Dear Bob:
Every day, there are, oh, a half dozen excellent articles on LewRockwell.com making the case that there's more, way more, than a dime's worth of difference between Hillary and Donald in terms of getting us into World War III.
Here is yet another one of them: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/08/fred-reed/hillary-trump-war-russia/
You don't even see a dime's worth of difference. You see it as a dead tie. I just don't understand.
Please give me a bibliography of articles saying that there is a dead heat between them in this matter.
Best regards,
Walter
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
---
Dear Walter,
Your blind spot with regard to the facts continues to amaze me.
I would like to point to this paragraph in the Reed essay to start in suggesting that there is little difference between the two:
The same danger exists incidentally with regard to a war with China in the South China Sea. The American Navy hasn’t fought a war in seventy years. It doesn’t know how well its armament works. The Chinese, who are not fools, have invested in weaponry specifically designed to defeat carrier battle groups. A carrier in smoking ruins would force Washington to start a wider war to save face, with unpredictable results. Can you name one American, other than the elites, who has anything to gain from a war with China?
Are you not aware that Donald Trump has named to his economic advisory team Peter Navarro, who has written that future war with China is “very likely"?
My point is that both Trump and Clinton are dangerous. Maybe Hillary is more dangerous with regard to relations with Russia, maybe not. But you have to admit that Trump has said nothing positive about China and speaks in militaristic tones when he believes U.S. military force is required. Remember, he is the one that has said that U.S. troops will be needed in the Middle East to fight ISIS---and that he wants to tear up the nuclear agreement with Iran. Does this sound like a diplomat to you rather than a brute force operator?
And I repeat, his economic adviser says future war with China is “very likely."
And while you seem fixated on what you believe to be a Trump bromance with Putin, I have yet to see you discuss the link I have put forth many times that shows neocons believe that Hillary is weak on Russia.
I would also direct you to Hillary's memoir, Hard Choices, where she discusses that when meeting with Putin she attempted to engage him in talk about endangered wildlife species ( a favorite topic of his) to bond with him. Does this really sound to you like someone that is eager to get into a nuclear war with Russia?
There is nothing good to say about Hillary but I don't think there is anything good to say about Trump.
By sending me links to articles about terrible Hillary, you are not going to change my view about the presidential race. I know that Hillary is terrible. That you ask me for links to show that Trump is just as bad is astounding. The links are there in our previous email back and forths, about Trump belligerence toward ISIS, Iran and China. and links that show Hillary has been "soft" on Russia,
If you want to convince me to support Trump, this is what you have to do, address the points I have made in previous emails to you that I have always backed up with links:
Explain to me why Trump's willingness to send U.S. ground troops to the Middle East is no big deal.
Explain to me why that Trump's top military adviser Michael Flynn believes we will be in a multigenerational war with Islam is no big deal.
Explain to me why that Trump's top economic adviser believes we are very likely to go to war with China is no big deal.
Explain to me why on the domestic front that Trump surrounding himself with a bunch of authoritarians (Christie and Giuliani for starters) that suggest a very authoritarian domestic Trump administration is no big deal.
When you find the story that explains all this, send me the link, then I will reconsider my position on Trump. Sending me links that tell me Hillary is bad is not going to do it. I know Hillary is bad. The link you need to send me is to the story which explains why all the above listed Trump positions, horrific at they are, are no big deal.
Best regards,
Bob
---
Just read an article on Salon linked from Antiwar where Trump said he would be "fine with sending US citizens accused of terrorism to Gitmo", which is currently illegal under federal law. He went on to say, not only would he keep Gitmo open, he would "load it up" with "bad guys." Anyway, this is probably no worse than the current gov't extrajudicially assassinating US citizens suspected of terrorism without due process anywhere in the world, which has been deemed "legal" under federal law by dint of some memo from one lawyer. They're all crazed and out of control.
ReplyDeleteRead that same piece, I was shocked to see it from Antiwar given Rainmondo's love affair with Trump. I really hope Block sees the light, he's too smart to believe in this con game this long
DeleteBlock's arguments for supporting Trump would be convincing if it were Pat Buchanan running instead. Buchanan is no libertarian, but he would get my full support if he were running against Hillary or probably any of the candidates running this year. I might even Trust him over Rand. But Trump is not Pat Buchanan. He has no ideological spine aside from his flawed views on trade.
ReplyDeleteGary Johnson is polling above 10% nationally. The next president could nominate several Supreme Court justices. Johnson recently teased that Andrew Napolitano could be his nominee. Is that not enough of a reason for libertarians to support the libertarian-lite Johnson?
ReplyDelete