Lincoln killed more innocents than Putin has thus far.
Again, it’s all relative. Obama doubled down in Afghanistan, and we are still there. Obama was restrained by the public from attacking Syria. McCain would have faced the same opposition.
The U.S. Is weak. Other countries do not respect us and are laughing at us. True statements. The narrative of U.S. military prowess is much myth.
Trump is unafraid to take an antiwar stance, very publicly and indignantly. That makes him a peace candidate, especially when matched up with Clinton.
Ok…how do you get from there to fewer military entanglements? Again, Trump’s rhetoric is bellicose at every turn. I don’t think he plans to restore the allegedly lost respect and prestige by shaming the world with how peaceful we can be.
What antiwar stance? Iraq, or presently?
He’ll only be behind peace if peace is marketable, available for sale on Sharper Image and is called “Trump Peace”. He’ll guarantee it works, it’ll be yuge, Yadda Yadda, blame Obama when it fails a week later…
Remember, you’re talking to a guy who uses the phrase, “War of Northern Aggression” unironically.
Well, yes Iraq, but he also vocally rejected the establishment anti-Putin, anti-Assad posturing and warmongering.
Do your part to make it so. Stop worrying about the spigot.
Question: Who has killed more innocents, Putin or Lincoln?
The new Trump song:
'I don’t want war.
All I want is peace. Peace.
Peace!
A little piece of China
A little piece of France
A little piece of Mexico
And Canada perchance
A little slice of Turkey
And all that that entails…’
Tip to Mel Brooks… 
Endearing.
Indeed, oh BTW: Eventually, trade wars turned into World War II.
“History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme” -Joseph Anthony Wittreich
That means Trump is an authoritarian, not a peacenik.
Putin. Next question.
Hmmm… are armed insurrectionists who fired on a federal fort innocent? I’m going to say no.
Davis.
Yeah, Putin has sent his Air Force to support a dictator who has probably killed twice as many civilians as were killed by both sides in the Civil War.
Not to mention that I think there’s pretty good reason to believe that Putinnhas ordered assassinations of political opponents, for no other reason than they spoke out against Putin. I don’t think Lincoln ever poisoned a guy with polonium.
There’s an argument for the relative hawkishness of Trump and Clinton, but on balance, Trump isn’t a peace candidate. We may have to agree to disagree.
I’m glad you brought up this point. It’s a point the Sanders supporters would never admit, or even know to admit.
The threat of protectionism is very real in America right now.
They are not mutually exclusive. In any case, the only way forward in Syria is to allow Assad to defeat the religious fundamentalists who are being funded from without.
Who had killed more innocents, the United States government with the support of Clinton since the reign of Putin, or Putin?
Didn’t say they were.
There’s an argument to be made that the confederates were political dissidents, seeing that Lincoln’s hardcore no-secession ideology was a matter of politics.
Ok
I’m a Sanders supporter, and I think he’s dead wrong on free trade and protectionism, as is Trump. You choose from the candidates you have, not the ideal candidate you wish you had.
For all practical purposes, they are mutually exclusive. Authoritarians gravitate toward the militaristic state. You of all people should be arguing this point. And the only way out of Syria is for Assad to go, because the extremist terrorist conflict is simply overlaid on the civil war that was going on long before ISIL became a thing.
Except that the South’ military fired the first shots, whereas Putin’s enemies --er, victims-- didn’t take up arms against him.
I agree. Sanders lost though. I’m talking about the general election when the major candidates are likely to be Clinton and Trump.
I’m against authoritarians of peaceful and militaristic stripe. That does not mean that I would not refuse to provoke them unnecessarily. Trump does. He obviously sees there are practical limits to government power. Clinton does not believe there are practical limits to US power. She believes we should provoke Russia and eliminate another regional strongman. She doesn’t show that she can learn. Too old and ideological.
The major party choices in the U.S. will be between an authoritarian Trump who shows an inclination toward peace at times, and an authoritarian Clinton who has never shown an inclination toward peace in any circumstance.
Your conclusion does not follow from your statement of fact. There is a civil war that is complicating the “extremist terrorist conflict”. It does not follow that Assad must go. This is why I believe “Assad must go” has become a cult. The best scenario for an end to the civil war is to allow Assad defeat the religious fundamentalists funded from without. Any scenario you cook up where Assad is ousted results in more death.
You don’t think there are forces aimed at toppling Putin from within? Lincoln doesn’t even have that leg to stand on. Nobody was interested in toppling Lincoln, they simply wanted out.