US Foreign Policy and the Presidential Candidates

[thegreekdog]

Where does everyone sit on the US foreign policy front? Which presidential candidate most supports your point of view? Since we're talking about foreign policy, happy to discuss with our non-US friends.

In the interest of full disclosure, the only current presidential candidate from one of the two parties that is close to my point of view is Bernie Sanders; and I can't vote for him for obvious reasons (e.g. I'm not a registered Democrat).

[warmonger1981]

Rand Paul was the closest to my type. I think Clinton is a war hawk. Bernie not so much. Trump is a loose cannon. Clinton would be slow motion destruction and Trump would be destruction on steroids.

[Metsfanmax]

I prefer whichever candidate I think will be maximally amenable to trade with foreign nations. Out of the current slate, probably Clinton.

[mrswdk]

They all suck. They either support pulling American troops out of other countries but then hate free trade deals and want to start a trade war with China (Sanders and Trump), or they support free trade but want to continue invading the rest of the world like it's 1955 (all the others).

Unless there is a third party candidate who both embraces free trade and is a non-interventionist?

[thegreekdog]

They all suck. They either support pulling American troops out of other countries but then hate free trade deals and want to start a trade war with China (Sanders and Trump), or they support free trade but want to continue invading the rest of the world like it's 1955 (all the others).

Unless there is a third party candidate who both embraces free trade and is a non-interventionist?

Hmmm... Gary Johnson is the closest, but still not as close as Rand Paul was/is.

Johnson believes it "is important to have a strong defense both at home and abroad,"[21] and that the "military should remain the most potent force for good on Earth,"[22] but believes the greatest threat to national security at present is that "we're bankrupt." He would include a 43% cut to the military's budget in his proposed balanced budget by concentrating on defense, rather than offense.[7] He has stated: “When you talk about a 43 percent reduction in military spending, that’s going back to 2003 funding levels, not the end of the world".[23] He advocates making "better use of military alliances which allow greater sharing of the human and financial burdens at less cost of protecting national interests."[22]

Johnson says the United States "should resort to military action as the last option and only as provided in the Constitution."[22] He believes the continuing American military presence in Europe, in Japan and in South Korea should be reduced by at least 43%, and that the United States should end its military involvements in Afghanistan immediately. During the Iraq War, Johnson called for the end of U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Libya. He would propose cuts to the military's uniformed and civilian personnel, research and development, intelligence, and nuclear weapons,[7][24] all of which would be "carefully considered" rather than "across the board." He supports reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, saying, "Do we really need to blow up the world 23 times over, or would eight times be sufficient?"[25] Because Johnson has talked about humanitarian interventions, many libertarians have questioned if he is as committed to noninterventionism as congressman Ron Paul, who was running for president as a Republican.[26]

Johnson said in an April 2012 Daily Caller interview that he favors withdrawing or reducing American forces in Europe and East Asia, but not necessarily the Middle East. He also said he stood by comments to the Weekly Standard that he might support waging war for humanitarian reasons, saying he would not "sit idly by and watch something like the Holocaust go down." He also stated that while he thought drone attacks create more enemies than they kill, he would not necessarily stop the drone attacks in Pakistan or Yemen, leaving all options on the table.[23]

Johnson supports free trade and opposes tariffs, "period." He believes free market trade corrects inequities between trading partners, such as foreign countries' subsidies for certain industries.[7]

But with Johnson you have to deal with things like decriminalization, pro-choice, opposition to the death penalty, gun rights for all, and various fiscally conservative things.

In Clinton, you get the perfect blend of old school Republican values (pro-banks, pro-war) with traditional Democrat values (pro-choice).
In Trump, you get the perfect blend of whatever will get him the most popularity.

[thegreekdog]

Rand Paul was the closest to my type. I think Clinton is a war hawk. Bernie not so much. Trump is a loose cannon. Clinton would be slow motion destruction and Trump would be destruction on steroids.

I really don't think Trump will do any of the things he said he would do. That doesn't mean I'll vote for him, I just think the people who think he's going to build a wall, deport everyone, and bomb the shit out of the middle east will be disappointed.

[mrswdk]

They all suck. They either support pulling American troops out of other countries but then hate free trade deals and want to start a trade war with China (Sanders and Trump), or they support free trade but want to continue invading the rest of the world like it's 1955 (all the others).

Unless there is a third party candidate who both embraces free trade and is a non-interventionist?

Hmmm... Gary Johnson is the closest, but still not as close as Rand Paul was/is.

Johnson believes it "is important to have a strong defense both at home and abroad,"[21] and that the "military should remain the most potent force for good on Earth,"[22] but believes the greatest threat to national security at present is that "we're bankrupt." He would include a 43% cut to the military's budget in his proposed balanced budget by concentrating on defense, rather than offense.[7] He has stated: “When you talk about a 43 percent reduction in military spending, that’s going back to 2003 funding levels, not the end of the world".[23] He advocates making "better use of military alliances which allow greater sharing of the human and financial burdens at less cost of protecting national interests."[22]

Johnson says the United States "should resort to military action as the last option and only as provided in the Constitution."[22] He believes the continuing American military presence in Europe, in Japan and in South Korea should be reduced by at least 43%, and that the United States should end its military involvements in Afghanistan immediately. During the Iraq War, Johnson called for the end of U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Libya. He would propose cuts to the military's uniformed and civilian personnel, research and development, intelligence, and nuclear weapons,[7][24] all of which would be "carefully considered" rather than "across the board." He supports reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, saying, "Do we really need to blow up the world 23 times over, or would eight times be sufficient?"[25] Because Johnson has talked about humanitarian interventions, many libertarians have questioned if he is as committed to noninterventionism as congressman Ron Paul, who was running for president as a Republican.[26]

Johnson said in an April 2012 Daily Caller interview that he favors withdrawing or reducing American forces in Europe and East Asia, but not necessarily the Middle East. He also said he stood by comments to the Weekly Standard that he might support waging war for humanitarian reasons, saying he would not "sit idly by and watch something like the Holocaust go down." He also stated that while he thought drone attacks create more enemies than they kill, he would not necessarily stop the drone attacks in Pakistan or Yemen, leaving all options on the table.[23]

Johnson supports free trade and opposes tariffs, "period." He believes free market trade corrects inequities between trading partners, such as foreign countries' subsidies for certain industries.[7]

But with Johnson you have to deal with things like decriminalization, pro-choice, opposition to the death penalty, gun rights for all, and various fiscally conservative things.

Fine by me, given the only thing I really care about with an American president is how they will deal with the rest of the world.

In Clinton, you get the perfect blend of old school Republican values (pro-banks, pro-war) with traditional Democrat values (pro-choice).
In Trump, you get the perfect blend of whatever will get him the most popularity.

Trump is refreshingly democratic like that.

[Dukasaur]

They all suck. They either support pulling American troops out of other countries but then hate free trade deals and want to start a trade war with China (Sanders and Trump), or they support free trade but want to continue invading the rest of the world like it's 1955 (all the others).

Unless there is a third party candidate who both embraces free trade and is a non-interventionist?

Hmmm... Gary Johnson is the closest, but still not as close as Rand Paul was/is.

Johnson believes it "is important to have a strong defense both at home and abroad,"[21] and that the "military should remain the most potent force for good on Earth,"[22] but believes the greatest threat to national security at present is that "we're bankrupt." He would include a 43% cut to the military's budget in his proposed balanced budget by concentrating on defense, rather than offense.[7] He has stated: “When you talk about a 43 percent reduction in military spending, that’s going back to 2003 funding levels, not the end of the world".[23] He advocates making "better use of military alliances which allow greater sharing of the human and financial burdens at less cost of protecting national interests."[22]

Johnson says the United States "should resort to military action as the last option and only as provided in the Constitution."[22] He believes the continuing American military presence in Europe, in Japan and in South Korea should be reduced by at least 43%, and that the United States should end its military involvements in Afghanistan immediately. During the Iraq War, Johnson called for the end of U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Libya. He would propose cuts to the military's uniformed and civilian personnel, research and development, intelligence, and nuclear weapons,[7][24] all of which would be "carefully considered" rather than "across the board." He supports reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, saying, "Do we really need to blow up the world 23 times over, or would eight times be sufficient?"[25] Because Johnson has talked about humanitarian interventions, many libertarians have questioned if he is as committed to noninterventionism as congressman Ron Paul, who was running for president as a Republican.[26]

Johnson said in an April 2012 Daily Caller interview that he favors withdrawing or reducing American forces in Europe and East Asia, but not necessarily the Middle East. He also said he stood by comments to the Weekly Standard that he might support waging war for humanitarian reasons, saying he would not "sit idly by and watch something like the Holocaust go down." He also stated that while he thought drone attacks create more enemies than they kill, he would not necessarily stop the drone attacks in Pakistan or Yemen, leaving all options on the table.[23]

Johnson supports free trade and opposes tariffs, "period." He believes free market trade corrects inequities between trading partners, such as foreign countries' subsidies for certain industries.[7]

But with Johnson you have to deal with things like decriminalization, pro-choice, opposition to the death penalty, gun rights for all, and various fiscally conservative things.

Fine by me, given the only thing I really care about with an American president is how they will deal with the rest of the world.

In Clinton, you get the perfect blend of old school Republican values (pro-banks, pro-war) with traditional Democrat values (pro-choice).
In Trump, you get the perfect blend of whatever will get him the most popularity.

Trump is refreshingly democratic like that.

You might find it refreshing until you see it in action. If there's one thing that the mindless proletariat loves more than sex, it's the sight of bombs being dropped in someone else's neighbourhood. A populist president is a dangerous president.

Of course, he might surprise us and go with some kind of domestic bloodsport instead, something like Deathrace 2000, but the smart money is on dropping bombs in some exotic Asian locale.

[mrswdk]

They all suck. They either support pulling American troops out of other countries but then hate free trade deals and want to start a trade war with China (Sanders and Trump), or they support free trade but want to continue invading the rest of the world like it's 1955 (all the others).

Unless there is a third party candidate who both embraces free trade and is a non-interventionist?

Hmmm... Gary Johnson is the closest, but still not as close as Rand Paul was/is.

Johnson believes it "is important to have a strong defense both at home and abroad,"[21] and that the "military should remain the most potent force for good on Earth,"[22] but believes the greatest threat to national security at present is that "we're bankrupt." He would include a 43% cut to the military's budget in his proposed balanced budget by concentrating on defense, rather than offense.[7] He has stated: “When you talk about a 43 percent reduction in military spending, that’s going back to 2003 funding levels, not the end of the world".[23] He advocates making "better use of military alliances which allow greater sharing of the human and financial burdens at less cost of protecting national interests."[22]

Johnson says the United States "should resort to military action as the last option and only as provided in the Constitution."[22] He believes the continuing American military presence in Europe, in Japan and in South Korea should be reduced by at least 43%, and that the United States should end its military involvements in Afghanistan immediately. During the Iraq War, Johnson called for the end of U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Libya. He would propose cuts to the military's uniformed and civilian personnel, research and development, intelligence, and nuclear weapons,[7][24] all of which would be "carefully considered" rather than "across the board." He supports reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, saying, "Do we really need to blow up the world 23 times over, or would eight times be sufficient?"[25] Because Johnson has talked about humanitarian interventions, many libertarians have questioned if he is as committed to noninterventionism as congressman Ron Paul, who was running for president as a Republican.[26]

Johnson said in an April 2012 Daily Caller interview that he favors withdrawing or reducing American forces in Europe and East Asia, but not necessarily the Middle East. He also said he stood by comments to the Weekly Standard that he might support waging war for humanitarian reasons, saying he would not "sit idly by and watch something like the Holocaust go down." He also stated that while he thought drone attacks create more enemies than they kill, he would not necessarily stop the drone attacks in Pakistan or Yemen, leaving all options on the table.[23]

Johnson supports free trade and opposes tariffs, "period." He believes free market trade corrects inequities between trading partners, such as foreign countries' subsidies for certain industries.[7]

But with Johnson you have to deal with things like decriminalization, pro-choice, opposition to the death penalty, gun rights for all, and various fiscally conservative things.

Fine by me, given the only thing I really care about with an American president is how they will deal with the rest of the world.

In Clinton, you get the perfect blend of old school Republican values (pro-banks, pro-war) with traditional Democrat values (pro-choice).
In Trump, you get the perfect blend of whatever will get him the most popularity.

Trump is refreshingly democratic like that.

You might find it refreshing until you see it in action. If there's one thing that the mindless proletariat loves more than sex, it's the sight of bombs being dropped in someone else's neighbourhood. A populist president is a dangerous president.

Of course, he might surprise us and go with some kind of domestic bloodsport instead, something like Deathrace 2000, but the smart money is on dropping bombs in some exotic Asian locale.

As charming as your condescension is, Trump has consistently said he would pull America out of the Middle East, Europe, Japan and South Korea.

[Symmetry]

The only two candidates are Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. The others are sideshows.

I'd go with Hilary if you want someone with foreign policy experience. The Donald just doesn't have the wherewithal to handle diplomacy on a global scale. He's a TV personality, and that's about it.

David Cameron has already come out against the man for his weird bigotry, and there's been talk about banning him from entering the country.

It's pretty impressive that he messed up international relations before he was even chosen by his own party.

[saxitoxin]

David Cameron has already come out against the man for his weird bigotry, and there's been talk about banning him from entering the country.

Cameron knows who butters Britain's bread. Since Trump locked up the nomination Cameron has suddenly become "very happy" to meet Trump. If he were to actually win the election I expect they'll send him Princess Eugenie as an inauguration sacrifice to ensure there are no hard feelings.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

The only two candidates are Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. The others are sideshows.

I'd go with Hilary if you want someone with foreign policy experience. The Donald just doesn't have the wherewithal to handle diplomacy on a global scale. He's a TV personality, and that's about it.

David Cameron has already come out against the man for his weird bigotry, and there's been talk about banning him from entering the country.

It's pretty impressive that he messed up international relations before he was even chosen by his own party.

That's like putting a "keep out" sign on your bedroom door when you're mad at your big brother.

Good luck with that.

-TG

[mrswdk]

David Cameron has already come out against the man for his weird bigotry, and there's been talk about banning him from entering the country.

Cameron knows who butters Britain's bread. Since Trump locked up the nomination Cameron has suddenly become "very happy" to meet Trump. If he were to actually win the election I expect they'll send him Princess Eugenie as an inauguration sacrifice to ensure there are no hard feelings.

Never mind that when Symmetry says 'talk' of banning Trump from the UK, what he means is a petition that was flatly rejected by the government.

[Symmetry]

The only two candidates are Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. The others are sideshows.

I'd go with Hilary if you want someone with foreign policy experience. The Donald just doesn't have the wherewithal to handle diplomacy on a global scale. He's a TV personality, and that's about it.

David Cameron has already come out against the man for his weird bigotry, and there's been talk about banning him from entering the country.

It's pretty impressive that he messed up international relations before he was even chosen by his own party.

That's like putting a "keep out" sign on your bedroom door when you're mad at your big brother.

Good luck with that.

-TG

Oh, I don't think it will happen. Even the PM had said he'll talk to the guy, as per standard. He still thinks the man is an idiot.

[mrswdk]

The only two candidates are Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. The others are sideshows.

I'd go with Hilary if you want someone with foreign policy experience. The Donald just doesn't have the wherewithal to handle diplomacy on a global scale. He's a TV personality, and that's about it.

David Cameron has already come out against the man for his weird bigotry, and there's been talk about banning him from entering the country.

It's pretty impressive that he messed up international relations before he was even chosen by his own party.

That's like putting a "keep out" sign on your bedroom door when you're mad at your big brother.

Good luck with that.

-TG

Oh, I don't think it will happen.

Of course it won't. As saxi pointed out, Downing St has been desperately doing all it can to turn Trump and Cameron back into the new Bush and Blair.

[Symmetry]

The only two candidates are Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. The others are sideshows.

I'd go with Hilary if you want someone with foreign policy experience. The Donald just doesn't have the wherewithal to handle diplomacy on a global scale. He's a TV personality, and that's about it.

David Cameron has already come out against the man for his weird bigotry, and there's been talk about banning him from entering the country.

It's pretty impressive that he messed up international relations before he was even chosen by his own party.

That's like putting a "keep out" sign on your bedroom door when you're mad at your big brother.

Good luck with that.

-TG

Oh, I don't think it will happen.

Of course it won't. As saxi pointed out, Downing St has been desperately doing all it can to turn Trump and Cameron back into the new Bush and Blair.

So, wait, you think that the statements from the PM calling Trunp stupid and wrong were somehow a statement of friendship?

Naiveté, thine name is mrsdwk

[saxitoxin]

The only two candidates are Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. The others are sideshows.

I'd go with Hilary if you want someone with foreign policy experience. The Donald just doesn't have the wherewithal to handle diplomacy on a global scale. He's a TV personality, and that's about it.

David Cameron has already come out against the man for his weird bigotry, and there's been talk about banning him from entering the country.

It's pretty impressive that he messed up international relations before he was even chosen by his own party.

That's like putting a "keep out" sign on your bedroom door when you're mad at your big brother.

Good luck with that.

-TG

Oh, I don't think it will happen.

Of course it won't. As saxi pointed out, Downing St has been desperately doing all it can to turn Trump and Cameron back into the new Bush and Blair.

So, wait, you think that the statements from the PM calling Trunp stupid and wrong were somehow a statement of friendship?

They were statements made in December 2015, before the Iowa caucus and when people thought Trump was DOA.

Basically, Cameron shit in his own bed and now he's trying to wash the sheets.

[thegreekdog]

The only two candidates are Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. The others are sideshows.

I'd go with Hilary if you want someone with foreign policy experience.

So...

Man #1: Hey, I want to vote for someone with foreign policy experience.
Woman #1: So you'd vote for Hillary Clinton.
Man #1: What's her foreign policy experience?
Transgender #1: Well, she is basically a hawk so she'll probably continue to keep us in a constant state of war and spend oodles of cash, but she knows how to not verbally offend foreign dignitaries, I think, since she was Secretary of State.

Gotta love the two party system! Vote for the candidate who will keep us in a perpetual state of war or vote for the candidate who may keep us in a perpetual state of war (but who knows?!?!) but will also probably f*ck up relations via Twitter. I mean, at least when Barack Obama was running for president he said he would keep us out of conflicts; Mrs. Clinton won't even do that. Sigh. I would probably vote for Clinton too, if she just tweaked a couple of things.

[AndyDufresne]

The only two candidates are Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. The others are sideshows.

I'd go with Hilary if you want someone with foreign policy experience.

So...

Man #1: Hey, I want to vote for someone with foreign policy experience.
Woman #1: So you'd vote for Hillary Clinton.
Man #1: What's her foreign policy experience?
Transgender #1: Well, she is basically a hawk so she'll probably continue to keep us in a constant state of war and spend oodles of cash, but she knows how to not verbally offend foreign dignitaries, I think, since she was Secretary of State.

Gotta love the two party system! Vote for the candidate who will keep us in a perpetual state of war or vote for the candidate who may keep us in a perpetual state of war (but who knows?!?!) but will also probably f*ck up relations via Twitter. I mean, at least when Barack Obama was running for president he said he would keep us out of conflicts; Mrs. Clinton won't even do that. Sigh. I would probably vote for Clinton too, if she just tweaked a couple of things.

I'll write-in on my ballot "Hilary Clinton, if advised by TGD." I'd trust your judgement in most aspects.


--Andy

[warmonger1981]

Two thumbs down to anyone who votes.

[Symmetry]

The only two candidates are Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. The others are sideshows.

I'd go with Hilary if you want someone with foreign policy experience.

So...

Man #1: Hey, I want to vote for someone with foreign policy experience.
Woman #1: So you'd vote for Hillary Clinton.
Man #1: What's her foreign policy experience?
Transgender #1: Well, she is basically a hawk so she'll probably continue to keep us in a constant state of war and spend oodles of cash, but she knows how to not verbally offend foreign dignitaries, I think, since she was Secretary of State.

Gotta love the two party system! Vote for the candidate who will keep us in a perpetual state of war or vote for the candidate who may keep us in a perpetual state of war (but who knows?!?!) but will also probably f*ck up relations via Twitter. I mean, at least when Barack Obama was running for president he said he would keep us out of conflicts; Mrs. Clinton won't even do that. Sigh. I would probably vote for Clinton too, if she just tweaked a couple of things.

The alternative, of course, is the Donald, who can't even manage the basics of diplomacy within his own party. If we're talking purely foreign policy here, It's got to be Clinton (or Mrs. Clinton, if that's how you roll).

Trump is a showman with a remarkable gift for pissing people off. If the US's allies already think he's a moron, what can it mean for foreign policy rivals?

[saxitoxin]

Trump is a showman with a remarkable gift for pissing people off. If the US's allies already think he's a moron, what can it mean for foreign policy rivals?

Not everyone wants war and rivalry.

Some of us want peace and cooperation. And some of us believe the key to peace and cooperation is an end to American belligerence toward Russia, recognition of an historic Russian sphere-of-influence over Europe, and an end to the U.S. enabling these disgusting micro-states like Poland, LIthuania, Ukraine, and Georgia. Whether deference in the face of the Kremlin is achieved through a new strategy of peace, or through utter and paralyzing incompetence by the White House doesn't really matter to me.

But you're undoubtedly right - for those people who want to see the U.S. succeed in adventures of world conquest, Clinton is definitely the best choice.

[thegreekdog]

The only two candidates are Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. The others are sideshows.

I'd go with Hilary if you want someone with foreign policy experience.

So...

Man #1: Hey, I want to vote for someone with foreign policy experience.
Woman #1: So you'd vote for Hillary Clinton.
Man #1: What's her foreign policy experience?
Transgender #1: Well, she is basically a hawk so she'll probably continue to keep us in a constant state of war and spend oodles of cash, but she knows how to not verbally offend foreign dignitaries, I think, since she was Secretary of State.

Gotta love the two party system! Vote for the candidate who will keep us in a perpetual state of war or vote for the candidate who may keep us in a perpetual state of war (but who knows?!?!) but will also probably f*ck up relations via Twitter. I mean, at least when Barack Obama was running for president he said he would keep us out of conflicts; Mrs. Clinton won't even do that. Sigh. I would probably vote for Clinton too, if she just tweaked a couple of things.

The alternative, of course, is the Donald, who can't even manage the basics of diplomacy within his own party. If we're talking purely foreign policy here, It's got to be Clinton (or Mrs. Clinton, if that's how you roll).

Trump is a showman with a remarkable gift for pissing people off. If the US's allies already think he's a moron, what can it mean for foreign policy rivals?

How is Mr. Trump (or the Donald, if that's how you roll) an alternative to Mrs. Clinton? From a foreign policy perspective, they seem to have the same points of view. This is an interesting year (not just foreign policy wise, but this is the subject of the thread). Gary Johnson is already polling around 10%, which are Ross Perot numbers (and Johnson is a big time hawk for a Libertarian). Bernie Sanders seems to be exerting significant influence on the DNC which is problematic if you're a hawk like Mrs. Clinton. Both major candidates have significant negatives from a polling perspective, which usually leads to "I'm not gonna vote" but maybe it will lead to "I'm gonna vote for someone else."

[Symmetry]

The only two candidates are Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. The others are sideshows.

I'd go with Hilary if you want someone with foreign policy experience.

So...

Man #1: Hey, I want to vote for someone with foreign policy experience.
Woman #1: So you'd vote for Hillary Clinton.
Man #1: What's her foreign policy experience?
Transgender #1: Well, she is basically a hawk so she'll probably continue to keep us in a constant state of war and spend oodles of cash, but she knows how to not verbally offend foreign dignitaries, I think, since she was Secretary of State.

Gotta love the two party system! Vote for the candidate who will keep us in a perpetual state of war or vote for the candidate who may keep us in a perpetual state of war (but who knows?!?!) but will also probably f*ck up relations via Twitter. I mean, at least when Barack Obama was running for president he said he would keep us out of conflicts; Mrs. Clinton won't even do that. Sigh. I would probably vote for Clinton too, if she just tweaked a couple of things.

The alternative, of course, is the Donald, who can't even manage the basics of diplomacy within his own party. If we're talking purely foreign policy here, It's got to be Clinton (or Mrs. Clinton, if that's how you roll).

Trump is a showman with a remarkable gift for pissing people off. If the US's allies already think he's a moron, what can it mean for foreign policy rivals?

How is Mr. Trump (or the Donald, if that's how you roll) an alternative to Mrs. Clinton? From a foreign policy perspective, they seem to have the same points of view. This is an interesting year (not just foreign policy wise, but this is the subject of the thread). Gary Johnson is already polling around 10%, which are Ross Perot numbers (and Johnson is a big time hawk for a Libertarian). Bernie Sanders seems to be exerting significant influence on the DNC which is problematic if you're a hawk like Mrs. Clinton. Both major candidates have significant negatives from a polling perspective, which usually leads to "I'm not gonna vote" but maybe it will lead to "I'm gonna vote for someone else."

From a foreign perspective, it's gonna be Trump or Clinton, so even mentioning Gary Johnson is a weirdly outsiderish view.

I know you like the Libertarians, but let's be realistic. They ain't gonna get in.

The Donald's key points of foreign policy so far have been "ban Muslims", "Mexicans are rapists", and "Putin is awesome".

Can we at least agree that those aren't identical to Clinton?

[thegreekdog]

The only two candidates are Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. The others are sideshows.

I'd go with Hilary if you want someone with foreign policy experience.

So...

Man #1: Hey, I want to vote for someone with foreign policy experience.
Woman #1: So you'd vote for Hillary Clinton.
Man #1: What's her foreign policy experience?
Transgender #1: Well, she is basically a hawk so she'll probably continue to keep us in a constant state of war and spend oodles of cash, but she knows how to not verbally offend foreign dignitaries, I think, since she was Secretary of State.

Gotta love the two party system! Vote for the candidate who will keep us in a perpetual state of war or vote for the candidate who may keep us in a perpetual state of war (but who knows?!?!) but will also probably f*ck up relations via Twitter. I mean, at least when Barack Obama was running for president he said he would keep us out of conflicts; Mrs. Clinton won't even do that. Sigh. I would probably vote for Clinton too, if she just tweaked a couple of things.

The alternative, of course, is the Donald, who can't even manage the basics of diplomacy within his own party. If we're talking purely foreign policy here, It's got to be Clinton (or Mrs. Clinton, if that's how you roll).

Trump is a showman with a remarkable gift for pissing people off. If the US's allies already think he's a moron, what can it mean for foreign policy rivals?

How is Mr. Trump (or the Donald, if that's how you roll) an alternative to Mrs. Clinton? From a foreign policy perspective, they seem to have the same points of view. This is an interesting year (not just foreign policy wise, but this is the subject of the thread). Gary Johnson is already polling around 10%, which are Ross Perot numbers (and Johnson is a big time hawk for a Libertarian). Bernie Sanders seems to be exerting significant influence on the DNC which is problematic if you're a hawk like Mrs. Clinton. Both major candidates have significant negatives from a polling perspective, which usually leads to "I'm not gonna vote" but maybe it will lead to "I'm gonna vote for someone else."

From a foreign perspective, it's gonna be Trump or Clinton, so even mentioning Gary Johnson is a weirdly outsiderish view.

I know you like the Libertarians, but let's be realistic. They ain't gonna get in.

The Donald's key points of foreign policy so far have been "ban Muslims", "Mexicans are rapists", and "Putin is awesome".

Can we at least agree that those aren't identical to Clinton?

We can agree that those statements are not statements Clinton would make. However, I don't think they are policy positions.

Yes, it's unrealistic that any third party candidate will win this election. I am excited because a third party candidate may win enough votes to get federal funding, which effectively puts it on a more level playing field with the Republicans and Democrats. I'm also sincerely hoping the Democrats split: Sanders Dems (e.g. actual Democrats) vs. Clinton Dems (e.g. pro-business, pro-war Democrats) and the Republicans spit: Trump Republicans (e.g. "We hate rich people and are racist" or national socialists) vs. Ryan Republicans (e.g. "We love rich people and aren't racist").