# Trump: Peace Candidate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 11, 2016, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611 "2016-03-11T02:31:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/142 "2016-05-16T17:17:01Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I bet you $15 that the unwashed masses do not care. . . . That tells me a lot about how the unwashed masses are feeling. Huh. I thought libertarians generally regarded people as capable of making their own decisions, as opposed to deriding them too dumb to know what’s good for them. > [@](#): > > What matters to me is a) Trump is taking a strong antiwar stance (here). b) it is selling. I don’t think its selling. The reason Trump should be taken seriously as a presidential candidate has nothing to do with being a “peace candidate,” because he most certainly is not. He’s a populist who will say anything at any moment, whether it makes sense or not. He’s in favor of not repaying the money the U.S. has borrowed, but he’s not in favor of defaulting on the debt. He’s in favor of shooting down Russian planes, but he likes Putin a lot. He’s against wars in the Middle East, but he wants to murder the wives and children of ISIL terrorists. If you have ever called Bill Clinton “Slick Willie” or some such because of a perceived lack of principles, you ought to be terrified of Trump. He has zero principles, but he’s so moronic that he thinks he’s the most moral person since Jesus. > [@](#): > > A few notes: Clinton was a part of the US govt’s decision to invade Iraq. Period. You are nitpicking Trump’s word choice. Clinton was wrong about voting for the Iraq war. Period. She poorly argues that her vote was more of a threat to Iraq than she ever intended to be carried out, a reasoning I fully disagree with. But the decision to go to war was fully vested in Bush, due to the incompetence of Congress at the time in passing the war resolution. Bush is the one who decided to start the war, decided on an awful invasion plan, decided not to have a plan for stabilization, and so on. I do not subscribe to any theory of the transferability of incompetence, in which Bush’s grave errors are transferred in full to everyone who happened to agree with him at some point in time. Besides, if this election is about competence versus incompetence, Trump doesn’t stand a chance. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/143 "2016-05-16T17:23:48Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Indeed. His posting history does not allow me to take him seriously. Somehow I think being on a list of people **Bridget Burke** does not take seriously puts me in good company. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/144 "2016-05-16T18:14:40Z")
Well, if a _Texan_ thinks you’re too crazy…you most likely are. Like if an Australian thinks you’re drunk, you’re shitfaced. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/145 "2016-05-16T19:54:37Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The American military protects it’s own interests like any other organization. To suggest they are protecting “America’s” economic interests at large is childish. > > Like the rest of the hardcore ideologues in today’s political climate, you only mention the worth of lives of American soldiers. I’m actually not too concerned with the lives of American soldiers. They made a choice to be immoral, ignorant, and/or ambitious and their chickens are coming home to roost. I’m concerned about the military’s instigation of Islamic extremism and the consequences of which we have only recently started to see. I’m also concerned about the innocent people murdered by the government many worship as a “counter” to “aggression”. Trump mentioned them. You did not and have not. The comment about the military seems almost too absurd to bother with rebuttal. @ **WillFarnaby** , I agree that non-American lives are also worthy; I wrote as I did becuase I was arguing against a hands-off, or isolatonist, position — many or most non-interventionists, though evidently not you, give special value to American lives, hence my phrasing. _ **I certainly do oppose the wanton murder of innocents** _ — Iraq in particular was a horrid adventure — but in the real world we must accept some collateral damage when fighting threats like al-Qaeda or Daesh. It seems odd to be “unconcerned” about “immoral” American soldiers, many of whom enlisted with worthy ideals, or (often otherwise underemployed) were motivated by a career path based on service. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/146 "2016-05-16T20:49:02Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > …You miss my point. Democrats are gullible because they believe someone like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton… ‘Believe’ in what way? I do find it much easier to believe in someone who spends the vast majority of her time dealing with issues than someone whose current ‘issue’ (the only one he hasn’t walked back in some way) is building a wall. Clinton has dealt with more actual issues and policies in ten minutes than Trump has in over a year of campaigning. Like it or not, there will be two main choices in the general. One will be Trump and, barring an act of God, the other will be Clinton. (There are, of course, two other options, voting for a third-party candidate or not voting at all, but neither is really significant in the end.) Voting for either one implies not a belief in everything that they espouse, but a belief in which will be a _better_ President. No more, no less. I weigh my options based on a wide variety of factors, as, I expect, most posters here do, because I’d say that we are generally better-educated politically than the average run of voters. To claim that favoring one or the other with our vote means we’re Kool-Aid drinkers is both disingenuous and insulting. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/147 "2016-05-16T23:04:57Z")
The Dems installed Humbert Humbert Humphrey to jam the antiwar base. Hopping mad, furious, Yosemite Sam pissed off! Voted for Humphrey, because Nixon. Voted for McGovern, because Nixon. OK with Carter, mostly, kinda suspicious of his flagrant Christianity. (Unfairly, it seems to me now…) Didn’t dislike Ford so much as the people pulling his strings. Dukakis? Seriously, _Dukakis_? I’m convinced, but cannot prove, that Republican money got him there. Don’t trust Horndog Bill but kinda like him. Don’t like Hillary at all, but trust her just a bit more. Voting isn’t just a right, it is a duty. Choosing is a duty, hard choices are part of the deal. Don’t forget, the people who founded this country didn’t trust each other any further than little Jimmy Madison could throw George Washington. It is not the most efficient system, not the surest, not even the smartest, simply the most just. Count your blessings, sack up and do it! ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/148 "2016-05-27T20:59:29Z")
UPDATE Over at Vox, Zack Beauchamp writes about, “[The Donald Trump dove myth: why he’s actually a bigger hawk than Hillary Clinton](http://www.vox.com/world/2016/5/27/11608580/donald-trump-foreign-policy-war-iraq-hillary-clinton)”. Basically Trump is extremely hawkish insofar as he advocates colonial wars. eg, you invade, you take oil. It’s a callback to Jackson-style wars of conquest. Trump seems peaceful to the extent that he says he opposed the Iraq War and the Libya War. But he didn’t in real time. In real time he advocated a Libya invasion. As for Iraq, Trump spoke with Howard Stern in 2002: [INDENT] Stern: Are you for invading Iraq? ``` Trump: Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly. ``` [/INDENT] The US invasion occurred in Jan 2003. Trump has made anti-war statements, but they were all after the fact. And his general bellicosity is evident. ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/149 "2016-05-28T23:37:26Z")
The true peace candidate is Jill Stein. She has said that she wants us to stop policing the world. ---
**Author:** ![ATLHawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/94ad74/32.png) [@ATLHawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ATLHawk)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/150 "2016-05-29T00:59:49Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > UPDATE > > Over at Vox, Zack Beauchamp writes about, “[The Donald Trump dove myth: why he’s actually a bigger hawk than Hillary Clinton](http://www.vox.com/world/2016/5/27/11608580/donald-trump-foreign-policy-war-iraq-hillary-clinton)”. Basically Trump is extremely hawkish insofar as he advocates colonial wars. eg, you invade, you take oil. It’s a callback to Jackson-style wars of conquest. > > Trump seems peaceful to the extent that he says he opposed the Iraq War and the Libya War. But he didn’t in real time. In real time he advocated a Libya invasion. As for Iraq, Trump spoke with Howard Stern in 2002: [INDENT] Stern: Are you for invading Iraq? > > ``` > Trump: Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly. > > ``` > > [/INDENT] The US invasion occurred in Jan 2003. > > Trump has made anti-war statements, but they were all after the fact. And his general bellicosity is evident. It doesn’t matter friend. He is the next President. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/151 "2016-05-29T01:13:16Z")
> [@ATLHawk](#): > > It doesn’t matter friend. He is the next President. It might be helpful if you didn’t repeat the same old saw when you have not even the beginnings of an actual clue that the statement is correct, let alone evidence. ---
**Author:** ![ATLHawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/94ad74/32.png) [@ATLHawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ATLHawk)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/152 "2016-05-29T12:14:36Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > It might be helpful if you didn’t repeat the same old saw when you have not even the beginnings of an actual clue that the statement is correct, let alone evidence. No need to be upset. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/153 "2016-05-29T15:07:36Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > UPDATE > > Over at Vox, Zack Beauchamp writes about, “[The Donald Trump dove myth: why he’s actually a bigger hawk than Hillary Clinton](http://www.vox.com/world/2016/5/27/11608580/donald-trump-foreign-policy-war-iraq-hillary-clinton)”. Basically Trump is extremely hawkish insofar as he advocates colonial wars. eg, you invade, you take oil. It’s a callback to Jackson-style wars of conquest. > > Trump seems peaceful to the extent that he says he opposed the Iraq War and the Libya War. But he didn’t in real time. In real time he advocated a Libya invasion. As for Iraq, Trump spoke with Howard Stern in 2002: [INDENT] Stern: Are you for invading Iraq? > > ``` > Trump: Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly. > > ``` > > [/INDENT] The US invasion occurred in Jan 2003. > > Trump has made anti-war statements, but they were all after the fact. And his general bellicosity is evident. The timing of this thread was unfortunate as it corresponded nearly to the day with Trump’s hard turn to appease the militarists in his party. It was the final move in consolidating his support and clinching the nomination. That being said, I have focused on a few things that make Trump more peaceful than Clinton. He does not provoke Russia, does not want to expand NATO, and would not attempt a regime change there. Clinton would. Also, he has made courageous anti war statements. He is making the antiwar position safe again in America. He had the courage to forcefully state that they lied us into war. Whether he took this back later is irrelevant. He said it and he cruised to the Repiblican nomination saying such things. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/154 "2016-05-29T15:21:08Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > That being said, I have focused on a few things that make Trump more peaceful than Clinton. He does not provoke Russia, does not want to expand NATO, and would not attempt a regime change there. Clinton would. What makes you think Clinton would attempt a regime change in Russia? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/155 "2016-05-29T15:26:54Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > UPDATE > > Over at Vox, Zack Beauchamp writes about, “[The Donald Trump dove myth: why he’s actually a bigger hawk than Hillary Clinton](http://www.vox.com/world/2016/5/27/11608580/donald-trump-foreign-policy-war-iraq-hillary-clinton)”. Basically Trump is extremely hawkish insofar as he advocates colonial wars. eg, you invade, you take oil. It’s a callback to Jackson-style wars of conquest. > > Trump seems peaceful to the extent that he says he opposed the Iraq War and the Libya War. But he didn’t in real time. In real time he advocated a Libya invasion. As for Iraq, Trump spoke with Howard Stern in 2002: [INDENT] Stern: Are you for invading Iraq? > > ``` > Trump: Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly. > > ``` > > [/INDENT] The US invasion occurred in Jan 2003. > > Trump has made anti-war statements, but they were all after the fact. And his general bellicosity is evident. One wonders what he meant by “correctly.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/156 "2016-05-29T15:35:47Z")
> [@ATLHawk](#): > > It doesn’t matter friend. He is the next President. Hillary Clinton is going to be the next POTUS. Just accept it. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2016, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/157 "2016-05-29T17:25:33Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Iraq was worse than Libya, so far, but Clinton loved both of them This is false. Clinton’s _sole_ indication of being in favor of the Iraq war was her vote, and her explanation of why she made that vote, even at the time, made it clear that [she was not in favor of invading](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html). The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan. […] Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … **I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible**. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.” In other words: no, that’s simply not true. You’ve directly reversed her _explicit_ words about why she took that vote. > [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > I weigh my options based on a wide variety of factors, as, I expect, most posters here do, because I’d say that we are generally better-educated politically than the average run of voters. To claim that favoring one or the other with our vote means we’re Kool-Aid drinkers is both disingenuous and insulting. Added bonus: the people drinking “Kool-Aid” are the ones supporting a well-qualified candidate (secstate, first lady, senator, etc.), rather than the ones supporting a _reality TV star with no policy experience who seems incapable of opening his mouth without lying_. Projection much? > [@ATLHawk](#): > > It doesn’t matter friend. He is the next President. Does this bother you at all? Or rather, does his clear and definitive disconnect with reality (as evidenced one more time in the post you quoted) bother you at all? Do you find it at all problematic to be supporting someone for presidency who either can’t or won’t tell the truth about _anything_? > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > That being said, I have focused on a few things that make Trump more peaceful than Clinton. He does not provoke Russia, does not want to expand NATO, You’re right. He wouldn’t expand NATO. The indications he has given imply that he doesn’t think highly of its continued existence. Now, I don’t know about you, but when it comes to discussions of the “peaceful” candidate, I’m pretty sure making significant unilateral changes to a long-standing anti-aggression pact is _not_ the mark of a “dove”. > [@](#): > > He does not provoke Russia, does not want to expand NATO, and would not attempt a regime change there. Clinton would. …Got a cite for this _absurd_ claim? Seriously, what? Clinton wants to attempt a regime change in Russia? _What?!_ > [@](#): > > Also, he has made courageous anti war statements. He is making the antiwar position safe again in America. He had the courage to forcefully state that they lied us into war. Whether he took this back later is irrelevant. I’d say it is quite relevant in the context of a candidate who seems to have a complete and utter disregard for the truth and literally no interest whatsoever in telling it. “Trump made an important statement. He later retracted that statement, but I don’t care!” :smack::smack::smack::smack::smack: ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/158 "2016-06-03T21:15:48Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > …Got a cite for this _absurd_ claim? Seriously, what? Clinton wants to attempt a regime change in Russia? _What?!_ Which political faction do you think Hillary Clinton, or for that matter John McCain or most establishment Democrats and Republicans, wants to see running Russia, in their ideal world? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/159 "2016-06-03T21:29:12Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Which political faction do you think Hillary Clinton, or for that matter John McCain or most establishment Democrats and Republicans, wants to see running Russia, in their ideal world? There’s a wide-to-the-point-of-being-infinite gulf between what one would _like_ to see in a Russian regime and attempting to cause regime change. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/160 "2016-06-03T22:31:52Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > There’s a wide-to-the-point-of-being-infinite gulf between what one would _like_ to see in a Russian regime and attempting to cause regime change. That’s fair, but American governments since the end of the cold war (including both the Clinton and Obama administrations, in which Mrs. Clinton played a role) gave extensive aid to ‘democracy promotion’ outfits in Russia and its neighbours, which played a key role in Yeltsin winning the 1996 election (if he actually won, which is in some doubt). > **[Monthly Review | The Myths of ‘Democracy Assistance’: U.S. Political...](https://monthlyreview.org/2006/12/01/the-myths-of-democracy-assistance-u-s-political-intervention-in-post-soviet-eastern-europe/)** > > One of the notable shifts in post-Soviet world politics is the almost unimpeded involvement of Western agents, consultants, and public and private institutions in the management of national election… ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2016, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611/161 "2016-06-04T01:24:23Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > That’s fair, but American governments since the end of the cold war (including both the Clinton and Obama administrations, in which Mrs. Clinton played a role) gave extensive aid to ‘democracy promotion’ outfits in Russia and its neighbours, which played a key role in Yeltsin winning the 1996 election (if he actually won, which is in some doubt). > > [Monthly Review | The Myths of ‘Democracy Assistance’: U.S. Political Intervention in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe](http://monthlyreview.org/2006/12/01/the-myths-of-democracy-assistance-u-s-political-intervention-in-post-soviet-eastern-europe/) Victoria Nuland, a Cheney and Clinton operative married to neoconservative Robert Kagan, is likely to be influential in a Clinton regime. She bragged about billions of dollars spent in Ukraine for “democracy promotion” before she was taped discussing her machinations in the Ukrainian coup. Russia has dealt with these NGOs operating within their country, but with hardcore ideologues like Nuland in positions of power, we are likely to see a ramping up of this activity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-peace-candidate/748611.md?page=9)