Trump: Peace Candidate?

Most people are realizing that the likely nominees from the major parties this election are going to be Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders has big problems from a peace-voter’s perspective, but he was probably the least hawkish of the major candidates. He decided to concentrate on areas the Democratic base is more concerned about such as keeping the spigot on, and in some cases opening up more spigots. Somebody like Dennis Kucinich would have dismantled Clinton on all fronts if he was running head to head, but that’s another story… I would call Sanders a coward, but I just think he doesn’t care.

Clinton never saw an ill-advised entanglement she didn’t put her full support behind. She is calling for U.S. escalation in Syria, and regrets we hadn’t made life more difficult for its beleaguered citizens earlier. According to her, we should have armed the hand-picked militant religious fundamentalists earlier and transparently, and not through back channels and half-heartedly. She falls squarely into the bizarre cult of “Assad must go”, that disdains and heaps scorn upon anyone who seeks a practical end to the bloodshed.

She was the head cheerleader for intervention in Libya. She did everything she could to bring chaos to that region, including diseminate war propaganda. She repeated unsupported claims of dubious origin about mass rape by Qaddafi’s forces.

She and Victoria Nuland probably get along well. They both are NATO expansionists. A camp that probably represents the most dangerous threat to human life on Earth. They instigated an opaque coup in Ukraine, and now unnecessarily provoke the Russians. These people are absolutely insane. Russia represents no threat to the United States, just as Russia represents no threat to Switzerland, Ukraine, and Trinidad and Tobago. Russia seeks to enrich its oligarchs. They are much less dangerous than our oligarchs because they lack Wilsonian ideology. The NATO expansionist are itching to install a friendly regime in Russia.

She was wrong about Iraq when it mattered.

Trump was right about Iraq when it mattered.

Trump refuses to demonize Putin and even hints that they would be able to talk to eachother. An absolutely courageous stance to take in today’s Russophobic media and political climate.(Sanders demonizes Putin but claims to be against NATO expansion).

Trump showed signs of being good on Syria, but recently has said he supports “safe zones”, a Clinton position.

How will you feel about voting for a warmonger when a viable alternative exists that would kill less innocent people? Does peace matter to you this election?

Glossing over that whole “we’re going to kill the families of terrorists” quote, eh?

What positions of Clinton’s suggests she would do otherwise? Is she hugging Obama now in order to reverse his targeting of “terrorists’” funerals?

Trump’s ISIS plan is “Bomb the oil, and take the oil”. That means invading the region and occupying oil fields.

He’s not a peace candidate.

Anything to change the subject away from what Trump said, eh? But, oh, sure, Trump is the peace candidate. “Peace” meaning waterboarding, torture, and premeditated murder of civilians simply because they are related to somebody else.

Yep, the peace candidate.

Who is? There has to be one. GWB was in 2000. Obama was in 2008 despite his support for doubling down on the Afghanistan quagmire.

Ah, war is peace. I get it now. Big Brother is quite lovable, too!

Everything is relative. Clinton has shown no inclination towards peace in any way, shape, or form. Trump has.

Cute.

Ha. Next you’ll say that Vladimir Putin is more respectable than Abraham Lincoln.

I think Bernie is as close as you’re going to get.

Why does there have to be one? There’s no gold-standard candidate.

Sanders is probably the closest, overall, to a “peace candidate”.

Two crony killers. Putin is more crony, while Lincoln was more killer.

Yeah but he lost.

He lost. I’m talking about the general. Trump is a good bit more peaceful than Clinton. Obama and McCain were pretty close, but Obama was labelled the “peace candidate”.

I wouldn’t remotely trust Trump not to get us involved in any wars (quite possibly really big wars). His entire campaign and public persona are based on chest-thumping machismo and “Make America Great Again!” jingoism, frequently expressed in crudely anti-foreign terms (make Mexico pay for the wall, ban all Muslims, etc.), with Trump himself having a long history of being personally thin-skinned and holding grudges.

And I wouldn’t count on Trump and Putin actually getting along if they were both in power in their respective countries, either. Not too long ago Putin and Turkey’s President Erdogan seemed to have a good relationship (in spite of some real foreign policy differences between Russian and Turkey)–now look at them. If either Trump or Putin decides his counterpart is a threat to his own macho image–look out, world.

Trump has made more courageous anti-war comments in one debate than Sanders has all year.

True statement. Bernie is a Putinphobe.

Which wars would Clinton avoid? She is a NATO expansionist.

TR was a proto-Trump. No wars while president.

I’d call it a wash. Clinton’s warmonger bonafides are well-known, but Trump’s rhetoric - about ISIS, about Ukraine being invaded because the US is not respected, about collective-punishment executions, about the Iran deal - is extremely bellicose and speaks to a belief in benefits accruing from the US flexing its military muscle.

I’m compelled to ask if we are living in the same universe. Lincoln and Putin are interchangable in yours, while in mine Lincoln is known as perhaps the most respected president in history.

In my world, McCain has called for ground invasions of Iraq (multiple times), Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, and probably several other countries I can’t remember. Obama removed all troops from Iraq and 90% from Afghanistan. And you think they are “pretty close.” It’s like you speak a language that reads like English, but the words all mean different things…

But yet, he has shown wisdom in not demonizing Putin and avoiding the Iraq mistake. Rhetoric does not outweigh bodies.

Given that he’s never held office, Trump hasn’t had the opportunity to create bodies. Rhetoric is all we have to go on. And his rhetoric is a constant refrain - the US is weak, other counties don’t respect the US, other countries are laughing at the US. Hard to imagine that as the foundation of a dovish presidency.

Neither Trump nor Clinton are peace candidates. Whether one is more hawkish than the other is a different question.