Who is less neocon'ish on foreign policy? TRUMP or Hillary?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

There really isn't much daylight between the candidates when it comes to foreign policy, except with the key differences being TRUMP is against the IND while CLINTON is for it. Both support the utter destruction of ISIS, although they have different means to achieve it. Both see North Korea as a threat,

Trump was AGAINST the intervention in Iraq and Syria (before saying it is no necessary to get involved), while Clinton was a vocal proponent of both (and in Iraq's case voted FOR it).

Trump is now advocating for a "somewhat" noninterventionist foreign policy while Clinton  most definitely is not.

Clinton is to the RIGHT of Trump when it comes to Israel (which is shocking for a GOP candidate to be to the LEFT of a DEM candidate in that regard).

If I had to say? I'd say Trump is SLIGHTLY to the left of Clinton on FP matters, but barely, it's practically a tie, at least IMO

[Lief 🗽]

The one that isn't explicitly running on committing war crimes, repealing the Geneva Convention, and targeting innocent non-combatant relatives of terrorists, obviously.

[Santander]

The one that isn't explicitly running on committing war crimes, repealing the Geneva Convention, and targeting innocent non-combatant relatives of terrorists, obviously.

I feel that's more a matter of right and wrong rather than left and right.

[Maxwell]

Dumb way to look at this election. Not surprised who is posting this, though.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Trump is less liberal and also less of a neocon. 

liberal is generally defined within foreign policy as support for multilateralism and international institutions and promotion of some concept of human rights.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Only on Atlas would the architect of the Libyan intervention be considered a dove.

[Shadows]

Clinton is essentially a republican on foreign policy - She is to the right of Trump on many interventionist issues but Trump trumps her in having a fascination for torture & violence! She can argue Iraq was long ago & she was misled. But she went ahead as SOS & massacred Libya, killing so many, destroying a country & giving it to ISIS.

One reason I would never support Clinton is she has so much blood on her hands - So many lives she has murdered.

I am horrified that Trump speaks about killing Terrorists' families & water-boarding, it is disgusting. But that does not mean a mass murderer who took the lessons from Iraq & repeated it in Libya & wants to go ahead with a stupid no fly zone in Syria

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Dumb way to look at this election. Not surprised who is posting this, though.

Quite. If you look at foreign policy through the simplistic lens of "hawks" vs "doves" (or even "neocons" (lol) and "liberals") you're not going to get a useful answer.

Clinton is essentially a republican on foreign policy - She is to the right of Trump on many interventionist issues but Trump trumps her in having a fascination for torture & violence! She can argue Iraq was long ago & she was misled. But she went ahead as SOS & massacred Libya, killing so many, destroying a country & giving it to ISIS.

One reason I would never support Clinton is she has so much blood on her hands - So many lives she has murdered.

I am horrified that Trump speaks about killing Terrorists' families & water-boarding, it is disgusting. But that does not mean a mass murderer who took the lessons from Iraq & repeated it in Libya & wants to go ahead with a stupid no fly zone in Syria

lmao you're an idiot

Only on Atlas would the architect of the Libyan intervention be considered a dove.

lmao you're an idiot

This is stupid. Trump essentially has the same platform as Rand

lmao you're an idiot

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Dumb way to look at this election. Not surprised who is posting this, though.

I was just asking a question, but you choose to throw a jab my way, oh well.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

CrabCake, have you even heard of HORSESHOE THEORY? Fer real.

[SillyAmerican]

Clinton is essentially a republican on foreign policy - She is to the right of Trump on many interventionist issues but Trump trumps her in having a fascination for torture & violence! She can argue Iraq was long ago & she was misled. But she went ahead as SOS & massacred Libya, killing so many, destroying a country & giving it to ISIS.

One reason I would never support Clinton is she has so much blood on her hands - So many lives she has murdered.

I am horrified that Trump speaks about killing Terrorists' families & water-boarding, it is disgusting. But that does not mean a mass murderer who took the lessons from Iraq & repeated it in Libya & wants to go ahead with a stupid no fly zone in Syria

I agree with Shadows; I could never vote for Hillary, because her thinking on Libya was completely flawed (or at least that's the way I view it).

So to save CrabCake the trouble of having to enter a new post, my views obviously make me an idiot.

[pho]

Clinton believes that deposing Assad is the "#1 priority" in Syria. Trump is against US involvement in the civil war entirely. Clinton is clearly the hawk on Syria (and Russia by proxy).

[P123]

Trump is less liberal and also less of a neocon. 

liberal is generally defined within foreign policy as support for multilateralism and international institutions and promotion of some concept of human rights.

This.

You can't paint interventionism vs non-interventionism in left/right terms.

[Mr. Morden]

Trump is more Jacksonian.  He’s more inward looking—doesn’t think the US military can be used to achieve political solutions in other countries, but nonetheless wants to use the military to smash the US’s enemies, and then not tackle the underlying political root causes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/donald-trumps-formula-for-success-in-foreign-policy/417456/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ronnie]

I've honestly given up on trying to pinpoint Trump's political philosophy on anything.  At his AIPAC speech, he ceaselessly fawned over Israel after literally saying at the beginning of his speech that he won't pander.  I was hoping he would bring a nuanced approach to U.S.-Israel relations, especially since he said not too long ago that he wanted to be an honest broker, but I guess I was just being naive.

[Higgs]

I've honestly given up on trying to pinpoint Trump's political philosophy on anything.  At his AIPAC speech, he ceaselessly fawned over Israel after literally saying at the beginning of his speech that he won't pander.  I was hoping he would bring a nuanced approach to U.S.-Israel relations, especially since he said not too long ago that he wanted to be an honest broker, but I guess I was just being naive.

It's at AIPAC, you really expect him to say his true views there?

[Ronnie]

I've honestly given up on trying to pinpoint Trump's political philosophy on anything.  At his AIPAC speech, he ceaselessly fawned over Israel after literally saying at the beginning of his speech that he won't pander.  I was hoping he would bring a nuanced approach to U.S.-Israel relations, especially since he said not too long ago that he wanted to be an honest broker, but I guess I was just being naive.

It's at AIPAC, you really expect him to say his true views there?

He could have.  The audience wouldn't have been as boisterous during his periodic pauses, but speaking his mind on the matter of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations would have enabled him to come off as fearless and principled.  He's been a rebel since he announced his campaign; why stop now?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Trump has a funny habit of just blandly saying he loves what he knows his audience likes without committing to anything of substance.  Stick him in a brony convention and he'll say he loves MLP etc.

[Beet]

Hawkishness does not equal neocon, unless Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Harry Truman were neocons.

Hillary made a reasonable call in Libya -- a humanitarian intervention that prevented thousands of people from being slaughtered in Benghazi. There are certainly many, many people who are alive today who would be dead if not for the intervention. And the fact remains that Libya is in far better shape than Syria, where the United States held itself off at a distance. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hawkishness does not equal neocon, unless Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Harry Truman were neocons.

Hillary made a reasonable call in Libya -- a humanitarian intervention that prevented thousands of people from being slaughtered in Benghazi. There are certainly many, many people who are alive today who would be dead if not for the intervention. And the fact remains that Libya is in far better shape than Syria, where the United States held itself off at a distance. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant_in_Libya

[Beet]

Hawkishness does not equal neocon, unless Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Harry Truman were neocons.

Hillary made a reasonable call in Libya -- a humanitarian intervention that prevented thousands of people from being slaughtered in Benghazi. There are certainly many, many people who are alive today who would be dead if not for the intervention. And the fact remains that Libya is in far better shape than Syria, where the United States held itself off at a distance. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant_in_Libya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hawkishness does not equal neocon, unless Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Harry Truman were neocons.

Hillary made a reasonable call in Libya -- a humanitarian intervention that prevented thousands of people from being slaughtered in Benghazi. There are certainly many, many people who are alive today who would be dead if not for the intervention. And the fact remains that Libya is in far better shape than Syria, where the United States held itself off at a distance. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant_in_Libya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

So your argument in favor of what Hillary did in Libya is that she helped make Syria and Iraq be bigger messes?

[Comrade Funk]

Did you see Clinton groveling at AIPAC today? Isn't it sad when a centrist on Israel (Bernie) is considered the radical, but maniacs like Hillary and especially Lyin' Teddy Canuck wanna harm us with continuing our contradictory foreign policy in regards to Israel/Saudi Arabia, and they're considered mainstream on the issue?

Embarrassing we have neocons ruling our 'left'-wing party. 

[The Last Northerner]

Despite Clinton supporters appropriation of neocon talking points in this thread, the answer would be TRUMP. Clinton may or may not be a neocon but her record is certainly hawkish.

[Lief 🗽]

idiotic true leftist nonsense

deranged alex jones-style rambling

Wow the Bernie cult gets more and more deranged by the day. Sad!