I happen to have some connections that are Quakers, and I see the following sign in several windows:
I've come to believe that the single most important consideration for the wellbeing of both America and the rest of the world when choosing the President of the United States is the degree to which he or she understands this truth. Except in the hypothetical event that an enemy nation is attacking the U.S. or an ally with either a conventional army or with nuclear weapons, our army needs to just stay home. I'm okay with a team of Special Forces going after specific criminals in other countries when they are receiving safe harbor there, but otherwise, we need to find answers that aren't motivated by fear and the greed of the military industrial complex.
That being the case, how would you rank the presidential contenders in how likely they would be to start or escalate wars? Which one would be the least likely to order U.S. troops and drones to go abroad with missions to kill? I have my list, but I'd be interested in yours.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Positions 3, 4, and 5 are a really close call for me.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
I think they are all equally likely to war-cry except Trump and Sanders. I don't know about Trump since he has no record - but how easily could he be swayed by the MIC (or any other lobbyist, for that matter)? If he's actually serious about not being subject to big money influence, then it's hard to say. Somehow, I don't think he's serious about that.
Bernie's the only one I trust to use war as a last resort.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Positions 3, 4, and 5 are a really close call for me.
I agree with everything except Trump at 5. I'm curious why you think Trump is lower than Clinton. I know Hillary can be tough, but I think Trump seems to promise a more muscular foreign policy. The problem is that everything with the Donald is exasperatingly vague.
The one thing I know for sure is that if Trump is elected, we will have the greatest foreign policy in the history of the United States. We are going to have so much great foreign policy we are going to get tired of it, but we're going to keep having the greatest foreign policy anyway, right? Because Trump hires unbelievable people.
And I believe him.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
Some Schmo wrote:I think they are all equally likely to war-cry except Trump and Sanders. I don't know about Trump since he has no record - but how easily could he be swayed by the MIC (or any other lobbyist, for that matter)?
He is a bit of a wildcard. More than being swayed by lobbyists, I wonder what would happen if a foreign power were to hurt his fragile ego?
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
Positions 3, 4, and 5 are a really close call for me.
I agree with everything except Trump at 5. I'm curious why you think Trump is lower than Clinton. I know Hillary can be tough, but I think Trump seems to promise a more muscular foreign policy. The problem is that everything with the Donald is exasperatingly vague.
The one thing I know for sure is that if Trump is elected, we will have the greatest foreign policy in the history of the United States. We are going to have so much great foreign policy we are going to get tired of it, but we're going to keep having the greatest foreign policy anyway, right? Because Trump hires unbelievable people.
And I believe him.
Hillary because I think there is pressure on a democratic president to demonstrate toughness and I think she may be susceptible to that pressure. Plus, she served in an administration that is already sending drones and troops into the Middle East. Trump because he prides himself on being a deal maker. Yes, he talks tough, but I think that is part of his deal making strategy. I think it's a close call, but I didn't want to cop out and make it a tie.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Doctor Steuss wrote:He is a bit of a wildcard. More than being swayed by lobbyists, I wonder what would happen if a foreign power were to hurt his fragile ego?
Yeah, that's an excellent point. I suspect that might be more dangerous with Trump than a suitcase full of money.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Once again I'll be tossing my vote to Gary Johnson and whatever lunatic the LP pairs with him. Johnson is so much better than the available alternatives this particular election cycle, I'm genuinely frustrated.
I hate all of the major candidates left in the Repub and Dem primaries. I have a hard time even ranking them. I'd probably have Sanders at the top and Cruz at the bottom, but this is a Sophie's choice if there ever was one. It's also context dependent. I do not want full Republican control of the federal government and would prefer Clinton on principle if that was the only way to stop it. The Republican party has driven off a cliff and we can't provide a path to pass their agenda unmolested even if the top person is decent. If Democrats take back a healthy control of the Senate, my support probably would flip to Kasich.
I can't tell you how awful I think these choices are, though.
I'd probably have Sanders at the top and Cruz at the bottom
One of the things Ted Cruz has been criticized for on talk radio is being too libertarian (Ron Paul) on foreign policy than he has admitted to during his presidential campaign.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
I'd probably have Sanders at the top and Cruz at the bottom
One of the things Ted Cruz has been criticized for on talk radio is being too libertarian (Ron Paul) on foreign policy than he has admitted to during his presidential campaign.
Cruz has some pluses, which are subsequently obliterated by his negatives. He has a good take on the PATRIOT act, so there's that. On the downside, he's closely allied with the American equivalent of the Taliban, which is bad. This isn't a little bit of sugar and spice situation.
