If the Cold War generations of Americans were unwilling to go to war with the nuclear-armed Soviet Union over Hungary and Czechoslovakia, are the millennials ready to fight a war with Russia over Estonia?
Hillary, the neocons, and virtually the entire Liberal Mainstream Media are apparently ready to send young American men and women to die defending the Baltic States. They are willing to risk a nuclear exchange over it. After all, they want to “live up to our NATO obligations.” Doesn’t that include going to war with Russia if necessary to maintain the territorial integrity of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia?
Say what you will about Trump, but he is not so sure it’s a good idea.
So says a big shot in the Democrat Party establishment. He’s white.
Why exactly should white people vote for Democrats? Last time I checked, white people still make up a majority of voters. I mean obviously bankers, lawyers, college professors, public school teachers, welfare leeches, and Federal government employees benefit financially from some of the DC Democrats’ preferred looting and spending programs. But I think that’s still a relatively small minority of white Americans. What is Hillary offering the rest of us other than insults?
I’m not a Trump supporter, but at least he’s not openly hostile to the majority ethnic group in this country. (At this point I consider white “Anglos” an ethnic group).
I haven’t decided whether I’ll actually vote for the Donald in November. I generally vote third party or abstain completely. But it’s not like one vote is going to sway the election anyway, and I clearly have a rooting interest. Donald Trump is hands down less bad than the Hildabeast. Obviously I come at this from a libertarian perspective so here are my reasons:
Taxes: As far as I can tell, Trump’s basically an old fashioned Northeast Rockefeller, Limousine Republican when it comes to taxes. So my best guess is a slight reduction on income taxes and maybe a lower Corporate tax. The difference will probably be made up through tariffs or fees of some sort. I don’t see any real improvement here, but Democrats as a rule always want to raise taxes everywhere and anywhere. So Republicans, whether Trump or McCain or Romney or whoever, get the nod here as being the lesser evil.
Spending: This is a tough call because Trump makes a lot of crazy promises about building walls, and I think he mentioned increased military spending in one of his rants. He’s running what amounts to a sort of right wing populist campaign, and part of that entails promising to keep the gravy train flowing for entitlements that are popular among middle class whites like social security and medicare. So I’d have to assume spending will continue to balloon out of control during a Trump administration. But again, just look at the alternative. Has Shillery ever found a welfare program or a weapon or a foreign government/rebellion she didn’t want to fund with the money Washington loots from its subjects? If you want spending to grow less fast, then Trump is your man.
Police State: They’re both horrible. They both favor a giant police state. I’m still giving a slight edge to Donald Trump because at least he’s not threatening to disarm us. He’s also less likely to start wars which the government always use as an excuse to clamp down on dissent and increase surveillance.
Culture/Education: Trump’s a loud obnoxious vulgar clown. But I do applaud his efforts to reduce the effect of political correctness on our lives. Hilla the Hun on the other hand seems like she’d continue down the path of the SJW takeover of our entire educational system and media. Dare to criticize a minority? Refuse to bake a cake for a LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ wedding? Say something nice about a dead white male? Not on Hillary’s watch!
Immigration: I know many so called “left libertarians” will disagree with me here, but I’m in favor of a massive reduction in immigration to the United States. Sure, if we had no welfare and the regime respected property rights 100%, we could have open borders. Hell, there would be no reason for any border in the first place and the regime in DC would have no reason to exist or any way to fund itself. Yay! But that’s not the world we live in. Current US immigration policy is to import as many people as possible from anywhere on the planet and force us all to subsidize it. Obomber even bombed the hell out of a few formerly respectable Arab countries to encourage the survivors to leave and move here.
I don’t know about you, but I can do without a “Little Mogadishu” or a “Little Honduras” sprouting up in my town. Or are you a half-libertarian, half-SJW who thinks you can give some Salvadoran peasant a copy of The Road to Serfdom and get him to vote for Gary Johnson? Trump wants less immigration. He actually seems naive enough to think the US government should take care of people form the US rather than the people from Central America. To be clear I don’t favor his promise to round up and deport millions of people already here, but I certainly would support cutting off any federal benefits they receive as well as efforts to reduce the numbers coming in.
Hillary wants more immigrants, she wants them to eventually vote Democrat, she doesn’t care what local communities think about it, and she wants to force American tax victims to pay for it.
Foreign Policy: Killery is probably tied with John McCain for the most unhinged warmonger to ever win a major party’s nomination for president. The last time she pretended to disapprove of a war was over 40 years ago and no one had heard of her yet. Oh, and she pretended to regret supporting the Iraq War for a brief period in 2007-08 I think. But other than that has there eve been a war she didn’t want to plunge America into? She badgered her husband into intervening in the Balkans and bombing Serbia. Not to mention the periodic bombing of Iraq in the 1990s and the sanctions that killed half a million children. She voted for Bush’s Iraq war. Supposedly “serving” under the weak kneed Obama, she masterminded the Libyan disaster. She got the US to help finance the Syrian mess that continues to this day. She’s probably more responsible for the rise of ISIS than any other person outside of the Muslim world. She let her underlings overthrow the Ukrainian government and ruined that country. She compared Putin to Hitler (as if Putin’s responsible for as many deaths as she and her husband are). This is a woman who would probably consider an actual war against Russia just to overthrow the Syrian government or prop up some unpopular regime in Georgia or Ukraine. And don’t even get me started on her obedience to Israel.
Trump is far from perfect. He’s consistently threatened to “smash ISIS” whatever exactly that means. And he’s pledged allegiance to Israel. But he’s wholeheartedly condemned the recent wars in Iraq and Libya. He’s questioned the need for NATO. He’s repeatedly come out against Nation Building and unnecessary wars in general No matter how bad he turns out to be on Foreign Policy I am 99.9999% sure he’d be less bad than Hitlery.
Conclusion: I can’t say I’m an enthusiastic supporter of Donald Trump. Even with my low expectations it’s certainly possible he could still disappoint a libertarian who is feeling any sympathy for his candidacy. But on every issue, Hillary Clinton is the antithesis of everything a freedom loving American should believe in.
Unfortunately my prediction is Hillary will win (or possibly steal) the election. But hey, maybe I’m wrong. I thought Trump would be out of the GOP race in February.
Despite his horrible speech to AIPAC, Donald Trump still managed to give me hope today that the USA’s 70 year Military Empire might finally be on its last legs. The front runner for the Republican nomination for President actually questioned the need for NATO. It’s like we’re in a time machine back to 1952.
These quotes speak for themselves:
“I do think it’s a different world today, and I don’t think we should be nation-building anymore,” Trump said. “I think it’s proven not to work, and we have a different country than we did then. We have $19 trillion in debt. We’re sitting, probably, on a bubble. And it’s a bubble that if it breaks, it’s going to be very nasty. I just think we have to rebuild our country.”
“I watched as we built schools in Iraq and they’re blown up. We build another one, we get blown up. We rebuild it three times and yet we can’t build a school in Brooklyn. We have no money for education because we can’t build in our own country. At what point do you say, ‘Hey, we have to take care of ourselves?’ So, I know the outer world exists and I’ll be very cognizant of that. But at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially the inner cities.”
“Ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO, and yet we’re doing all of the lifting,” Trump said. “They’re not doing anything. And I say: ‘Why is it that Germany’s not dealing with NATO on Ukraine? Why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of Ukraine, why aren’t they dealing? Why are we always the one that’s leading, potentially the third world war with Russia.’ ”
“We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore,” Trump said, adding later, “NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.”
“South Korea is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we’re not reimbursed fairly for what we do,” Trump said. “We’re constantly sending our ships, sending our planes, doing our war games — we’re reimbursed a fraction of what this is all costing.”
Someone who has a legitimate shot at the presidency is actually questioning why the regime in Washington uses trillions of our dollars every year to protect rich countries from poor countries? Western Europe from Russia? South Korea from North Korea? He sounds like Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan or Bob Taft. Of course they all ended up losing the Republican nomination. We’ll see if the GOP insiders manage to steal this election as well.