Republican 2024 hopefuls respond to Tucker Carlson's questions about their stance on Russia-Ukraine war
Republican 2024 hopefuls respond to Tucker Carlson's questions about their stance on Russia-Ukraine war: We sent a questionnaire to each declared Republican presidential candidate and potential candidates about Ukraine. WE POST SIX QUESTIONS Russia and Ukraine oppose Russia and Ukraine, which are of key strategic interest to the United States, and what our goal is in Ukraine.
And how do we know what's what when we've got it? The amount of money and weapons you want to send to Zelensky, whether our sanctions are effective, and whether the United States faces the threat of nuclear war with Russia is kind of presumptuous for a cable show.
That he should send them but no one else in it. The media seems to be asking them and we thought that with the first presidential primaries 10 months away, voters should know where their candidates stand on the big issues.
That's the biggest problem in some ways, so tonight we're happy to say that virtually everyone we asked, Nicky Haley, ignored us. Were very busy but most of us
A few of the profoundly hummed conservative official hopefuls have answered Exhaust Carlson's inquiries squeezing their position on the continuous conflict among Russia and Ukraine.
Last week, the Fox News have tested the generally pronounced competitors as well as a few noticeable conservatives who have ignited babble of possibly entering the 2024 competition to answer a survey that asked coming up next: Is contradicting Russia in Ukraine an essential American public vital interest?
What explicitly is our objective in Ukraine, and how might we know when we've accomplished it? What is the restriction of subsidizing and materiel you might want to ship off the public authority of Ukraine? Should the US uphold shift in power Russia? Considering that Russia's economy and money are more grounded than before the conflict, do you trust that U.S. sanctions have been powerful? Do you accept the US faces the gamble of atomic conflict with Russia?Republican 2024 hopefuls respond to Tucker Carlson's questio
Two of the three announced official competitors, previous President Trump and business person Vivek Ramaswamy, answered Carlson's request as well as previous VP Mike Pence, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and previous New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
Previous U.N. Representative Nikki Haley was the main proclaimed official up-and-comer who didn't answer Carlson's request. Previous Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu and previous Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, all who have flagged a potential White House bid, likewise didn't answer the poll. Previous Public safety Counselor John Bolton declined to remark.
Is opposing Russia in Ukraine a vital American national strategic interest?
Trump said, "No, yet it is for Europe," adding that European partners "ought to be paying undeniably more than we are, or equivalent." DeSantis told Carlson, "While the U.S. has numerous fundamental public interests… turning out to be additionally caught in a regional debate among Ukraine and Russia isn't one of them."
Noem highlighted China just like the "essential outside danger" to the U.S. rather than Russia, saying the conflict in Ukraine "ought to be Europe's battle, not our own." Ramaswamy says it's not essential to go against Russia while focusing on it is crucial for the U.S. to have energy freedom, demanding that had Europe depended more on the U.S. for oil and gas rather than Russia, the attack probably won't have occurred.
In the interim, Pence promoted the "Reagan principle" of fighting off foes on their shores to forestall America's immediate contribution, telling Carlson,
"There is no space for Putin defenders in the Conservative Association. This isn't America's conflict, yet in the event that Putin isn't halted and the sovereign country of Ukraine isn't reestablished rapidly, he will keep on advancing toward our NATO partners, and America would then be called upon to send our own."
Scott says it is an imperative public interest to debase Russia's military. Christie correspondingly expresses, "Russia's hostility against Ukraine is a public safety issue that undermines our partnerships and our remaining on the planet," adding "this is an intermediary war being pursued by Russia's partner China against the US" and that "it would be guileless to call this everything except Chinese hostility."
What specifically is our objective in Ukraine, and how will we know when we’ve achieved it?
Trump said the goal is to "help and secure Europe, yet Europe isn't helping itself," telling Carlson it's "exceptionally out of line" for the U.S. to generally pay, particularly since Europe "exploits us on exchange and different things." DeSantis said "harmony" is the target while Pence told Carlson "triumph for Ukraine" and having its power reestablished is the goal. Christie comparatively said the goal is to "help Ukraine adequately to empower them to overcome Russian powers and reestablish their sway."
Ramaswamy said the goal is to "regard any earlier lawful settlement responsibilities the U.S.Nonetheless, he added the U.S. accomplished one goal in uncovering Russian President Vladimir Putin as a "paper tiger" over his powerless military capacities while two exceptional objectives is stop Putin from future hostility and "prodding" Europeans to "deal with themselves."
Noem didn't explicitly state everything that the objective in Ukraine is yet said to Carlson, "Assuming that we found a president who sought after harmony through strength, Putin could never have considered attacking Ukraine." Neither Abbott nor Scott explicitly spread out a goal, by the same token.
.png)
0 Comments