We were assured that Trump was better than Hillary.
Well …
John Pilger writes:
When Donald Trump addressed the United Nations on 19 September – a body established to spare humanity the “scourge of war” – he declared he was “ready, willing and able” to “totally destroy” North Korea and its 25 million people. His audience gasped, but Trump’s language was not unusual.
His rival for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, had boasted she was prepared to “totally obliterate” Iran, a nation of more than 80 million people. This is the American Way; only the euphemisms are missing now.
What’s better?
The fact that Hillary threatened 80 million people versus Trump’s 25 million?
Is this considered progress?
Hillary would have kept Obamacare, like Trump.
Hillary would have stayed in NATO and kept NAFTA, like Trump.
Hillary would have increased the debt, like Trump.
Hillary would (obviously) have been as militant as Trump.
Hillary would have favored The Fed manipulating interest rates lower than the market rate, like Trump.
Hillary would have toasted the “great, great potential” of the UN like Trump.
You know what real progress would look like?
Implementing the ideas of John Quincy Adams, who said that America“goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.”
Or how about George Washington, who said: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.”
Thomas Jefferson called for “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.”
Are these just names that go on monuments now?
Just tourist attractions?
Threatening the existence of 25 million people is not progress.
It’s pathetic.
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/this-is-better-than-hillary
“Hillary would (obviously) have been as militant as Trump.”
Worse.
However… UNLIKE Chump, (s)electing Hitlery would have started the revolution.
Guaranteed.