Sunday, July 10, 2016

This Is What I Mean

After my latest post, Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton: Who Is More Evil?, I received this email message"

Your commentary on Hillary (War Hawk) did not focus on "100% condemnation of her," nor did it come close.  However, it did express your belief that Trump would be far more of a "war" President than Hillary would be.  This is substantially off the mark of evidence or truth for that matter.  It is Hillary's people (i.e., Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan, Max boot and dozen more in DC) who are beating the drums and executing the coups (i.e., Ukraine) for the neocon/Zionist policy of "America at War, perpetually."  Trump on the other hand has noted that the only people who are killing the current bad guys (i.e., ISIL) are the Russians and he has stated that he would like to sit down with Putin.
I do not understand your logic behind supporting Hillary on foreign policy of anything else.  Trump is not the perfect foil against Hillary, but her particular brand of evil is sufficiently manifest that I would vote for virtually anyone in America - selected at random, over this entirely nefarious woman.


First, I am not supporting Hillary's foreign policy. I wrote:
Policywise there really doesn't seem to be that much different between Trump and Clinton. They are both interventionsits on a grand scale both domestically and on foreign affairs--though they are slightly different when it comes to pet interventions.
As I have pointed out, while Hillary seems to be in favor of the same Empire outpost skirmishes as Obama, there is no indication she wants to go to war with Russia. This charge ignores even the critiques of Hillary coming from the war hawks, who see her as weak, The only difference I see is that Trump appears to be more willing to put US troops on the ground in the Middle East.

Trump's position on Russia and Ukraine appear to be moving towards Hillary's.

Second, all the names leaked as being possible Trump vice presidential choices are war hawks on steroids.

I repeat, I am not endorsing Hillary, I am just trying to make the playing field understood, They are both very dangerous characters and therefore there is no reason for libertarians to support Trump.

Indeed, when both are considered, Trump appears slightly more dangerous since he has a base that is fanatic about him and it is always dangerous to have a leader with fanatic followers when that leader is not moving in the direction of liberty,


1 comment:

  1. Is there any reason not to support Gary Johnson over either Trump or Hillary? I know he is a far cry from a Rothbardian anarchist, but he's also a far cry from a violent psychopath and/or megalomaniac.