Donald Trump

Trump Is a Bellicose Fool Who'll Make War, Not Love

Wake up you Trump-hugging peaceniks

|

The world expected President Obama to bring peace. Instead, he made war. When this Nobel Peace Prize recipient leaves the Oval Office, he will have the dubious

Trump
Photo Credit Todd Krainin

distinction of having served as the longest wartime president in the history of the United States.

Is it possible that the reverse would happen with Donald Trump if he gets elected? Would he bring peace when the world expects him to make war?

Some anti-war activists on both the right and the left hope so. They are kidding themselves.

Make no mistake: Trump's bellicosity, hair-trigger temperament, disturbing tendency to see the world as "us versus them," and, above all, his militant protectionism will mean more war, not less.

Cato Institute's Doug Bandow has praised Trump's willingness to question the Washington elite that wants America to play global cop. Bandow has applauded Trump for his independence from the "neoconservatives and militaristic interventionists who dominate the Republican Party." Meanwhile, on the left, The Nation's Stephen Cohen declared that Trump was asking "fundamental and urgent" foreign policy questions that deserve to be engaged with.

There is no doubt that America's foreign policy establishment is stuck in a Cold War mindset. The Soviet empire has collapsed, the Berlin Wall has crumbled, and the Communist threat is long gone. But the NATO alliance that was forged after Word War II to keep Germany down, Russia out, and America in Europe has not just endured, but expanded. Likewise, America's involvement in the security of Japan, South Korea, and other Asian as well as Middle Eastern countries continues unabated. If these alliances cost Americans only money, they would be bad enough. But their existence has arguably destabilized regions, encouraging America to get embroiled in overseas conflicts that are none of its business, most notably the disastrous Libya intervention on President Obama's watch.

Trump's comments that these dusty alliances are "obsolete" and deserve to be overhauled would be welcome if they didn't stem from a radical xenophobia that sees any engagement with the world as a loser's game. Trump does not have a consistent philosophy against war. He opposed the Iraq war, albeit after the fact, but his criticism of Obama's Libya adventure, which he now says was justified, was that it didn't happen soon enough.

Most troubling, however, is his prescription to "Make America Great Again" — which is to seal it off from the world by erecting walls, tearing up trade agreements, and forcing American companies to stay put. Trump may think that he's invented a brilliant new economic approach. In fact, it is so old — and such a perennial temptation for socialist dictators — that there is an actual term for it in economic literature: import substitution. Even in quasi-democracies like India, it has led straight to the poorhouse.

But that's not the main problem with it. As FDR's Secretary of State Cordell Hull noted, "If soldiers are not to cross international borders, goods must do so." (Some people believe that 19th century French political economist Frederic Bastiat made this statement.)

Indeed, it is practically impossible today to imagine England invading France or France invading Germany or Germany invading Poland. Their economies are too interdependent. As Nathan Collins has pointed out, before World War II (which, not coincidentally, broke out after America passed the Smoot Hawley trade act that raised average tariffs on foreign imports by 54 percent), military conflict was practically de rigueur in Europe. NATO's security guarantee didn't put an end to the great wars of dictators. Trade did. Indeed, the more countries trade and the more partners they trade with, the less likely they are to go to war. In 1870, countries on average had three trading partners. Now they have anywhere from 17 to 34. Conversely, the countries that one can most easily imagine coming to blows today don't trade. Think Pakistan and India. Or Pakistan and Afghanistan. Or North Korea and South Korea.

Trade doesn't eliminate all causes of war, but it does remove a major one: conquest to secure goods. So long as people can buy things from each other, they have less need to maintain armies to forcibly extract them. It is for this reason that Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises called the "philosophy of protectionism the philosophy of war."

In fact, trade doesn't just eliminate reasons for war, it generates forces of peace: Attacking your trade partner means either destroying your buyers or your supplier or both. Trade gives each side a stake in the other's well being.

All of this is lost on Trump. He views other countries not as possible partners in mutually beneficial exchange, but adversaries who are out to rip off America. Indeed, to the extent he wants to engage in any commerce with the world, it is from a position of strength — which is why making "our military so strong that no one will mess with America" is so important to him. Keeping alive the background threat of war when, say, accusing China of currency manipulation is a useful thing. Trump wants to buy and sell to other countries so long as he can dictate the terms. There are no carrots in Trump Land, only sticks. This is the Tony Soprano version of trade policy — especially in the hands of someone who regards any disagreement as a threat to his masculinity against which he will "punch back ten times harder."

Trump's foreign policy isolationism won't lead to peace because his trade policy isolationism will create the pre-conditions for war. George Washington understood this when he warned America to "steer clear of permanent alliances" with other countries in his Farewell Address, while at the same time counseling her to extend "our commercial relations."

Picking and choosing Trump's specific statements for praise just because they attack the "right" (pun intended) intellectual enemy won't correct America's conduct abroad as critics of neo-conservatism want. It'll put it on a more dangerous path. Sometimes our enemy's enemy is still our enemy.

This column originally appeared in The Week.

NEXT: The Trouble With Skin-Cell DNA Evidence

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. yep. I guessed right.

    1. Welcome to another episode of “guess the reason.com author!”

      1. At least she’s not playing the “no true Indian” game.

    2. It pretty much had to be.

    3. Walter Block (a guy with ACTUAL libertarian cred) wrote the other day how libertarians should consider voting this cycle,a methods I thought of a couple of months ago: If polls show a dead heat in your state between trump and Hillary, vote trump as the anti-Clinton vote. Better to go with the unproven warmonger than the proven one. If you’re like me living in a dark navy blue state(WA) where it’s near impossible for anyone other than a far leftist/socialist/communist to win an election, vote your conscience(as for Block and I it’s GayJay-though how I wished it would be McAfee). Reason is really started to lose my respect. I come to this site for alternative news with the libertarian perspective. If I wanted to be barraged with wall to wall trump bashing I’d head over to the state run propagandists at CNN. Lewrockwell.com is becoming far more interesting than reason.com. Shikha, Chapman, and Suderman are completely fixated on making sure that angel Hillary gets elected. It’s painful to read.

    4. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
      >>>>>> http://www.realcash44.com

  2. You’ve done a good job shewing that douche can’t be trusted with power, but you barely mentioned turd sandwich.

    1. Someone has a Trump fixation

      ——

      Trump Is a Bellicose Fool Who’ll Make War, Not Love
      Shikha Dalmia
      June 7, 2016

      Wake Up, Trump-Hugging Peaceniks: Trump’s Tony Soprano Trade Policy Means More War
      Shikha Dalmia
      May 31, 2016

      Trump Is Emboldening the Illiberal Hindu Fringe in India
      Shikha Dalmia
      May 27, 2016

      How Trump Could Doom the World
      Shikha Dalmia
      May 23, 201

      1. Wake Up Sheeple! Trump Is The Devil!
        Shikha Dalmia
        June 9, 2016

      2. Apparently her insult generator is stuck on “Trump-Hugging Peaceniks”.

        Trump Is a Bellicose Fool Who’ll Make War, Not Love
        Wake up you Trump-hugging peaceniks
        Shikha Dalmia | June 7, 2016

        Wake Up, Trump-Hugging Peaceniks: Trump’s Tony Soprano Trade Policy Means More War
        Being against NATO doesn’t mean he’s for peace.
        Shikha Dalmia|May. 31, 2016 2:15 pm

  3. I await, with bated breath, the article from the author titled Hillary Is a Bellicose Fool Who’ll Make War, Not Love.

    1. We don’t need an article to tell us that, we all know it.

  4. “Trump’s bellicosity, hair-trigger temperament, disturbing tendency to see the world as “us versus them,” and, above all, his militant protectionism will mean more war, not less.”

    That’s a pretty bug stretch even for Shaika.

    1. Yeah let’s focus on someone’s style instead of their actions (Clinton). The neoliberal impulse to refight the Cold War is really unbecoming.

  5. I think this piece is an improvement over some of her previous work like “How Trump Could Doom the World.”

  6. If protectionism equals war, how is that the US stayed out of major foreign wars from 1845 until 1914 despite having a highly protected economy? Meanwhile, once the US became a truly global trading nation in the 20th Century, it ended up involved in two world wars, two smaller but big wars in Korea and Vietnam as well as the war on terror.

    I know correlation doesn’t always equal causation but ti doesn’t rule it out either. Dalmia doesn’t produce a single bit of evidence for her proposition that protectionism will cause us to get in more wars. Meanwhile, the desire to keep the world free and prosperous and trading with us is the single biggest reason given for why the US has a responsibility to play world police.

    That of course doesn’t mean we should engage in protectionism. It just means Dalmia’s claim that doing so would get us into wars is absurd.

    1. Look if you’re going to try and inject rational discussion into this thread……

    2. Dalmia thinks that if she shits her pants hard enough to blow a hole right through her panties, that it will inspire others to do the same.

    3. Yeah didn’t we have the civil war during that time?

      1. Civil wars are by definition not foreign wars. And since the constitution guaranteed free trade among the states, I don’t think you can blame that one on protectionism.

        1. There was the possibility of a foreign war starting because of the civil war, but the British decided not to get involved with the Confederacy and thus the war remained (mostly) confined to the US. However, it still didn’t have much to do with US trade policy vis-a-vis nations other than the CSA.

        2. Well, it was definitely a talking point that led up to the civil war.

          There was a forbes article on this talking about the Panic of 1857 which was caused by the Tariff of 1857… I’m not reading too into it.. I just don’t feel skeptical that protectionism leads to war.

          1. Why don’t you? To this day the US has some pretty nasty protectionist policies towards Sub Saharan Africa. One of the few products Sub Saharan Africa produces is cloth and American manufacturers don’t want the competition. If protectionism causes war, why are we not embroiled in wars in Africa.

            Meanwhile, trade and the desire to maintain good business relationships and access to overseas goods like oil has been the primary motivating factor in every US foreign intervention over the last 100 years. Do you really think the US would have cared what happened in the Middle East had it not traded with the Middle East and depended on it for oil? And given that, how can you say trade prevents wars?

            1. Aren’t we throwing money at Sub Saharan Africa in foreign aid?

              Don’t we go into war in the middle east primarily for oil contracts? We have enough oil here to be self-sufficient yet politicians seem to love OPEC for some reason.

              What about the policy on drugs that allow cartels to pop up and control governments in latin america… and eventually the US. There’s warfare all the time there… and the US agencies are involved, too. I think it was Bolivia that kicked a US agency out of there country and drug production dropped heavily.

              We rob or lock up a bunch of people in America for the drug war.

              I find it very plausible that Shikha has a point.

              1. Yes we are aiding Africa. Why is that? Isn’t it mostly in the hope that they will develop and buy our goods and trade with us? If not that, then what interest is there for the US to do it?

                As far as the Middle East, starting in the early 1970s, the US was no energy sufficient and depended upon the Middle East for a large part of its oil. That is just now changing but ti was true all they up to the 2000s. Even now we are not fully oil independent, though we are close. And our dependence on Middle Eastern oil made stability in the Middle East a vital US interest and is what drove our interventions there. If he had never traded with them, we would never had a reason to intervene.

                1. Idk, because it definitely isn’t helping. Maybe African leaders share their women or their wealth… maybe politicians want some sort of unstableness with the world to keep their jobs secured.

                  We hadn’t been energy sufficient because of federal regulations.

                  I mean, way back when, Standard Oil was screwing themselves over by dropping prices so low… they actually had a monopoly due to tariffs placed, but they were losing considerable marketshare when competition halted production, started buying SO’s cheap oil and then repackaging it as their own. After that, refineries in competition acquired enough money to start lobbying.

                  The US has had plenty of oil, but ’till this day we still don’t like touching it. At least not enough to prevent worrying of relations with foreign countries.

                  1. It would only have been a Civil War if both sides were fighting to control the same country. They weren’t.

        3. To be fair one of the two big issues that led to secession was the tariff policy which put most of the tax burden on the agrarian South. So to some extent protectionism did play a part. Obviously there were other causes.

          1. It did play a part in leading to war but not in the sense that Shika is arguing. The South finally having enough of being out voted by the north and deciding to leave the union partially over its economic interests being different than the North is not the same as lack of trade between two nations causing a war.

            If the best example of protectionism causing a war is the civil war, you have lost the argument.

        4. Civil wars are by definition not foreign wars.

          War Between the States!

    4. Here, it looks like we were pretty involved militarily during that large time frame you brought up… are they major foreign wars? I don’t know what major would qualify as, we never went in depth studying that time period in world history… aaaand I tested out after that.

      1. After the Mexican war, the US was not involved in any foreign wars (unless you call the Indian wars foreign which I don’t) until after the Civil War. And they were all small affairs. And every single one of them involved trade and the US’s desire to establish and maintain trade with various countries.

      2. *studying in high school

    5. Re: John,

      If protectionism equals war, how is that the US stayed out of major foreign wars from 1845 until 1914 despite having a highly protected economy?

      First, it wasn’t a highly-protected economy. The US economy hasn’t been as free as it was during those years since 1914. And the tariffs the US government did impose here or there were pretty much unenforceable.

      Second, if you need an example of TRUE protectionism equaling war, you only have to see the example of the Chinese economy which was very much highly-protected during the XIX Century, which led to several and very humbling wars with the West.

      Dalmia doesn’t produce a single bit of evidence for her proposition that protectionism will cause us to get in more wars.

      You’ve got to be kidding, John. What do you think compelled the Japanese to attack the US if it wasn’t the embargoes that FDR ILLEGALLY imposed on that nation?

      That of course doesn’t mean we should engage in protectionism.

      It means the Protectionists have NO legs to stand on, and history HAS proven Bastiat’s warning about goods, borders and soldiers.

      1. The US economy hasn’t been as free as it was during those years, not since 1914.

      2. The US was protectionist then Mexican. Go look it up. And the amount of actual foreign trade was minuscule compared to what it was in the 20th Century.

        And the US did not go to war over the embargo. The embargo was the result of the underlying conflict between the US and Japan over Japanese expansionism. It didn’t cause the underlying conflict. The US would have gone to war eventually had the Japanese not backed off. The embargo just made the Japanese figure better to start it now when they were strong than later.

        Meanwhile, every single war the US has been in since 1914 has been justified by the need to maintain freedom and stability and a good business climate for US trade. the truth is trade causes US interventionism and wars not protectionism. It is international trade that gives the US an interest in meddling in the rest of the world.

        Basiat was a smart guy but he didn’t mean what you think he meant. He didn’t mean in the absence of trade there is war. He meant that if you didn’t trade with people and they wanted your stuff, they would just send an army to get it. It really meant, when goods don’t cross borders, armies are sent to retrieve them. It was a comment on the depravity of nations not of the noble peace making ability of trade. Bastiat was way too smart to believe that trade made nations peaceful where they were not otherwise.

    6. I think our two bodyguards, the Atlantic and the Pacific, probably had a wee bit to do with that.

  7. I really don’t think the trade argument is super valid. A quick scan of the internet showed that in 1914, the UK, France and Germany’s exports + imports as a percentage of GDP were 61, 40, and 31% respectively (https://ourworldindata.org/ international-trade/) The numbers now are 59, 59, 85 (http://data.worldbank.org/ indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS) Obviously, its tough for France and Germany to go to war because they have a shared currency. But for UK to go to war with another Great Power….well their trade level now is the same as it was back in 1914.

    More relevant to the issue at hand is China’s trade (42%), USA (30%), and Russia (53%). These are in the same range as the pre-WWI powers, and probably the three most likely countries to end up in a serious war of some sort (other than India-Pakistan, which aren’t really trading countries). Also please note that China and US are both 1-2 in exports and imports. These are the biggest trading countries in the world and evidence from WWI indicates that their international trade level is insufficient to prevent them from going to war with each other (or someone else)

    Saying trade stops wars is something that I do not think is historically attested well enough to be featured in a magazine called ‘Reason’.

    1. And there is an argument that trading causes wars. We do almost no trading in Africa and for decades have purchased hundreds of billions of dollars of oil from the middle east. By Shika’s logic, we should have been embroiled in wars with and in Africa and at peace with the Middle East. It hasn’t quite worked out that way however.

      If you trade with a country or especially if you rely on that country or area for something vital like oil, you have a direct interest in it remaining stable and independent of foreign influence and thus have a reason to care about what happens there and go to war when that becomes necessary to protect your interests.

      Why does Shika think we fought two world wars and a cold war in Europe if not to protect the governments and by extension the business climate there? Would we have any reason to care if Europe went communist or Islamist if we didn’t conduct so much trade with them? Judging by the example of Africa, I think the answer is no.

      1. ” By Shika’s logic, we should have been embroiled in wars with and in Africa and at peace with the Middle East.”

        Shoulda, coulda, woulda…

    2. This was going to be my point. I wish the “trade prevents war” crowd would actually read their history first. Pre-1914 Europe not only displayed a high level of economic interdependence in trade and finance, but also allowed a high level of free movement of people across international borders. And all this did not prevent the rise of nationalism or of military/diplomatic rivalry between the very same nations that were economically interdependent, and certainly did not prevent the outcome of the bloodiest war humanity had ever seen up to that point. And many argued at the time and have argued since that our economic interdependence with Britain is what ultimately dragged us into it, along with our purported desire to defend “freedom of the seas” for, among other purposes, trade.

      1. And the idea that trade prevents wars was taken as Gospel in pre 1914 Europe. Everyone thought a major war was impossible because the European countries trade with each other so much and depended upon each other for their economies.

        It didn’t work out that way. Yet, for some reason this dumb argument will not die.

        1. I am not sure we can say that “everyone” thought that a major war in Europe was impossible when the political, military and diplomatic leadership of the Great Powers were planning for that very event. And were quite successful in delivering it as well, despite what everyone else wanted or thought.

          Which would tend to further undermine the “protectionism equals war” argument. War comes when those in positions of power choose to resort to it. And only one actual or presumptive nominee in this race has a track record of choosing to resort to war.

          Protectionism should be attacked on its own lack of merit.

          1. Sure. Whatever you think of protectionism, there isn’t any reasonable case that it causes wars. Wars are caused by a lot of factors. One of the most common causes of war is one country running out of other people’s money and deciding to get more by invading another or distract its population from that fact by getting them into a nationalistic fervor. The other big cause of wars is perceived weakness causing one nation to miscalculate and do something aggressive mistakenly thinking they can get away with it.

            When you realize that, it is pretty easy to see that electing Hillary President is a very good way to get us in a big war.

            1. I don’t think a lot of people have insisted that Trade prevents wars, so much as FREE TRADE.

              Let’s look at the middle east- yeah we trade a lot with them. However it was trade based on the authoritarian rule of local despots. The economies pre-WWI were largely corporatist. Yeah there was a lot of trade, but it was based on using force to lock out competition and solidify monopolies in trading. You had country A locking up trade in oil from Region 1, and Country B imposing tarrifs to apply pressure on country A.

              I actually agree that neither protectionism nor bellicosity are the causes of significant war.

              Nations go to war when the people making those decisions see the payoff outweighing the costs. When your populace is largely disenfranchised, sending them to die to get you 10% more profit on your trade route makes rational sense. When your privileged place as a leader of a country depends on the prospects of a few corporate leaders, not those people about to go die on your behalf, your calculus changes accordingly.

              The reason free trade is important is that it should be wresting control of those price points from the few with political power and putting it in the hands of the many who will ultimately have to die to protect what is theirs. Unfortunately, trading with despots means the beneficial incentives are only on one side of the equation.

              1. What payoff in recent US war since wars with Britain outweighed the costs? Last I checked if there is too much questioning we just start a draft. We still owe for about every war we’ve been in.

                1. Swamp, I totally agree with you. But the people making the decisions don’t bear the cost. Colonialism is an extreme example of this. Britain sends a bunch of relatively poor soldiers to India in order to extract wealth that then came back to a handful of aristocrats. Yeah, there are direct costs like supporting an army overseas. But those costs are offset by taxes sourced from the entire empire, not just their pockets.

                  When a bunch of Military Industrial CEOs agitate for war in the orient, they stand to make all sorts of money on arms and logistics. They don’t bear that cost fully- the whole country does. And the willing citizens of that democracy generally don’t bear the full cost any more than they bear the full cost of welfare when they call for it. It is always the other guy who either gets stiffed, or is forced to pay more than the person pulling the lever.

              2. Nations go to war when the people making those decisions see the payoff outweighing the costs. When your populace is largely disenfranchised, sending them to die to get you 10% more profit on your trade route makes rational sense. When your privileged place as a leader of a country depends on the prospects of a few corporate leaders, not those people about to go die on your behalf, your calculus changes accordingly.

                It is not that simple. If leaders thought like that there would be fewer wars and we would be much richer. Nations go to war when their leaders or people decide to. And contrary to libertarian belief man is not homo economicus and will often do things for emotional reasons or out of principle that will make him poorer.

      2. Whoa, no they didn’t. There was high taxes placed on imports… European countries have never liked each other, and always engaged in some sort of infighting. Socialism was popular pre-1914 in Europe.

        1. To the contrary, I quote from the Economics Library website:

          “Since these treaties were all Most Favored Nation treaties?whereby concessions to one party meant extending such concessions to all the others?not just France and Britain, but by 1870 nearly all of Europe including the German states, Spain, Russia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and so on were integrated into a highly open trading market. In many ways, Europe was freer than today, partly because the gold standard made capital extremely mobile, and because limitations in border control made immigration and the free movement of labor easy in practice despite differing rules across the continent.”

          http://www.econlib.org/library…..trade.html

  8. Didn’t you run this shitpile of an article last week? It’s bad enough we get new shit from Dalmia, but her leftovers smell even worse.

  9. and, above all, his militant protectionism will mean more war, not less.

    Right because if Trump slaps a tarriff on Indian manufactured chipsets, the Indians will respond with an invasion of the east coast and will immediately slaughter their ethnic minorities.

    1. YOU’VE EXPOSED THEIR BOLD PLAN!

    2. Sorry to dash your hopes, but the Indians will have no more success reining in the East Coast elite than Americans did.

  10. I am now voting for Trump.

      1. that should have read “WLECOME ABROAD”

        1. WE’VE GOT THE GREATEST BROADS

        2. I welcome broads . Hot ones anyway. No fat chicks, and no uggos.

  11. Protectionism may lead to war in places where you’ve got countries packed together like, well, most every continent except North America. But I really don’t see how protectionist policies would lead to the US being involved in more war. That’s not an endorsement of protectionism. After all, protectionism is little more than a self-imposed embargo. When one country prevents another country from engaging in trade, it is an act of war. When a government prevents its own citizens from engaging in trade, it somehow changes to something wonderful. Whatever. It’s a dumb article.

    1. It’s a dumb article.

      Coulda told you that just from the byline.

  12. Shikha, when Trump’s wall fell

    1. Don’t listen to TW, he just liked Janeway better.

  13. The libertarian case for Hillary continues!!

    Did Shikha get her talking points directly from the Hillary campaign? Is this story timed to run just a bit after Hillary’s foreign policy speech.

    Also to spin this a different way, Hillary has already fucked up the middle east beyond reason, so of course she’d be way better than Donald. I mean we know she learns…. oh heck I can’t even finish that sentence….

    1. “Hillary has already fucked up the middle east beyond reason, so of course she’d be way better than Donald”

      Fucked up? What are you talking about? Arms sales are up by more than 10% since the Bush administration, thanks in large part to Clinton’s work at the State Department.

      1. Right yeah that’s the bad part…

      2. never mind the part about the broken Libya or how she and her boss presided over the rise of ISIS in Iraq. And there’s that on-going thing in Afghanistan where Americans keep dying. But Halliburton has done well, far better than it did under the evil Booooosh.

        1. “never mind the part about the broken Libya”

          Libyans don’t vote in US elections for the most part. Who cares.

          “And there’s that on-going thing in Afghanistan where Americans keep dying.”

          Americans are dying in America, too. Who cares. What’s important is that Afghanistan is still produces some 90% of of the world’s opium. Getting a hold of heroin has probably never been easier.

  14. So let me get this straight. Hillary has a history or warmongering. Trump doesn’t. But he might because he plays a blowhard on TV. So I shouldn’t vote for trump?

    Reason’s stupid hard on for Trump continues. I’ll be thinking about you guys when I pull the lever.

  15. I am not sure I would have gone with the Tony Soprano analogy when the other likely choice is the head of a corrupt racket.

    1. Why not? It’s what she did last week:

      https://reason.com/blog/2016/05…..s-trumps-t

    2. Tony Soprano analogy? Was she talking about the Clintons? Because that would make sense given their activities.

      1. It is in the last paragraph on the mobile app version. Essentially putting Trump in charge of foreign policy is like putting Soprano in charge of the Justice Department to fight corruption.

        1. Putting Hillary n charge is like letting Phil Leotardo win the mob war.

  16. Every year I made a sizable donation to the Reason Foundation through payroll deduction.

    Except I didn’t do that this year. I don’t like this product enough to support it anymore. Emotional hit pieces made at the direction of DC’s Media Plantation owners. This is just gross.

    1. Shikha, Richman and Suderman, as well as all the obnoxious ads gumming up the website, are the reasons I stopped donating.

      1. Don’t forget Chapman, and his Hillary loving ways.

        1. As the zoo monkey told Ren (when he and Stimpy snuck into cages to enjoy a life of ease and plenty) “Yooooou! and your City-monkey ways.”

      2. I stopped when they briefly instituted a paywall for some articles and have yet to find a good reason to resume. I’ve since channeled those donations to the 2nd Amendment Foundation and the Foundation for Economic Education.

  17. That subheading was pretty on the nose, even for Shikha.

    There’s about a 1% chance I vote Trump over Gary, but there’s no question to me he’s better than Hillary, and probably than any Republican he beat except Rand, on this topic. Only thing is, I prioritize economy and domestic liberty over foreign policy when voting, and Trump’s horrific on those.

      1. I’m guessing Gary Johnson.

  18. Excellent article as always. Trump’s message is: “You deserve to get paid 10x what they pay workers in China even though they work harder and are better education. Because Murika.” People fall for it. Of course he wants to launch new witch hunts and wars. That’s his appeal. When he says “I’m the most militaristic person here, believe me” – believe him. When he says, “But you knew I was a snake when you let me in” – indeed we did.

    1. dajjal,
      “…”I’m the most militaristic person here, believe me” – believe him.”
      That does not automatically translate into waging war.

      “…even though they work harder and are better education. You meant “educated.” FTFY
      You must have been referring to yourself, Shikha.

    2. “You deserve to get paid 10x what they pay workers in China even though they work harder and are better education. Because Murika.” This might be wrong,

      On the other hand, “you deserve to get paid Chinese-scale wages for working in conditions like those of the Chinese because they have no choice but to put up with it” is not going to an easy sell to Americans.

    3. Trump’s message is: “You deserve to get paid 10x what they pay workers in China even though they work harder and are better education. Because Murika.”

      And that’s different from Clinton or Sanders… how?

  19. All of which ignores an important distinction. Trump may be a clown. I certainly think he is. But if he gets us into a war it’s likely to be deliberate. Shrillary is an idiot. She is nowhere near as smart as she thinks she is, and her international diplomacy chops are virtually nonexistent. In a way, I wish people would concentrate less on her email folic]ness and more on her sheer incompetence as SecState. Like Obama, Shrillary will blunder us into war, and like Obama she will have no clue what she is doing, no idea how to further her ends, and no hope of bringing matters to a close.

    To be fair (though I’m not sure why I should bother) Trump isn’t likely to do a great deal better. He’s no Patton, or even Eisenhower. But I think he has some slight clue. Shrillary doesn’t even know which street corner to hang out on to buy one.

    1. Trump would be less likely to get us into a big war for no other reason than he is an unknown and our enemies are likely to be cautious with him. Hillary in contrast is a known blunderer and weakling. Putin and Iran and China and the rest have long since sized up Hillary and will no doubt feel even more emboldened than they are now.

      There is of course the other issue of blackmail. Only Hillary and the foreign intelligence services of our enemies know what was on that private server. How much leverage that gives them is anyone’s guess, though it is likely a lot. How that doesn’t automatically disqualify her for the office is beyond me.

      1. How that doesn’t automatically disqualify her for the office is beyond me.

        Because “D”. And VAGINA. See?

      2. But Putin & Kim say they like Trump.

        1. Neither one wants to listen to that bitch run her mouth.

  20. WHYCOM COSMOS NO ATTK HITLRY

    1. Arms sales are up by more than 10% since the Bush administration, thanks in large part to Clinton’s work at the State Department.

      1. So the Jews should stop whining, right? Some number less than 6 million of them were murdered, after all, right?

        1. Up by more than 10%. That’s arms sales. Whining Jews remain constant.

          1. the arms sales vs donations to the crime foundation. Hmmm. Probably coincidence.

        2. Whats wrong, Warty? Did you wear out your caps lock key?

          1. You don’t want to be taking the side of a Holocaust-denying Maoist. I’m pretty sure about that.

            1. “You don’t want to be taking the side…”

              Warty wants you to side with the stupid. I’m pretty sure about that.

            2. I’m just curious if there’s a problem with your keyboard.

        3. Some number less than 6 million of them were murdered, after all, right?

          Not by Americans, AFAIK.

    2. Dude, even you have got to be tired of running this jejune schtick five times a day. Any reasonable person can see these ridiculous, five-a-day hit pieces are completely out of control. Where is Reason’s edge? Where is the unique perspective we’re used to? Lost to The Capitol, I guess.

      1. COSMOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

        So, hypothetically speaking, if we could pay Lew Rockwell to open up comments or something, would you and your dipshit fellow travelers fuck off to there?

        1. no, just keep on with the same ole same ole. People come here every day wondering what reason #242 is for not supporting Trump and, no doubt, #206 will shock me. Because the commentariat is full of Trumpkins. This is the same place that tried to make “the libertarian case for Bernie.” Fucking Bernie.

        2. What is your deal? It’s not my fault Reason mucked its house with nonstop emotional bile like this. Be mad that Reason’s originality has given way to All Trump All the Time hyperbole.

        3. Nope. Not going anywhere.

          I got plenty of seniority around here. If they want to drive me off, they’ll have to saddle up in their big boy pants and ban me.

      2. He’s an ‘intellectual’. Incoherent emoting is all he’s got.

  21. “…and the Communist threat is long gone.” Really? Not from within our borders it’s not.

    Has anyone seen a picture of Shikha? Does she look anything like Glenn Beck aka The Trump Basher? Hey, Shika. I hear the Blaze is hiring. Oh, wait. It was firing. Never mind.

    1. Burnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

    2. Which is why we need a return to McCarthyism

  22. SEIU backs Bernie’s single payer push.

    Which leads to an obvious question, what does the SEIU expect to get out of it? Last I heard, public-sector unions are a little distraught about the cadillac tax, to the point that Democrats were campaigning to repeal it last year. Is the SEIU hoping to move healthcare entirely off its own books and onto the feds’, or that they can carve out a more preferential niche with generous kickbacks under a Sanders-esque plan?

    1. what does the SEIU expect to get out of it? …

      … Is the SEIU hoping to move healthcare entirely off its own books and onto the feds’

      (touches nose)

      unfunded liabilities. wave them away.

      1. If I were a union member, I’d be screaming bloody murder. A single payer plan is going to be a clusterfuck of service rationing.

        1. But single payer employs lots and lots of union members, and of course they will be at the front of the lines.

        2. If I were a union member, I’d be screaming bloody murder.

          There are unions, and there are unions.

          SEIU contracts with the Govt. Their greatest risks to their contracts are local-govt insolvency. The most significant source of that insolvency is unfunded pension/health liabilities. If they can get the FedGov to swallow all the states obligations whole, they face diminished threat in the future.

          They (SEIU) are also themselves many of the workers delivering Govt healthcare = enlarging the employment market for their people means more power.

          its like an onion of self-dealing. layers upon layers. You’re right tho, that other unions which have for years traded pay for lavish contract-benefits will squeal. but they don’t have the political pull of SEIU

    2. Unions all endorse Bernie, and then vote Hillary.

  23. Don’t Canada and the USA engage in all sorts of ‘protectionist’ rhetoric and policies all the time while having signed NAFTA?

    Free trade! Protectionism! Taste great! Less filling!

    But still no war.

    The Battle of Lake Tippeecanoe is a myth!

    1. tastes.

      Whatev.

    2. That is a great point. It is pretty amazing the US has gotten over those horrible bloody wars we fought with you Cannuks before the miracle of NAFTA. Right?

      1. Backstabbing Yanks. Pay me my lumber!

    3. Rufus, I really wish the hawks won out and we had taken Canada in the war of 1812. Commodore Perry would have whooped ass. I have no idea what I’m talking about. USA USA

    4. Re: Rufus The Monocled Derp Slayer,

      Don’t Canada and the USA engage in all sorts of ‘protectionist’ rhetoric and policies all the time while having signed NAFTA?

      El Trumpo and the Trumpistas are not talking about small squabbles over minutiae. They’re talking about engaging in economic nationalism.

      1. Oh noes! Economic policies that benefit the nation! America First! How horrible!

  24. No one can predict what any of the assholes will do. Other than a general drive towards their own personal climb into higher echelons of aristocracy. Why do people even bother quoting candidates anymore anyway? They either say whatever dumb shit they are thinking at the moment, before they get some more facts and change their minds. Or they have speech writers and consultants craft statements for them in a purely cynical attempt to manipulate voters and win the election.

    Of course I know the answer, the election alone is a billion dollar industry. And news media is even bigger. There’s money to be made in repeatedly failing to predict the future.

  25. *pops popcorn, gets ready to enjoy the shit-show*

  26. Maybe Reason is just salty that Trump was against the Iraq War when Reason was cheerleading it.

  27. Heard on a call-in radio show ten minutes ago:

    *slowly articulated by an obviously elderly woman* “I am an African American woman and I am voting for Trump. He isnt a racist. Those protesters who burn the American flag and call Mr. Trump ugly names and call America ugly names are the racists. I saw them flying a foreign flag and burning our American flag.”

    I don’t see much mention of Hillary being an outright war monger. No video of her laughing about Ghadaffi. It is too late. People have already seen the news reports from Europe, 8 years of Obama and 4 years of Hillary. All the shilling in the world won’t change that.

    1. It turned out she wasn’t African American?

    2. “I am an African American woman and I am voting for Trump.”

      The oldest trick in the book. Just call up your local radio station and claim to be an African American Woman voting for Trump. You’ll get through every time.

  28. I am making $98/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $12 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website…
    _____________________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  29. Dalmia should just post a video of herself screaming “I hate Trump!” over and over again. It would have as much intellectual content and be more honest..

  30. Even a hawk like Hillary Clinton can see that Trump is […]

    Now there’s an unbiased opinion!

  31. “The world expected President Obama to bring peace. Instead, he made war.”

    He has? How many land invasions of ME countries has Reason.com got the chance to advocate for legal marijuana during the Obama Administration

    http://icasualties.org

    1. Re: American Stultified,

      He has?

      Yes. HE made war. And is still doing war. There’s no declaration of war against ISIS yet the US is bombing them. The US bombed Libya which helped oust Qaddafi; now you have ISIS in Libya.

      How many land invasions of ME countries has Reason.com got the chance to advocate for legal marijuana during the Obama Administration

      The question makes no sense. Care to rephrase it?

  32. Way to go Shikha, you’re convincing me to vote. BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

  33. Excellent article. I would drop the last sentence, though.

  34. I’v hardly visited Reason since they’ve been hitting on Trump. Actually ive let my subscription run out too. I used to enjoy it here.

  35. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ???????? http://Usatoday.nypost55.com

  36. RE: Trump Is a Bellicose Fool Who’ll Make War, Not Love

    I always find it fascinating that the chickenhawks in the republican party, who have never served in USA’s armed forces, are always so bellicose and prone to war at the slightest provocation.
    Maybe it’s because they can’t make love any more.
    Are there any psychologists out there than refute or affirm my hypothesis?

  37. Yeah, Make Love-Not War, has worked out so well for us.

  38. Face it, this a Sophie’s Choice election. There are no good candidates running in either main party or with any of the third party candidates?this cycle that includes the Libertarian Party. At this point it is the least bad candidate, the evil you know versus the evil you don’t. Just because one candidate is bad doesn’t mean the other candidate is better. In this instance while one is bad the other is far worse, how you decide depends on where you stand.

  39. i am no fan of Trump but i do know that YOU are an open borders Anarchist……….

    1. Ranrod, shouldn’t you be polluting the Federalist’s comment threads?

  40. Not so post-Soviet Russia did not cease its serial invasions as the fate of Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Chechnya prove.

    Wars of dictators in Europe stop at the NATO border.

  41. and you are sufficiently deluded to think ANY of the other options will, indeed, make peace? The two Dummicraps are committed to making war, as they haave strong ties to the war machine. Johnson is looking more and more leaning that way as well. His social policies aren’t that much different than the Bern’s…. hairbrained, both of them

    Trump may well have a “hair trigger” temper wise, but his long track record in business tells me he’s at least aware of it, and some of the messes it can get him into. If he chooses good “team mates” while he’s NOT riled up, and trusts/consults with them when appropriate, I rather doubt he’ll be banking the war drums as loudly as you suggest. So far, I like his relationship and understanding ot Putin. He’s obviously (Putin) been made out to be a power monger by the present regimes, principally because he, Putin, does not play the way the kinyun likes…. that megalomaniac wants to control everything, and some of that control is antithetical to Putin’s commitment to his own people. Putin is a WHOLE lot smarter than either the present hooh hahs or the press allow him to appear. Nor is he the war monger he’s accused of being. Trump knows this, and is not fooled by the charade. The others? They despise and hate Putin as much as the kinyun does.

    1. Trump may well have a “hair trigger” temper wise,

      So, for that matter, does Clinton.

  42. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>> http://www.realcash44.com

  43. While I’d never vote for Trump, consider that the DC elite of both major parties, would rather have Clinton, for she has shown – while in power – to be willing to wage war – any place, any time, for any unreason.

    Clinton’s thirst for blood and power is insatiable .

  44. Shikha, when the walls fell!

    There are a great many problems with the article. I am not surprised.

    I’ll just hit the root problem. Trump isn’t starting a trade war, and he isn’t closing down our ports. He’s starting a trade negotiation. The goal is to open China’s market, not close ours.

    Trump’s Position Paper on Trade With China

    Our goal is not protectionism but accountability. America fully opened its markets to China but China has not reciprocated. Its Great Wall of Protectionism uses unlawful tariff and non-tariff barriers to keep American companies out of China and to tilt the playing field in their favor.

    1. Reciprocity is nice, but both Trump and Clinton err in their belief that it is necessary. If China imposes high import tariffs, they are hurting their own people, not us.

  45. Hillary is far more likely to get us into war than Trump. Johnson has no chance but could give Hillary the elections. I strongly dislike Trump, but I am voting for him anyway. In my local elections I am voting libertarian wherever one is running, but I am voting for Trump because Hillary is a disaster.

  46. So? Clinton Is a Bellicose Fool Who’ll Make War, Not Love. Unlike Trump, Clinton will already know how to do it.

    Our next president will be Clinton or Trump; if you want to decide between them, enumerating all the ways in which each candidate is horrible will hardly help. You have to put all the shit each of them says on or the other side of the scale and see which one is heavier.

  47. I’m voting for Johnson, but if my only two choices were Clinton or Trump, it’s Trump all day. Trump is a braggart and a blowhard who has abused the laws of the land to make money and says mean things. Clinton is a braggart and a blowhard who has broken the laws of the land to make money and gain power, made a dog’s dinner of our already shitty foreign policy, embarrassed us before the world (which takes some doing), and will almost certainly involve us in a major land war.

  48. Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly… By completing freelance jobs you get online… I do this three hours every day, for five da?ys weekly and I earn in this way an extra 12000 bucks each week…

    i work through this Website.. Go Here.._____________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  49. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  50. 3″My friend just told me about this easiest method of freelancing. I’ve just tried it and now II am getting paid 15000usd monthly without spending too much time. you can also do this.

    ……………http://www.Maxcenter20.com

  51. 3″My friend just told me about this easiest method of freelancing. I’ve just tried it and now II am getting paid 15000usd monthly without spending too much time. you can also do this.

    ……………http://www.Maxcenter20.com

  52. What the heck do you think all these “free trade agreements” are all about?

    They are all negotiations where the cronies on all sides, the big state-blessed elite incorporated plutocrats, made sure their own interests were favored. Two ruling classes agreeing to join in oppressing the rest of us. War by stealth. “He shall take the kingdom by flatteries”, it says in Daniel of the Antichrist.

    Like Ron Paul said, free trade requires on paragraph: No tariffs, full stop.

    So Trump is only saying he’ll do the same thing only better. But with a smaller military footprint, we’ll see. Europe, Japan, South Korea, they only take American “protection” because it’s free, but they’re getting tired of it. South Korea tried to develop its own nuclear deterrent to match North Korea’s, but US commanders got wind of it and stomped on it.

    It’s totally insane to expect Hildabeast to be any less bellicose than she’s always been. 10,000 dead in Towargah to testify to this.

    1. I meant “one paragraph”.

  53. 3″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 98usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do.

    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Today70.com

  54. 4″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better!Learn More From This Site…

    ======> http://www.Today70.com

  55. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  56. 4″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Learn More From This Site..

    ========> http://www.Today70.com

  57. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  58. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  59. my roomate’s step-mother makes 60 each hour on the internet and she has been out of work for seven months but last month her check was 14489 just working on the internet for 5 hours a day, look at ..
    Read more on this web site..

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.maxincome20.com

  60. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.selfcash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.