for the sexual functioning. One of the things that you must have a prescription in order to get viagra sales . Here Is purchase generic cialis Why You Must Become A Brinjal-Bug. American economy and in particular U.S. blue collar workers would gain tremendously. The problem can be resolved if Washington takes firm action such as the Trump Administration’s tariffs, because China needs America far more than America needs China.

But the temporary pain this may cause In the U.S. will be seized upon by Democrats and their media allies as a reason to vote against the GOP. The internal fight will be particularly tough. Far more than Moscow ever did, Beijing has mastered internal U.S. politics.

A Foreign Affairs review noted that “In the last decade, the Chinese government has committed to boosting its appeal abroad. Beijing has been developing an international media network and establishing cultural study centers around the world. While debate abounds over whether promoting China’s traditions, values, language, and culture can win it more friends, vast funds are backing programs to enhance the country’s image.”

A Diplomat article notes that “in 2014, President Xi Jinping said,’We should increase China’s soft power, give a good Chinese narrative, and better communicate China’s message to the world.’ One of Xi’s signature policies, the ‘Chinese Dream,’ has been proposed as a kind of corollary or alternative to the American Dream. This is all part of a ‘charm offensive’ that will only accelerate in years to come, especially in light of the events at the recent 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China.”

Beijing built great sway on university campuses through it’s “Confucius Institutes,” in Hollywood through its purchases of media companies, and in both parties through quiet deals which enrich individual politicians. Joe Biden’s vigorous attempts to downplay China’s danger following his son’s billion dollar deal with that nation is a prime example.

Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang clearly understand that any of the candidates currently seeking the Democrat nomination to oppose Trump would return to the Obama Administration’s practice of sharply cutting the Pentagon’s budget, an outcome they are only too eager to have occur.

It’s going to be a bumpy ride until November of 2020.

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

AMERICA’S STRATEGIC POSTURE

The Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States As 2023 drew to a close, the dramatically deteriorating national security picture for the United States and its allies prompted a review of “America’s Strategic Posture.” A committee chaired by Madelyn Creedon and Jon Kyl issued a sobering analysis. We present a summary of this vital analysis. The militarily troubling and increasingly aggressive behaviors of Russia and China over the past decade led Congress to direct a review of the strategic posture of the United States, including nuclear weapons policy, strategy, and force structure. China’s rapid military build-up, including the unprecedented growth of its nuclear forces, Russia’s diversification and expansion of its theater-based nuclear systems, the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and subsequent full-scale invasion in February 2022, have all fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape. As a result of China’s and Russia’s growing competition with the United States and its Allies and partners, and the increasing risk of military conflict with one or both, as well as concerns about whether the United States would be prepared to deter two nuclear peers, Congress determined it was time for a new look at U.S. strategic policy, strategy, and force structure. The new global environment is fundamentally different than anything experienced in the past, even in the darkest days of the Cold War. Today the United States is on the cusp of having not one, but two nuclear peer adversaries, each with ambitions to change the international status quo, by force, if necessary: a situation which the United States did not anticipate and for which it is not prepared. While the risk of a major nuclear conflict remains low, the risk of military conflict with either or both Russia and China, while not inevitable, has grown, and with it the risk of nuclear use, possibly against the U.S. homeland. The United States faces a strategic challenge requiring urgent action. Given current threat trajectories, our nation will soon encounter a fundamentally different global setting than it has ever experienced: we will face a world where two nations possess nuclear arsenals on par with our own. In addition, the risk of conflict with these two nuclear peers is increasing. It is an existential challenge for which the United States is ill-prepared, unless its leaders make decisions now to adjust the U.S. strategic posture. America’s defense strategy and strategic posture must change in order to properly defend its vital interests and improve strategic stability with China and Russia. Decisions need to be made now in order for the nation to be prepared to address the threats from these two nucleararmed adversaries arising during the 2027-2035 timeframe. Moreover, these threats are such that the United States and its Allies and partners must be ready to deter and defeat both adversaries simultaneously. The evidence demonstrates that the U.S.-led international order and the values it upholds are at risk from the Chinese and Russian authoritarian regimes. The risk of military conflict with those major powers has grown and carries the potential for nuclear war. Therefore, the Commission reached the unanimous, non-partisan conclusion that today’s strategic outlook requires an urgent national focus and a series of concerted actions not currently planned. In sum, we find that the United States lacks a comprehensive strategy to address the looming twonuclear-peer threat environment and lacks the force structure such a strategy will require. In reaching that overall conclusion, we make clear that the fundamentals of America’s deterrence strategy remain sound, but the application of that strategy must change to address the 2027-2035 threat environment. Those changes drive necessary adjustments to the posture of U.S. nuclear capabilities – in size and/or composition. A full spectrum of non-nuclear capabilities is also essential to the nation’s strategic posture. Such adjustments, in turn, drive the need to strengthen and expand the capacity of the infrastructure required to sustain and enhance U.S. strategic capabilities. In addition, Allies and partners are central to our findings regarding strategy and posture. We also emphasize the need for robust risk reduction efforts as fundamental to the U.S. approach in the new threat environment. The Report continues tomorrow Photo: The lead ground-based Interceptor is launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., March 25, 2019, in the first salvo engagement test of a threat-representative intercontinental ballistic missile target. The test’s two interceptors successfully intercepted a target launched from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. (DoD)