4 ms·
>He may agree with more non-interventionist/isolationist foreign policy of Trump There's really not any good evidence that Trump would do anything of the sort.
by tstactplsignore 10y ago
>He may agree with more non-interventionist/isolationist foreign policy of Trump
There's really not any good evidence that Trump would do anything of the sort. He was for the wars in Iraq and Libya at the time, and is only against them now (and pretends he always was) because he's the ultimate political opportunist. Considering that right now he's said that he will "bomb the shit" out of ISIS and "send a few troops", it's pretty clear that a Trump presidency would be anything but isolationist.
- lisper 10y ago> it's pretty clear that a Trump presidency would be anything but isolationist The only thing that is clear about a Trump presidency is that nothing is clear about a Trump presidency.
- gallonofmilk 10y agowinning... winning is clear.
- omonra 10y agoThe only other clear thing is that Trump would be President.
- colmvp 10y agoWell it's a bit more nuanced. He was for the war prior to when it started but then changed his tune fairly soon after it started, even before Saddam was caught. I'm not sure where he truly stands. But I suppose I'll take his word that he'll want the U.S. to play an active role. Democrats decided to nominate the candidate who voted for the war and has a very Hawkish foreign policy, not the one who was against it. So one way or another, Americans are voting for interventionism.