Donald Trump

Trump Denounces Clinton's Wars, Calls for a Military Buildup

In two speeches, the Republican candidate mixes the refreshing and the ridiculous.

|

Jason Keisling

"Sometimes it seemed like there wasn't a country in the Middle East that Hillary Clinton didn't want to invade, intervene in, or topple," Donald Trump declared in Philadelphia today. It was one of the better lines in a speech that, as is often the case when Trump talks about foreign policy, zig-zagged erratically between the refreshing and the ridiculous.

On the upside, the candidate decried the human and financial cost of Clinton's record in Iraq and Libya, said America's allies should share the burden of paying for their defense, and promised to "emphasize diplomacy, not destruction." On the downside, he sounded like a typical GOP hawk on Iran, threw in his usual fearful notes about immigration, and called for a massive military buildup, which he promoted not just on defense grounds but as a source of jobs and technological innovation. A great deal of the speech was devoted to pretending that the U.S. military, by far the most heavily funded fighting force in the world, is actually running on a shoestring. Like Hillary Clinton, he denounced the Pentagon sequester's already weakened limits on spending; a Trump presidency, he declared, would begin with him asking Congress to entirely eliminate those restraints. In a fiscal fantasy, he claimed he could "fully offset" these spending hikes while still protecting "hard-earned benefits for Americans" through such measures as collecting unpaid taxes, not replacing every retiring worker, and trimming bureaucratic waste.

Trump also pledged that as president he would immediately "ask my generals to present to me a plan within 30 days to defeat and destroy ISIS." This is becoming part of his standard repertoire: He made the same promise at a rally yesterday in Greenville, North Carolina. I've embedded that moment from the Greenville speech here, because it encapsulates both what's welcome and what's frustrating in Trump's foreign-policy vision:

Note how Trump progresses from that pledge to decrying "endless wars," and from there to deriding the competence of Clinton's foreign policy advisors, promising that his "top military experts" will "know how to win," and then circling back to denouncing "this endless war, the war that's been going on forever and draining our country." He echoes the war-weariness of so much of the country, but his alternative is merely a vague promise to win. He suggests—rightly—that Clinton's foreign policy team isn't about to extract us from Washington's endless interventions abroad, but his payoff is just a pledge that his Top Men will be better. He acknowledges a problem that other GOP nominees would never have touched, but he can't enunciate a radically different vision. (At least he didn't praise torture this time.)

As distinctly Trumpian as that moment was, it also sparks memories of several politicians of the past. The let's-get-our-best-experts-together-and-ask-them-what-to-do rhetoric was a mainstay for Ross Perot, a man often cited as a precursor to Trump (though Perot was much more of a deficit hawk and also more of a foreign-policy dove). And Trump's gather-the-generals, get-a-plan, win-and-get-out thoughts on ISIS are almost identical to George Wallace's rhetoric about Vietnam. "So I would go to the Joint Chiefs of Staff," Wallace would say, "and I would ask them, 'Can we win this war with conventional weapons?' And if they said yes, I would make full use of the country's conventional weapons to quickly end this war and bring our boys home."

I blogged about the parallels between Trump and Wallace's foreign policies last week, but Trump's remarks yesterday sounded so Wallace-like that I just have to underline the point today. Watch that video of Trump above, and then watch this Wallace ad from 1968:

Trump's foreign policy may not be entirely coherent, but it belongs to a coherent tradition.

NEXT: Sorry, Peter Thiel, but We Don't Need a Manhattan Project for Everyday Life

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. Still better than Hillary.

    1. So is scurvy, but I’m not voting for it.

      1. What about Cholera? I think I could vote for that.

      2. What do you have against scurvy?

    2. Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for $25470 this 8-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least $92 per hour. Go to this website and click tech tab to start your own business…. http://goo.gl/LtI1C0

  2. Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

    Or does Reason side with ISIS? #Trump2016

    1. Beaten to the Latin punch.

      Of course, once you have a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. Its a dilemma.

  3. OT: http://thefederalist.com/2016/…..cans-lazy/

    And then he went on vacation and golfed moar.

    1. It’s always projection with the left.

  4. I’m trying to think of a dollar amount which could induce me to listen attentively to a speech by either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I’m not having much success.

    1. “Everybody has their price…hahahahahaha!”

      /Ted Dibiase

      1. And if you’re lucky, the subsequent chair-over-the-head from Virgil causes you to forget the speech entirely.

    2. If I were in private practice, I’d probably be billing between $500 and $800 an hour. So, I’d do it for the bargain price of $750/hour. Plus expenses. Which would mostly be a bottle of top-shelf Scotch.

  5. Eh, I dunno. “Kill them all, Allah will know his own” sounds a hell of a lot better and less bloody than “Middle East Democracy Simulator: Special Theocracy Edition” has been so far.

    1. Sounds better, yes. But:

      1) Kill ISIS. Unless you kill them to literally the last man, they’ll remerge as something else. Let’s call them ODIN.

      2) Kill ODIN. Unless you kill them to literally the last man, they’ll remerge as something else. Let’s call them DAVE.

      3) Kill DAVE. Unless you kill them to literally the last man, they’ll remerge as something else. Let’s call them FROG.

      …and on and on it goes. Meaning, you still haven’t solved the endless wars problem, and the ISIS sympathizers living among the mass of refugees go on to wreak havoc in places like Nice and San Bernadino and Fort Hood…

      What I’m saying is, we’re stuck with this shit for the foreseeable future whether or not we provide funding, use drone strikes, invade, conquer, what have you. The third option between “Kill ’em all” and “SimLevant” seems best, which is: “GTFO and let them fix this themselves”.

      1. Dave’s not here, man.

        1. A C&C reference? Damn.

      2. GTFO also needs to be combined with a KTTFO (Keep them the fuck out) or it’s not going to do any good. I know Cytotoxic will have a sad.

        1. This.

      3. They’re not going to fix it themselves, since “they” don’t see the problem in the first place. To simplify:

        1) The Middle East has already tried modernism and secularism in some form or another and by and large found it lacking. Secularism ain’t really in the cards, outside a few pockets here and there. Best we can hope for is a benign religiously-influenced government to emerge.

        2) ISIS is going to seem like a good way forward for Sunni Muslims to the degree that they are effective at exerting their will and expanding their Caliphate. They’ll still exist if we reduce them to an online presence and clandestine cells, sure, but in much smaller numbers and less people will be inclined to join them. There is historically a benefit to eliminating conventional threats and states when they prove to be belligerent. The problem will always be there, but not always at the same magnitude depending on our response.

        3) They’ve already attacked us and have stated an intent to do so again. Most libertarians would allow for a violent response to aggression. At a minimum, violent reprisal will impose a cost on ISIS that they will have to consider when they attack us.

        1. Secularism is a mixed bag in the Middle East. On the one hand, the place it has been most ardently tried, Turkey, had a really bizarre version of it that amounted to a personality cult. On the other hand, every time somewhere in the ME (and North Africa) has leaned secular, their situation has improved. The problem is that there always seem to be fanatics lurking in the hills (metaphorically or literally) and they can usually count on a significant share of the population to support them. It’s notable that Islamism is socialism in religious trappings (with no small share of barbarism, to boot).

          1. On the other hand, every time somewhere in the ME (and North Africa) has leaned secular, their situation has improved

            [citation needed]

            Egypt was plenty secular for a long time; same with Afghanistan, Iran and plenty of other places in the MENA region. There were some real problems with those places that didn’t just amount to their version of Southern Baptists being pissed by the secular utopia that was upon them.

            Hell, secularism as it’s practiced now isn’t particularly valued or working great in the US and Europe; why would a Muslim look at our respective neuroses and think that’s the way to go?

            1. Also:

              Most of the secularists in MENA are hardcore socialists. Only a fraction are capitalists, and generally speaking capitalist-friendly economic reforms have come about through authoritarian rather than democratic regimes and are disliked for the same reasons most conservatives dislike capitalism (weakening of social bonds, more displays of perceived immorality in the public square, etc)

            2. I suppose Somalia’s communist era is a potent counterexample to what I said, but you’re forgetting that the situation I’m talking about is relative. What country was materially improved by adopting Islamism?

              1. Methinks “materially improved” misses the point. Socially, the movement towards Islamism has resulted in institutions, fraternities and brotherhoods in the Middle East that are very good for the people who participate in them. This also has material effects and, since the secular government and society have failed so miserably, now political effects as well. Islamism encourages anti-materialist values and in any case does a decent job of providing for material needs through aforementioned organizations. These institutions are ascendant and thriving and secular institutions are moribund. We don’t even have to get into the extremism of Somalian and Afghan communism (though they probably didn’t help); it’s just the case that religious communities have created community and thus are creating community norms in sympathy with their own values.

                All of this is compatible with capitalism, with countries like Bahrain doing very well in the Heritage Economic Freedom Index while being very conservative in their politics.

        2. The Middle East has already tried modernism and secularism in some form or another

          This needs to be emphasized. In the 50s through, the 70s or so, almost the entire ME was Westernizing. Look at pictures of Afghanistan in that era, and you’ll see women wearing Western clothes, etc.

          Then it all went to Allah shit. The likelihood that mere exposure to Western culture will secularize the region runs into some historical facts to the contrary.

          1. Not necessarily. The problem is that a lot of the secular, modern governments were corrupt dictatorships propped up by the U.S or the U.S.S.R. So religious leaders became a popular alternative in many countries for those speaking out against corruption, leading to a false dichotomy in many country between a corrupt modern state and a theocracy.

            1. I was thinking more social than governmental, and my general impression is that the tide of Westernization in the ME peaked and has been receding. Whatever attraction it has is apparently insufficient in those societies.

            2. The answer seems obvious: Support the religious leaders so that popular support falls and then ignore the secular leaders.

      4. Historically, terrorizing the extremist factions of Islam has been the only effective way of keeping them from terrorizing you. If there is a strong presence, firmly stepping on necks, they fade into the hills where they mostly trouble outlying villages. Do we have the temperament to do that? Not yet. But we will; long before the camel-pestering swine manage to bring down the West they will have changed the West into something that can deal with them. That won’t be good for them OR us.

      5. So you need to kill them to the last man. Yet, somehow we are not pestered by Nazi terrorists, Mussolini Fasci terrorists or Japanese Servants of the Emperor terrorists….

  6. The root of productivity increases is laziness.

    USA! USA! USA!

  7. It seems fairly straight-forward.

  8. Yes, we need to utterly destroy ISIS. Then we need to attack and disable the countries that staff and fund it (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey) so it can’t be resurrected. Then we need to round up the citizens of our own country that founded it in the first place. We gotta do it folks, we have no choice.

    1. If we attack Saudi Arabia, we win. Then the Hadj is OUR problem. I’d rather try to rule Ireland.

  9. Come on, people. Who cares what a presidential candidate says about war? I mean, it’s not like they can declare war without Congress.

    Sheesh.

    1. Okay, I chuckled.

    2. *snerk*

  10. called for a massive military buildup, which he promoted not just on defense grounds but as a source of jobs and technological innovation.

    So he is a true conservative!

    Trump also pledged that as president he would immediately “ask my generals to present to me a plan within 30 days to defeat and destroy ISIS.”

    That is an easy way to punt on the issue as well, which he likes to do.

    1. I don’t see how that is punting. Do you expect him to plan it? The interesting thing about that statement is that he says to “defeat and destroy ISIS”. Note what he doesn’t say. He doesn’t say “stabilize Iraq” or “bring peace to Syria” or any other amorphous bullshit goal. He gives an attainable and defined military goal. Defeat and destroy ISIS is something the military can do.

      If he actually means that, it would be a huge improvement over the last three presidents.

      1. I don’t see how that is punting. Do you expect him to plan it?

        He can punt on the issue, which is something he has been apt to do. Will he? I have no idea.

        Defeat and destroy ISIS is something the military can do.

        The military cannot defeat an ideology.

        1. The military cannot defeat an ideology.

          I seem to recall two ideologies defeated by the military sometime in the last century. Of course, they had wrapped themselves in nation-states, but that is exactly what ISIS has also attempted to do.

          1. Hasn’t the US been trying to defeat some strain of “militant Islam” since 2001?

            1. Nope. Mostly not really trying to defeat Islam. Especially in the past 8 years. Just operating a holding pattern under ridiculous ROE and driving up and down god-forsaken highways waiting to be shot at or blown up.

          2. There are still plenty of Nazis running around as well as Communists.

              1. Japan’s ideology was imperialism. There’s still plenty of that left as well. In fact, isn’t that what ISIS is?

                1. It’s impossible to defeat and destroy ISIS with our military, because while ISIS is evil, another strain will pop up.

                  The US military could destroy the new strain(s) before they become powerful – and maybe they should and should have – but the ideology is always going to exist.

            1. I was talking about Nazis and the imperial Japanese.

              I don’t think “defeat” means “eradicate to the third generation”. The Nazis hold power nowhere, and are a lunatic fringe at this point. Plenty defeated enough for me.

              Same with the imperial Japanese. Sure, there’s still an emperor, but the militant/racist imperial Japanese ideology is history, outside of whatever lunatic fringe persists. Japan’s ideology wasn’t generic imperialism (nobody supports imperialism as a matter of principle by everyone on the planet), it was a very particular flavor of imperialism. And its gone.

              1. Two nukes and how many years of nation building in Japan? And there were a limited number of aristocratic Japanese. Despite the fantasies of some people on the board, we will actually create a certain number of radicalized Muslims while trying to “Kill them all.”

                1. True enough, Sug, that the defeat of both these ideologies involved some nation-building. Although I wonder if the Nazis or the imperial Japanese would have staged a comeback without the nation-building.

                  Nonetheless, the idea that the military can’t defeat an ideology strikes me as pablum on par with “violence never solved anything.” To the contrary, violence has solved many a problem, including, from time to time, ideologies.

                2. You don’t have to “kill them all”, you just have to kill enough of them so that they realize further resistance is useless.

                3. we allowed the Emperor of Japan to continue his reign until he passed away in 1989. if we had dropped a nuke on his palace and killed the Emperor Hirohito, would the Japanese still be fighting us today ? if we had sent millions of Americans to seize their lands and occupy Tokyo would the Japanese have created terrorist networks to kill the invading westerners ?

                  Emperor Hirohito survived longer than the USSR, but he did order his followers to drop their arms and allow the US occupation. His support of the US occupation certainly made it less violent than it would have been. 1945 was the first time anyone in Japan had ever heard his voice on the radio, when he told the Japanese people to surrender.

    2. *That is an easy way to punt on the issue as well, which he likes to do.*

      Please explain to the class all the times Politician Trump has “punted” on an “issue”.

  11. Reason does itself no favors by constantly arguing for the false dichotomy of constant war or weakness. No. Peace through strength works. You have a big and powerful military so that you don’t have to use it. How large our military should be is related to but not dependent upon how often and under what circumstances we should wage war overseas. You can support a strong military as a way of avoiding war.

    By claiming anyone who supports a strong military must therefore support using it whenever the opportunity arises, reason just discredits the case against intervention by associating it with being defenseless.

    1. John, your premise isn’t wrong but: is our military not up to the ideal of “Too big to fuck with” right now? How much more do we need to realize the ideal of peace through strength?

      I’ll grant you that I don’t know much about the military, but it seems like our military is very far beyond adequate right now.

      1. Is it? Sticking a bunch of technology of an F-22 Raptor might make defense contractors happy, and might make U.S. military spending greater then the next 40 countries combined, but it doesn’t necessarily make our military more effective.

        We spend an assload of money on defense, we also spend an assload of money on education, and how are those grades looking?

        1. I wasn’t addressing the effectiveness of the military. John’s argument seems to be, and I trust he’ll clarify this if I’m wrong, that you build a military so huge that people will be too intimidated to move against you. It seems that we have satisfied the “build to colossal levels” part of the deal.

          1. “It seems that we have satisfied the “build to colossal levels” part of the deal.”

            Isn’t this unprovable though? Several foreign militaries are getting bolder with their interactions.

            http://www.reuters.com/article…..SKCN11D27X
            http://www.reuters.com/article…..SKCN11C1TL

            So either the US military isn’t colossal enough or military size doesn’t always matter.

            1. The military is big enough. Its the lack of leadership which invites these challenges.

              1. That sounds right

          2. I think that the theory that a big enough military will keep people from fighting with you has been pretty well disproved by the last 15 years or so of experience. There is no way you can claim that the US military is or has been too weak in the past 70 years or so at least.

            1. I should have read yours before commenting. its more concise

          3. based on your premise our military is a giant compared to Alquida but they still targeted us maybe they were taking the Japanese gambit of they won’t come after we bomb pearl harbor. From that I would also ask how large is large enough when at its present size its clearly large enough.

            Maybe I should say ever been bitten by an ant even though man is clearly larger than the ant. Size does not matter to the crazy or the cornered. Was Osama cornered , no, so he was crazy.

        2. I’m no expert on military matters, but it seems to be that despite all the waste and handouts to the MIC, the US military is plenty capable of doing pretty much anything that a modern military should be able to do very quickly and effectively. It’s the political leaders who don’t use it effectively. All this limited engagement all over the place is what is counterproductive and wasteful.

          Seems to me that if you are going to use the military, you need to just kill the fuck out of the enemy until they are defeated. Otherwise, stay out of it. I tend to come down on the “stay out” side of things. But if you are going to do something, do it properly.

        3. While your statement is perhaps true, I see no reason to believe that spending more money is going to result in anything other than more of the same. I need to see some more concrete reform proposals, first.

      2. You need two things:

        (1) A big enough military. Surely we have this, although its been deteriorating for a little while.

        (2) The willingness to use it. Here, honestly, not so much. Obama doesn’t use the conventional military – he uses special forces and (illegally) armed intelligence assets.

        I suppose there’s a third, as well. Namely, a strategic vision of what the goddam military is for. Which we haven’t had in quite some time.

    2. Having a strong military always leads to war, because the kinds of people who seek political power will always put a strong military to use. It’s human nature.

      1. I disagree. Having a weak military leads to war more often as other countries misinterpret our weakness and eventually do something that causes a war.

        1. …. by countries with strong militaries. Weird how that works.

          1. Yes and countries with weak militaries never declare war on stronger countries. Certainly no small upstart nation would have been willing to declare war on the British Empire during it’s height like saying during the year 1812 for example.

            1. It’s a little different when the strong country is actively enslaving your people and working to prevent you from success as a nation. Self defense and preserving independence are pretty good reasons to fight a strong enemy.

              1. Or busy fighting Napoleon in Europe.

          2. To quote Talladega Nights:

            “If you ain’t first, ‘yer last.”

            This seems to track with my view of John.

        2. It takes two militaries to have a war. If we have the strong one, at least its up to us.

      2. Um how strong is ISIS’s military? or Israel’s or Syria’s, or Jordan’s, etc… I don’t think strong armies are what lead to wars. Compare the stability in a country like China vs say Syria, or Libya, or Jordan for example.

        1. I imagine that Tibet would be very interested to hear about this stability in China thing. I’m not sure they were ever officially asked if they wanted to be part of China, but now look at them! Being all stable and shit, against their will and all. It’s not as if their former leader had to leave the country and live in India.

          Oh…

          1. That doesn’t change the point that despite having a weak military these countries still have people bent on going to war. And China is still more stable then Syria or Libya, or half the middle east.

            1. Having your ‘big power military’ pointed directly at the heads of the citizens they control tends to have a stabilizing influence, it’s true.

    3. Did you miss the part where Trump said he wants a strong military AND he wants to go to war? Regardless of whether that is generally a wrong assumption to make — but please show me a country where a strong military did NOT lead to warmongering amongst its leadership, saber-rattling and/or actual war (I’ll wait) — it’s clearly applicable here.

    4. Well, the U.S. wasn’t intended to have a standing army at all but like most things the United States has ‘evolved’ into something that’s 180 degrees from what was intended. I mean, really there’s no reason for you to have a gun since there’s a standing army. The two things were actually related but trying to get the Republicans to see reason on that issue has been a consistent failure for decades now if not centuries. Eventually they’ll come around and take away your guns, but obviously that wasn’t the intent of pointing out this bullshit.

  12. Needs MOAR Trump cake.

    http://nbc4i.com/2016/09/07/ba…..6-on-cake/

    1. I can’t believe Milo Yiannopolous hasn’t thought to order a Trump 2016 cake.

      1. “Daddy 2016” just doesn’t have the same impact.

        1. I see a line of subversive bumper stickers:

          Daddy 2016 for Trump

          Mommy 2016 for Hillary.

          I’m still waiting for someone to use the classic line from a Texas governor’s election, when Ann Richards (I think) was running against a man.

          “This election gives us a choice between a nut with two boobs, and a boob with two nuts.” I think its perfect for this year.

    2. Should make it a “Gays 4 Trump” cake, then sue for discrimination against gays if they refuse to make it.

      1. Alternatively, some random teenager with “Trump” for a last (or first?) name should ask for “Trump 16” on their 16th birthday cake, and then call out the bakery for being cruel and meanspirited when they refuse to do so.

  13. I know it is a topic that we aren’t suppose to talk about in the media but I would love to hear the candidates opinion on Yemen.. after 18 months of constant saudi bombing and blockade (stemming from a revolt against a BS HIllary sham election), Houthis, and Saleh forces have formalized alliance and have advanced INSIDE the kingdom, also firing a scud 800 km inside Saudi. Woud either come to the kingdoms defense with troops?

  14. OT: Assange: Clinton knew what a “C” in brackets was – she used it thousands of times, herself:

    “In the FBI report released Friday, I agree with your analysis, it is very strange that was released Friday afternoon on a Labor weekend,” Assange said. “I do think it draws questions to what sort of game the FBI is trying to play. … Hillary Clinton says that she can’t remember what a ‘C’ in brackets stands for. Everyone in positions of government and in WikiLeaks knows it stands for classified, confidential. And in fact, we have already released thousands of cables by Hillary Clinton?with a ‘C’ in brackets right there,” said Assange while producing one of the documents. “Thousands of examples, where she herself has used a ‘C’ in brackets, and signed it off, and more than 22,000 times that she has received cables from others with this ‘C’ in brackets. So, it’s absolutely incredible for Clinton to lie. She is lying about not knowing what that is, but it’s a bit disturbing that James Comey goes along with that game.”

    That’s a whoopsie.

    1. Not really. Comey knows if he doesn’t play ball it’s the Luca Brasi treatment for him or someone close to him.

      This is all so insane, no self respecting fiction writer could even bring themselves to write it.

      1. Exactly. She was already at a mustache-twirling, tied-up-the-girl-and-leave- her-on-the-railroad-tracks 20 years ago. Now she’s cartoonishly evil, like something from a Moorcock novel.

    2. Unless there’s a video of her saying she knows what the (C) means, she’ll keep denying it. Or even if there was. Someone else wrote the cables and ran it by her for approval. It was added afterwards by her typist. She added because that’s what the format guide said to do, but didn’t explain what it meant. And so on.

      1. I wouldn’t mind her continuing to paint herself as ignorant and incurious.

      2. She’s the most incompetent competent person in every room she’s never been in.

        Honestly just a video of all her excuses followed by a Urkel ‘Did I do that?’ should be all it takes to prove she’s either a liar or incompetent. I don’t even really care which one it is, they’re both disqualifying, but I know that the evil option is more likely.

  15. Is there never justif’n for gathering the experts & asking their counsel? I’m not saying that’s the case w Trump’s promise or Perot’s, but I could see situations in which extraneous agendas (partisan, venal, or other) could be preventing the appl’n of expertise, & that someone else who has no expertise but seeks it could sweep such an institutional obstacle to getting it away?

  16. Unintentionally funny OT: CNN has a story about a guy who killed his 15 yr old son, shot and critically wounded his ex-wife, then live-streamed his escape on Facebook, bragging about the crime. Immediately following the video was an ad for Facebook, claiming that only 1/2 the people on the earth have internet access, and is working to extend that reach.

  17. “round up the citizens of our own country that founded it in the first place”

    Didn’t Trump recently suggest that Obama founded ISIS? It sounds like you’re making an oblique threat against the President. But let’s see what Preet thinks.

    1. dajjal/AddictionMyth has made it pretty clear he thinks nobody has agency but Americans. Everything that’s wrong in the world is our fault (or, the fault of some of us), because nobody outside the U.S. ever has their own reasons for doing something.

    2. Crap, was supposed to be a response to the troll.

  18. I just got paid ?6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over ?9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do,……..
    http://WWW.ONLINE.INCOMEHINTS.ORG

  19. Trump is correct to denounce the Neocon wars. These military interventions have been a disaster for the United States and the world. One reason Hillary lost the primary election to Obama in 2008 was due to her support for the invasion of Iraq. The American people realized the Iraq war was a big mistake. Hillary wants to wage more wars and continue our failed policies of nation building in the Middle East.

  20. Honestly I like the Teddy Roosevelt “Speak softly and carry a big stick” idea he’s pushing. You could take the $ saved from non-intervention, apply half of it to deficit/debt reduction and still have a pile for R&D, training and force expansion….

  21. A pack of hungry pigs would probably curb ISIS’s zeal quite effectively. Cost effective too!

  22. 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.
    Please click the link below

    == http://www.Note50.com

  23. before I saw the paycheck which had said $4647 , I have faith that my mom in-law woz like they say realie taking home money part-time at there labtop. . there moms best frend has done this less than six months and just now repayed the mortgage on there home and got a great new Ford Mustang . more tips here ..
    –?????>>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  24. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do,

    ?? ? ? ? http://www.review40.com

  25. uptil I looked at the paycheck which had said $7458 , I did not believe that my brothers friend woz like actualy earning money parttime from their computer. . there neighbor has done this 4 only thirteen months and a short time ago paid for the morgage on their mini mansion and bourt a top of the range BMW M3 . more information..

    CLICK THIS LINK?? ? ? ? >> http://www.earnmax6.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.