I would be hypocritical if I thought it was okay. But I think we can look at what our foreign enemies. Which China is as the same as Canada. I would like it if it was all our own land. Embassies are different. Same as the UN which is disputable.
Nikki Haley says she will seize Chinese owned land in the US in her new ads
- Thread starter lucas80
- Start date
I've seen precisely one Haley ad. It's her promising to sweep China into the dustbin of history. That's just stupid. It also avoids all the other problems our country is facing.
You craft a law like eminent domain, a mandatory buy-back program giving the owners market value for taking it.
Nikki calls China the biggest threat since Pearl Harbor and heavily implies that they are planning to go to war with us soon possibly through Cuba. That's radically different from your links.It’s a bipartisan concern….
Senate Passes Ban On China And Other Adversaries Buying Up Farmland—Here’s Why
A new amendment to the national defense bill would prevent China, Russia, North Korea and Iran from purchasing U.S. farmland.www.forbes.com
Chinese company's purchase of North Dakota farmland raises national security concerns in Washington
The purchase of 300 acres of bucolic farmland in North Dakota is raising national security concerns over the buyer: Chinese food ingredient maker Fufeng Group.www.cnbc.com
OK. The law has to be Constitutional. Well, that was a requirement in the past. Who knows now?
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
I’m actually a liberal that sees this as a problem. Refreshing to hear a candidate talk about it….but it’s not just China.
Farmland, meat producers, ports, rail yards….foreign entities have been buying up US strategic domestic infrastructure assets for decades. About time we took a stand.
Farmland, meat producers, ports, rail yards….foreign entities have been buying up US strategic domestic infrastructure assets for decades. About time we took a stand.
Not take a stand like this. She is urging American companies to pull out of China ASAP. That would cripple our economy. I get that China is a big problem. But her solution seems worse than Trump's tariffs.
OK. The law has to be Constitutional. Well, that was a requirement in the past. Who knows now.
pulling out of china isn’t going to cripple our economy. it can be done in a calibrated manner and perhaps already is.
Here’s the thing…I bet bins could explain what that means, separate from what Haley is saying. I bet you can’t.
Guess what, the border concerns members of both parties.
China is going to be a problem long after you and I are gone.
China is our largest trade partner. Over many years we could forge new partners to replace them, but this isn't what Haley is saying. She is heavily implying US companies should pull out now. We're not prepared for that.
i didn’t post that in the haley context so that wasn’t my intent.
btw i was surprised to learn that mexico is our largest trading partner now not china. i’m happy about that and maybe the usa has been gradually trying to wean off china
This ad has been playing here in DSM for 3 weeks or so….It’s a bullshit ad aimed at the phuquin’ retard wing base of the MAFAt GOP… and anyone with half a brain knows it is bullshit. But pols gotta pol to their respective bases…too bad because Nikki at times appears to have half a brain, too.
BRW….tell some farmer they can’t sell their land to the highest bedder.
BRW….tell some farmer they can’t sell their land to the highest bedder.
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
I’m guessing the CCP doesn’t just allow American backed corporations to buy things right and left in mainland China…
Haley's ad is bluster.
I wish someone would ask her how to enforce/enact her plan?
I wish someone would ask her how to enforce/enact her plan?
Should be reciprocal - we allow you to buy land to the same extent Americans can buy in your country.
It's also recycled. Trump declared himself to be the candidate to finally take it to China in 2016. We all saw where that went.
Switching to investment, she says: https://ielp.worldtradelaw.net/2023/06/nikki-haley-on-chinese-trade-and-investment.html
Does she advocate banning a race other than Chinese from owning land (mind you she is addressing a nonissue)? If not, it’s blatant populist xenophobia (which gets the homogenous Midwest (like you) all worked up).
She can't do it and she knows it. Like most things the GOP candidates spout, they count on the fact that the majority of their base is too stupid to realize when they're being told "mistruths."
It is apart of the Asian diaspora. But that is irrelevant to this conversation
LOL - all it ever takes is a simple question to point out your ignorance.
I truly do get your point but I think this issue is pretty complex.
Take the Saudi's buying land in Arizona. They farm alfalfa and are using a piss ton of water that is taking away resources not only for Americans.
Saudi company draws unlimited Arizona ground water ... - YouTube
This is solely my opinion but I believe this is where our federal government needs to stop selling land to bad players, like the Saudis or Chinese. I understand that's not free market capitalism but it's not in the best interest of our own people or government.
The Chinese are not on our side and we shouldn't be letting them buy land. I'm fine with assisting South Korea, Japan, anyone who could use land to provide food and be a gracious actor to the world.
Honestly just my two cents but I do get your point.
Republicans Are Neither Internationalist Nor Isolationist. They’re Asia First.
By Peter Beinart
Mr. Beinart is a journalist and commentator who writes frequently about American foreign policy.
阅读简体中文版閱讀繁體中文版
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
At first glance, last week’s Republican presidential debate revealed a party fractured over America’s role in the world. Ron DeSantis said he wouldn’t support additional aid to Ukraine unless Europe does more. Vivek Ramaswamy said he wouldn’t arm Ukraine no matter what. Chris Christie, Mike Pence and Nikki Haley, all staunch defenders of Kyiv, pounced. Within minutes, the altercations were so intense that the moderators struggled to regain control.
But amid the discord, one note of agreement kept rising to the surface: that the true threat to America comes from Beijing. In justifying his reluctance to send more aid to Ukraine, Mr. DeSantis said he’d ensure that the United States does “what we need to do with China.” Mr. Ramaswamy denounced aiding Ukraine because the “real threat we face is communist China.” Ms. Haley defended such aid because “a win for Russia is a win for China.” Mr. Pence said Mr. Ramaswamy’s weakness on Ukraine would tempt Beijing to attack Taiwan.
Regardless of their views on Ukraine, Republicans are united in focusing on China. They are returning to the principle that many championed at the beginning of the last Cold War. It’s neither internationalism nor isolationism. It’s Asia First.
When Americans remember the early Cold War years, they often think of Europe: NATO, the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, which justified aiding Greece and Turkey. But for many leading Republicans at the time, those commitments were a distraction: The real menace lay on the other side of the globe.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Senator Robert Taft, nicknamed “Mr. Republican” because of his stature in the party, opposed America’s entrance into NATO and declared in 1948 that “the Far East is ultimately even more important to our future peace and safety than is Europe.” The following year, Senator H. Alexander Smith, a Republican on the Foreign Policy and Armed Services Committee, warned that while the Truman administration was “preoccupied with Europe, the real threat of World War III may be approaching us from the Asiatic side.” William Knowland, the Senate Republican leader from 1953 to 1958, was so devoted to supporting the Nationalist exiles who left the mainland after losing China’s civil war that he was called the “senator from Formosa,” as Taiwan was known at the time.
Understanding why Republicans prioritized China then helps explain why they’re prioritizing it now. In her book “Asia First: China and the Making of Modern American Conservatism,” the historian Joyce Mao argues that Cold War era Republicans’ focus on China stemmed in part from a “spiritual paternalism that arguably carried over from the previous century.” In the late 19th century, when the United States was carving out a sphere of influence in the Pacific, China, with its vast population, held special allure for Americans interested in winning souls for Christ. The nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek and his wife, who were Christians themselves, used this religious connection to drum up American support — first for their war against Communist rivals on the Chinese mainland and then, after they fled to the island of Taiwan, for their regime there.
Many of America’s most influential Asia Firsters — like the Time magazine publisher Henry Luce — were either the children of American missionaries in China or had served as missionaries there themselves. The John Birch Society, whose fervent and conspiratorial brand of anti-Communism foreshadowed the right-wing populism of today, took its name from an Army captain and former missionary killed by Chinese communists at the end of World War II.
Today, of course, Americans don’t need religious reasons to put Asia first. It boasts much of the world’s economic, political and military power, which is why the Biden administration focuses on the region, too. In Washington, getting tough on China is now a bipartisan affair. Still, the conservative tradition that Ms. Mao describes — which views China as a civilizational pupil turned civilizational threat — is critical to grasping why rank-and-file Republicans, far more than Democrats, fixate on the danger from Beijing.
In March, a Gallup poll found that while Democrats were 23 points more likely to consider Russia a greater enemy than China, Republicans were a whopping 64 points more likely to say the reverse. There is evidence that this discrepancy stems in part from the fact that while President Vladimir Putin of Russia casts himself as a defender of conservative Christian values, President Xi Jinping leads a nonwhite superpower whose regime has spurned the Christian destiny many Americans once envisioned for it.
In a 2021 study, the University of Delaware political scientists David Ebner and Vladimir Medenica found that white Americans who expressed higher degrees of racial resentment were more likely to perceive China as a military threat. And it is white evangelicals today — like the conservative Christians who anchored support for Chiang in the late 1940s and 1950s — who express the greatest animosity toward China’s government. At my request, the Pew Research Center crunched data gathered this spring comparing American views of China by religion and race. It found that white non-Hispanic evangelicals were 25 points more likely to hold a “very unfavorable” view of China than Americans who were religiously unaffiliated, 26 points more likely than Black Protestants and 33 points more likely than Hispanic Catholics.
This is the Republican base. And its antipathy to China helps explain why many of the right-wing pundits and politicians often described as isolationists aren’t isolationists at all. They’re Asia Firsters. Tucker Carlson, who said last week that American policymakers hate Russia because it’s a “Christian country,” insisted in 2019 that America’s “main enemy, of course, is China, and the United States ought to be in a relationship with Russia aligned against China.” Mr. Ramaswamy, who is challenging Mr. DeSantis for second place in national polls, wants the United States to team up with Moscow against Beijing, too.
And of course, the Republican front-runner for 2024, former President Donald Trump — deeply in tune with conservative voters — has obsessed over China since he exploded onto the national political stage eight years ago. Mr. Trump is often derided as an isolationist because of his hostility to NATO and his disdain for international treaties. But on China his talk has been fierce. In 2016, he even said Beijing had been allowed to “rape our country.”
Republicans may disagree on the best way forward in Ukraine. But overwhelmingly, they agree that China is the ultimate danger. And whether it’s Mr. Trump’s reference earlier this year to his former secretary of transportation as “Coco Chow” or House Republicans implying that Asian Americans in the Biden administration and Congress aren’t loyal to the United States, there’s mounting evidence that prominent figures on the American right see that danger in racial terms.
That’s the problem with Republicans’ return to Asia First. Many in the party don’t only see China’s rise as a threat to American power. They see it as a threat to white Christian power, too.
Opinion | Republicans Are Neither Internationalist Nor Isolationist. They’re Asia First.
The G.O.P. candidates may disagree about Ukraine but they’re united in who they think the real enemy is.
You mean trumps tariffs that the Biden administration has mostly left fully intact?
I mean..I know you didn’t graduate from Iowa so I’ll excuse some silliness. But what?
So, do you have a link to her saying we will seize their land like you originally claimed?
No, she isn’t. But I would be perfectly fine if she came up with a good plan to get US companies out of china. Why wouldn’t you? She is 100% correct that china is the biggest threat to America. I am becoming a bigger and bigger fan of hers every day.
Please don't tell me that liberals have to defend the right wing property right to the point of supporting the sale of our resources to other nations and corporations.
That's always been a bad idea. It's just surprising that a Republican thinks so, too. Or does she?
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Who Could Be Iowa MBB's Next Commit? + Two Priority Visitors Scheduled
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-