Her position seems to be that medium term, the dollar is the major currency with the most room to fall. And so over the next few years, it probably will fall the most.
The argument is based on the US having the largest twin deficit -- a huge trade deficit and a huge fiscal deficit.
Medium term, different countries are going to see their trade & fiscal deficits change dramatically.
If your economy runs on oil exports, good luck maintaining a huge trade surplus. Ditto that for almost any commodity for the next couple years. If your economy runs on auto manufacturing, good luck with that -- similarly anything with complex supply chains. This is most emerging countries.
Japan, for example, might not need much stimulus. And the EU might need much more than the US. Who knows right now?
So, yes, her argument is sound if everything stays as it is, and the only thing that changes is how much federal governments print and spend.
But everything is likely to change. A lot. So unless you can predict how these deficits will change, it's not that helpful.
Even people who are educated are systematically unable to determine if a macroeconomic analysis is actually good, which is why you have multiple groups of extremely smart economists who completely disagree on what represents a sound basis for macroeconomic theory.
Economics as a field is generally unable to test these theories against reality, probably because any predictive failure can be, and is, written off as “there were confounding variables, but the fundamentals of the theory are still good”.