When Donald Trump Makes Sense

The Washington establishment dismisses Donald Trump as a buffoon who doesn’t understand the intricacies of national security policies, but some of his comments underscore how foolish those policies are, writes Mike Lofgren.

By Mike Lofgren

Despite the fact that modern technological civilization is supposed to be founded on empiricism and rationality, most of our attitudes spring from emotions, indoctrination, or appeals to authority.

George Bernard Shaw wrote in his preface to Saint Joan that modern man was more superstitious than his medieval counterpart. While the peasant’s knowledge was accurate about the physical world that was accessible to him – the seasons, sowing crops, and so forth – the modern person’s head is filled with thousands of propositions the truth of which he or she has no direct knowledge, and thus believes them only because authority figures assert they are true.

Billionaire businessman and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Billionaire businessman and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

We grant that Shaw was a professional contrarian and no doubt deliberately exaggerating, but there is some truth in what he was saying. Newton’s laws of gravitation and motion are three centuries old, but the average person can hardly give an accurate account of what they are and why they should be true (or, as updated by modern physics, approximately true on the scale of measure with which humans are familiar), even though modern machine civilization is entirely based upon them. Shaw says the reason this and other notions appeal to us is that there is something about our modern sensibility that is susceptible to them.

It is when the “knowledge” in question is used to prop up political opinions or moral values that empiricism truly goes out the window and absurdity becomes dogma. Tax cuts increase revenue, despite 30 years of evidence to the contrary. Armed intervention in the Middle East protects U.S. national security, when bitter experience says otherwise. Free trade increases domestic employment in the long run, which somehow never arrives.

When these or similar arguments are advanced by an elite authority figure or presented by a powerful institution, they become ipso facto true. On the other hand, there is Donald Trump.

The content of the real estate mogul’s pronouncements over the last several months has been such a stew of fact, fiction and exaggeration that the average listener is likely to get a headache. The truth value of his statements has been so heavily discounted by the marketplace of opinion that they might as well be Enron shares. Curiously, this condition actually makes him a useful reverse barometer for judging the factual and normative content of plans, policies, and doctrines in the political realm.

In a recent interview with the New York Times, Trump unburdened himself on foreign policy matters. He suggested that in light of North Korea’s nuclear saber-rattling, South Korea and Japan would do well to consider getting nuclear arms themselves, both for self-protection and to get the United States off the hook for defending them at considerable expense. He also suggested that he would not take nuclear weapons off the table when it came to the defense of Europe, presumably against Russian aggression.

In the predictable firestorm, Trump was characterized as laughably ignorant as well as irresponsibly belligerent. By coincidence, President Barack Obama was hosting a summit on nuclear proliferation a few days later, at which he was moved to describe Trump’s comments in the following fashion:

“They tell us the person who made the statements doesn’t know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy or the Korean peninsula or the world generally.” Then he added, “I’ve said before that, you know, people pay attention to American elections. What we do is really important to the rest of the world.”

Indeed, as Obama states, what we do is important and people are paying attention, or certainly ought to be doing so. Which makes it all the more curious that no one paid close attention to what actual U.S. policy or U.S. practice has been over the last several decades. Regardless of whether encouraging or acquiescing in other states’ obtaining nuclear weapons is good policy or not (I suspect it is not), what has been our conduct? How, we might ask, did Israel end up with an arsenal of an estimated 80 nuclear weapons, with material for up to 200?

Persuasive evidence exists that during the 1960s, the Johnson administration secretly connived with the government of Israel to help build the latter’s nuclear weapons program. In the process, 100-300 kilos of nuclear material were alleged to have disappeared from a nuclear plant near Pittsburgh. Later, during the Ford and Carter administration’s Johnson’s covert program was investigated but publicly suppressed because the subject was too politically sensitive.

During the 1980s, the Reagan administration was fine with Pakistan moving ahead with a nuclear weapons program. After all, under dictator Muhammed Zia-Ul-Hak, the country was helping us arm the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, so what was not to like?

Eventually, an incensed Congress prohibited arms transfers to Pakistan without the administration’s certification that the country was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program, but Reagan’s national security team did its best to maliciously implement the law. Pakistan now is estimated to have over a hundred nuclear weapons.

Given Obama’s and the media’s reaction to Trump’s comments about introducing nuclear weapons into a European war, one would be tempted to think there is a policy prohibition on such an action. One would be wrong. For decades during the Cold War, stated policy was “Flexible Response,” a euphemism meaning not only that the United States would use nuclear weapons in retaliation for Soviet first use, but that we reserved the right to use them first even in the event of a conventional attack on NATO.

Near the ceasefire line between North and South Korea, President Barack Obama uses binoculars to view the DMZ from Camp Bonifas, March 25, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Near the ceasefire line between North and South Korea, President Barack Obama uses binoculars to view the DMZ from Camp Bonifas, March 25, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The Obama administration could have officially jettisoned that Cold War doctrine in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, a quadrennial policy statement on the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy. Obama’s 2009 speech in Prague, where the President held out the idealistic hope of a nuclear weapon-free world, raised expectations of sweeping changes in nuclear policy.

Instead, a largely Pentagon-driven interagency process dictated that the review recommend the retention of forward-deployed nuclear weapons in Europe. Demonstrating the bureaucracy’s penchant for using new buzzwords to denote stale old concepts, the bureaucrats christened the doctrine (which was basically the same as Flexible Response) “Extended Deterrence.”

In essence, Trump was simply reiterating long-standing U.S. policy, for which he was castigated as an ignoramus! If getting Chicago vaporized because of our nuclear defense of Talinn sounds like stupidity when uttered by Trump, why is it wisdom when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or some other Beltway panjandrum sees fit to state it?

And far from adopting the goal of a nuclear-free world, the Obama administration is pursuing not only a modernization of its nuclear arsenal, but also a replacement of the bombers, missiles and submarines to deliver them. The 30-year cost of this project will be at least $1 trillion. Considering the Pentagon’s record of staggering cost overruns, the final price tag may be substantially more.

That is how foreign policy analysis works in what the late Gore Vidal called “the United States of Amnesia”: an existing doctrine is held to be a cornerstone of our security when enunciated by powerful institutions like the Pentagon – that is, when it hasn’t already become so much taken for granted that its existence is forgotten or psychologically repressed, in a kind of Orwellian double-think. Apparently it takes a berserker like Trump to reveal how unsavory the doctrine is, whereupon he is made solely responsible for it.

There are many other such hypocrisies rattling around like skeletons in our closet. Over the last decade and a half, the Improvised Explosive Device – the IED – was responsible for more U.S. casualties than any other cause. The national security establishment holds it to be a uniquely fiendish device, typical of the moral monsters who confront us.

But what is it, really? It’s a landmine. And the United States is the only First World nation that is not a party to the landmine treaty. Our refusal to sign is shared by such engines of moral improvement as Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.

Trump’s frequently incoherent word salads of innuendo,  contradictory statements, and off-topic filibustering often make it difficult to know what he is saying, or whether he means it. But precisely because he is untethered to the norms of the establishment, he is free to utter the occasional taboo that cannot be discussed according to the elites’ rules of acceptable discourse.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the public will become aware of these facts – that is, if the corporate media’s stunning lack of due diligence in interpreting his statement on nuclear policy is anything to go by.

Mike Lofgren is a former congressional staff member who served on the House and Senate budget committees. His new book, The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government, appeared Jan. 5, 2016.

32 comments for “When Donald Trump Makes Sense

  1. Brad Owen
    April 7, 2016 at 11:36

    I’ll continue to stick with Webster Tarpley’s on-going, lengthy, detailed analysis of Trump and the Trump phenomenon. Sanders or Stein is how I’ll play my hand…not that a vote counts for much, anymore. What’s that joke?…If voting was effective, it would be outlawed.

  2. Call A Spade
    April 6, 2016 at 07:38

    All the candidates are a joke wake up free world. Sorry you listen to the press.

    • Truth
      April 6, 2016 at 20:28

      It’s easier to live an illusion than to “wake up”. Don’t hold your breath.

    • Evangelista
      April 6, 2016 at 20:32

      Life is but a sitcom, Spade. If you don’t die laughing it means you are too sophisticated.

  3. Evangelista
    April 5, 2016 at 21:46

    I also like Trump’s rational and fundamentally correct position on abortion-if-it-is-murder. If it is, as too many self-righteous and over-righteous in positions of power they are not unprejudiced enough to legally hold and competently manage in a multi-ethical Republic, as the Constitutional United States was created to be, loudly assert, then all of the parties involved should be recognized as equal participants. As is currently the woman is treated chauvinistically, as an owned animal, not responsible, and not to be held responsible, for her actions. This is a long way from ‘equality’ by any legitimate standard. Which is why it is amusing to me to see, and hear, ‘liberated’ women howling against Trump for his suggesting that women be treated as equal, assigned equal responsibility with those they hire to remove their unwanted fetuses.

    What Trump has done in raising the question of equal responsibility is raise the question of whether ‘women’s liberation’ is really liberation, or only a transfer of women from husband-authority-ownership to judiciary aughority-ownership. From chauvinist-husband ‘protection’ to chauvinist-judge ‘protection’.

    If law is going to be equal, law needs to be equal.

    As far as the actual question of women’s right to abort fetuses, whether a fetus is a life or a part of the woman, whatever anyone’s personal religious, ethic, ethnic or any other individual conviction, the matter was settled in the United States by the 13th Amendment, and by subsequent Supreme Court affirmation, after the Civil War, that even if a human life was at stake and without the service of the servant death would be inevitable, the service, and hence the servitude, of the server had to be voluntary. If the servant wanted to refuse to serve, the 13th Amendment gave the server that right, regardless of any other. Thus, even if a fetus is a ‘living human being’, if the woman wishes to not serve it she cannot be coerced to. It is her 13th Amendment right to refuse to, and her refusal is not criminal and cannot be construed to be.

    It is well past time that the real questions were faced and resolved, instead of being danced around for power-orgy pleasures by every and all varieties of adrenalin-junkies who want to use the question to work themselves up to a surge.

  4. Zachary Smith
    April 5, 2016 at 20:38

    This essay was about Trump and foreign policy, but there was a recent domestic incident of “Trump Making Sense”. Perversely, it was one where he had to cut and run, because he was being logical and reasonable instead of following the tortured dogma of the Republicans.

    “Trump Wants to Outlaw Abortions and Punish Women Who Still Get Them”

    That Trump ever came out with this at all was because he really wants to become president. If abortion is murder, then those who do it are criminals. Crimes must be punished, or the law becomes meaningless. Because the man is a rank amateur at the ‘politiking’ business, he couldn’t know the dishonest wink/nod crap pulled by the Good Christian right-to-lifers who bray about how they want to protect the “unborn”. The story line has become “that women are themselves victims of a predatory abortion industry, and thus should not be punished for seeking or having abortions.” The poor little things are too dim-witted to understand that the evil abortion doctor is going to murder her unborn baby! Oh, there are other considerations, both legal and practical-political, but for the Good Christianists it comes down to the issue of her being the clueless “embodiment of sin”.

    God created – from a part of Adam – a second-class creature when he made Eve. This pitiful critter was immediately gulled (by a talking snake) into doing a horrible evil which caused her and Adam to get banished from a place of paradise called Eden. She was also cursed.

    “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.”

    Eve and all other women were going to SUFFER when they produced children, and all of them were to be under the thumb of men forever.

    The Chrisianists want to go back to these good old days. Some of them openly say that women shouldn’t have the vote, and I’d bet money that if they ever get total power in the US most forms of painkilling during childbirth will be banned. Women were directly responsible for the fall of the human race and there is no telling what other things they’ll do if they’re not kept under the closest supervision by God’s Favorite Sex.

    Trump had been quite sensible about the abortion issue until quite recently. Only when his ambition overwhelmed his good sense did he ‘wing it’ on punishing ALL the evildoers in an abortion. At that stage he ought to have had a brainstorming session with some of the sleazy Christianists instead of going with logic and reason.

  5. Joe Tedesky
    April 5, 2016 at 13:20

    The world would rejoice if an American presidential candidate would proclaim how they would immediately sign nuclear disarmament agreements, on day one. Instead of encouraging other nations to arm up with nuclear weapons, America should lead the way on disarmament. Okay, now you can all laugh.

    • Joe L.
      April 5, 2016 at 18:26

      Not just nuclear disarmament but also a ratcheting down of the military industrial complex which is making the world far worse. I think that we should even drastically reduce the use of sanctions. I think constantly trying to control countries and poking at them is going to blowup in our faces at some point – whether it be Russia, North Korea or any number of nations – it already is to a point. When I think it comes to North Korea, I think just leave them alone and stop all the war games etc. on their borders which mimic invading them. I think maybe if we eased or got rid of sanctions meanwhile not constantly threatening to invade them through war games then maybe they would not feel the need to build up their military or develop nuclear weapons. Also North Korea cannot be blind to countries that have given up their weapons and then were invaded by the US, and the west. I just have a feeling that if we continue to treat the rest of the world so badly that when the developing economies are the driving force of the world’s economy they are not going to be so friendly to us and we might end up on the end of sanctions or worse.

      • Airbrush2020
        April 6, 2016 at 09:35

        To accomplish a “ratcheting down of the military industrial complex”…the world must abandon aggression as the primary foreign policy tool. This means having a World Arbitration Council that will mediate disputes and issue Binding Resolutions. This further implies an impartial World Military Force that would keep the peace and enforce binding resolutions. While most governments would argue these actions would violate their national sovereignty…I would argue that such an approach would safegard sovereignty. I would further add that the military industrial complex flourishes because of world instability. Add stability and the world governments no longer need to stockpile weapons. Decrease demand and production will fall.

        • Joe L.
          April 6, 2016 at 13:19

          Airbrush2020… I actually we actually do have institutions in place that would ratchet down the military industrial complex that is sweeping across the world like a plague – that is the UN and the International Criminal Court. My belief is that if all countries were forced to adhere to international law, as they should, and there would be consequences for all countries, and leaders of countries, then we would live in a more peaceful world. No countries or leaders should be above international law. How many times have we seen Nazis or other criminals before the Hague for war crimes yet when the US/Britain invade Iraq, which did absolutely nothing to them, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair etc. all get off without a peep? If that was the case where the leaders of the US and Britain etc. would have been brought before the International Criminal Court then it would have made further escalation in the Middle East unthinkable – politicians would think twice about voting for war which was not sanctioned by the UN because they could be held accountable. Instead we live in almost lawless times where sovereignty is no longer respected and big nations can do whatever they want without penalty. I think that all countries should come before the UN and legally sign documents which will impede them from breaking international law, along with all nations becoming members of the International Criminal Court, and that they will be held accountable if they do. I just think that we already have the institutions but it would take our countries to stop protecting our governments if they break international law – accountability.

          • zman
            April 7, 2016 at 09:40

            Yes…and Putin has said much the same thing. But first you’d have to get the 2 biggest criminal nations to first join the ICC and then to abide by their rulings. Neither Israel or the US are members of the ICC, isn’t that strange?

        • Jeff Davis
          April 7, 2016 at 16:44

          A sign that intelligent life exists on planet earth.

      • Akech
        April 6, 2016 at 14:53

        North Korea has tons of rear earth’s elements (REE), which the western mining corporations would like to sink their teeth into using any means necessary! These elements are in used in many sophisticated technologies from cell phones to guided missiles.

        The problem could be that these western mining companies may not be interested in paying North Korea fair negotiated market values for these rare natural resources and may want to embark on regime change ventures which puts one section of North Korean citizens against another! Like in Congo where COLTAN is being mined while Congolese are killing one another, the North Koreans would then be killing one another while these REE are looted by the multinationals(GREED and lack of respect for human life)!

        If countries could engage in non-exploitative country-to-country negotiated trade agreements, these wars would be unnecessary! The wars occur because one country has the resources and another country wants those resources by use of force! Trump may be alluding to negotiated trades with other nations. The war mongers are interested in CONTROL and SUBJUGATION of other countries and their resources!


    • Eddie
      April 5, 2016 at 20:45

      Yes Joe T, wouldn’t it be nice if the US got in an ‘arms REDUCTION race’ – – – say challenge the Russians and Chinese or whoever with the policy that ‘for every 5 nuclear weapons you dismantle, we’ll dismantle 6’, or some similar formula whereby we will always SURPASS the reduced amount of our supposed adversary by slightly more. It wouldn’t really be enough to upset the ‘balance of terror’ that our MIC holds so dear, but it would vastly improve our standing on the world stage and would slowly but surely draw-down the world’s nuclear weapons (and it could include conventional forces) to a level where MAYBE even in a worse-case-scenario full nuclear exchange, it wouldn’t have to mean the end of most life on this planet. Of course we were doing similar things with the START negotiations as I recall, but the militarists/Neo-cons ended all that. Hopefully things will cycle-around to that again BEFORE we blow up half the cities in the US, Russia, Europe, China and wherever else, just because one man gets out-bluffed…

    • Joe Tedesky
      April 5, 2016 at 23:39

      Joe L. & Eddie, thanks for expanding on my disarmament suggestion. Why, I would be more than pleased if even one of our presidential candidates, would at best bring up the subject of any weapon reduction treaty they could conjure up. Sanders maybe with some success on his other policy programs would probably come to this type of plan for peace, I would hope. I would think the best way to get Donald on board, would be to convince him how many say that disarmament can’t be done, and that after his hearing that, that he would all the more want to do it, and do it in a huge way. Kasich would no doubt want to impose light sanctions before negotiations, while Cruz would want to only light up the desert sand. Forget Hillary disarmament isn’t man enough. So, disarmament would stand a possible chance behind a Trump or Sanders run White House. After disarmament, through a weapons to plowshare program, we the people of the world could start working on our new infrastructure by saving all the rivers of the world. In any case, by moving away from all these weapons of mass destruction to a more positive based society would be a much safer situation for all mankind, and way much better than what we got right now to contend with. Thanks for your feedback.

      • Pat
        April 6, 2016 at 05:17

        Joe, I haven’t heard Sanders talking about a weapons reduction treaty, but he has taken some first steps toward reducing our own arsenal. I don’t recall off the top of my head and don’t have time to look it up right now, but I think he might have been an original co-sponsor on similar versions of this bill in previous years.

        Also this:

      • Joe L.
        April 6, 2016 at 13:46

        Joe Tedesky… thank you for your reply. I do really wish that we could dial back the military industrial complex which I think could have been a reality if this new Cold War had not started. I just see the US, and the western world, constantly poking at our “enemies” maybe as a way to justify NATO and all of this insane military spending – we are going in the exact opposite direction that the world should be moving in. I wish I could say that the west would voluntarily promote actual peace in the world but we have had a sense of triumphalism since the fall of the Soviet Union where largely we have gone on unchallenged. Now that other nations such as Russia, China etc. want to stop “our” imperialism then we need to boost our military spending because “they” are a threat – ridiculous. I think that the only way that this will come to an end is for the developing nations to become the predominant economic power on the planet and hopefully they will not be as aggressive and domineering as we have been. I believe that what we are witnessing in the Middle East is in part to “our” imperialism and colonialism – the US, Britain, France etc. and that way of thinking needs to come to an end. Clearly we have a long way to go and we even have examples right now where “western” lives are precious such as in Paris or Brussels but not even barely a mention of Iraq or Pakistan. If we believed that all life was equal and precious then war would be unthinkable and there would be no need for this massive military buildup worldwide but we still have a long way to go.

  6. Drew Hunkins
    April 5, 2016 at 13:11

    Despite all of Trump’s faults, he has some fairly decent positions:

    1.) The first and most important — he refuses to demonize Russia and vilify Putin. He’s even said he’d enter into friendly trade relations with Russia. This is diametrically opposite of warmonger Clinton who would make the world a nuclear tinderbox not unlike the 1950s.
    2.) Trump’s said some positive things about being an even broker in the Israeli occupational dispute with Palestine. Even these tepid comments are too much for the Zionist power configuration in Washington and NYC to take.
    3.) He’s ardently criticized the war on Iraq and openly condemned the Bush administration and its neocons who lied us into war.
    4.) Trump vociferously disparages the TPP and NAFTA and talks about building up the United States’ manufacturing base once again.
    5.) He constantly asserts that he won’t touch Medicare and Social Security.

    When large segments of the establishment spectrum are against him, there’s something Trump’s doing right. Blum more or lesss endorsed him and Pilger also pointed out that when the mainstream is so against someone, it should be a clue to all critical thinkers to delve further into what’s truly going on.

    Having said all this, Bernie’s the one to vote for of course. If Hillary steals it from Bernie, it’s then time to vote Jill Stein.

    • Joe L.
      April 5, 2016 at 18:18

      I am not an American but I have to say that I am so impressed with Jill Stein and I truly do hope that if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee that Americans will not vote for her by default because she is a Democrat but rather see the first woman President being someone as level headed as Jill Stein. I think that I actually like Jill Stein better then I do Bernie Sanders to tell you the truth.

    • Truth
      April 5, 2016 at 20:36

      Bernie Sanders is NOT the answer. If you read some Henry Ford you will see what he is up to. He will go after and destroy Gentile wealth under the guise of socialism while protecting Zionist wealth. He is claiming he was right about the Panama papers for example, but who exactly did the Panama Papers go after exactly, anti-Zionists? Speaking of Panama, the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, spoke of putting politicians with a Panama moment in their past into positions of power (ie dark histories) so they could be easily manipulated to do the Zionists bidding. Amazing how Panama keeps coming up 100 years later.

      • Andy Jones
        April 6, 2016 at 00:01

        Looks like Bernie’s not getting the Neo-Nazi vote.

        • dahoit
          April 6, 2016 at 11:23

          I imagine a few Zionists would vote for him.The labor type,not quite as bloodthirsty as the likud type.

        • Truth
          April 6, 2016 at 20:24

          @ Andy. Agreed he won’t get the “Neo-Nazi” vote, but he will surely get the vote of Liberals who were fooled by Obama and co-opted into supporting Zionist Wars in Libya and Syria under the guise of “Humanitarian Intervention”. If I recall correctly, the heroic “anti-war” candidate Bernie Sanders voted FOR both wars.

          • zman
            April 7, 2016 at 09:33

            If you are referring to Syria and Libya, then you are not remembering correctly…as there was never a vote taken on attacking either country. If you are talking about Iraq, you’re still wrong, as he voted against it. Sanders did agree on the policy of bombing ISIS, but not going any further, voting ‘NO’ on funding so-called rebels in Syria. Allegations that Sanders backed Syrian and Libyan intervention is a pot/kettle accusation from HRCs campaign. Sanders also denounced Qaddafi and called for him to institute changes, but never called for attacking Libya, which Clinton instigated. Sanders is also not ‘for the big banks’ as you have previously stated in posts, voting against pro-bank legislation more than any other politician.. Stop getting your info from Clinton’s campaign.

          • Truth
            April 7, 2016 at 23:49


            Bernie backed the wars though, backed ISIS in Syria while they were still on the side of the US, and that is the point. He supported wars on countries under false pretenses, causing civil wars in two countries, in line with the Yinon Plan.

            Look what Ron Paul had to say on Bernie Sanders when asked if he would support him:

            “No, because he’s an authoritarian. He’s just a variant of Trump. Even the things I worked with on Bernie, some of the foreign policy, he’s a part of the military industrial complex. He was a big voter for militarism. He’s an authoritarian of a different color, but Trump’s a super authoritarian. Trump wants to be the boss….My biggest beef is that from a libertarian viewpoint there’s no meaningful difference between Hillary and Trump. I mean, they both support the military industrial complex, the Federal Reserve, deficits, entitlements, invasions of privacy. It is super-nationalistic populism versus socialism. That is so remote from what we need to be doing. We need to be moving ourselves away from tyranny towards liberty.”

            Everyone who is trying to “Feel the Bern” is going to end up getting a 3rd Degree Bern.

      • Drew Hunkins
        April 6, 2016 at 10:49

        @ Truth

        Yes, Zionists have a lot of sway in Washington and around the globe. But you take it too far, they’re not omnipotent. Bernie talks 24/7 about battling Wall Street, there’s obviously a lot of pro-Israel money sluicing around Wall Street!

        • Truth
          April 6, 2016 at 20:27

          Obama talked about protecting whistle blowers only to arrest more whistle blowers than all Presidents in US History combined. I judge by actions, not by cheap talk. Who exactly has Bernie said he will go after? Why not bring the Federal Reserve into the discussion? Whatever happened to Bradley Manning, Assange, and Snowden?

          It looks to me that Sanders has fooled the same crowd in 2016 that Obama did in 2008.

          • Drew Hunkins
            April 6, 2016 at 21:35

            @ Truth

            Obama was always a Wall Street hustler, astute observers on the left knew it all along. Unlike Sanders, Obama worked on Wall Street as a corporate atty! Adolph Reed, Alexander Cockburn and others knew full well Obama would simply be another Bill Clinton type DLCer. Sanders isn’t perfect, no doubt. But Sanders has shown his entire career that he’s an economic populist who’s pro-union and anti the massive wealth disparities we’re now witnessing in the United States.

            Sanders is the one to vote for.

            Yes, as stated, he’s got some problematic tendencies, but at this point in presidential politics he’s as good a shot we have at putting economic inequality squarely on the agenda.

          • Truth
            April 7, 2016 at 23:52

            The “Lesser of Two Evils” approach has been proven to be a major failure as the evils continue to grow greater. See post above on Sanders and hat Ron Paul said about him. “Lesser of Two Evils” is still voting for Evil.

    • Airbrush2020
      April 6, 2016 at 09:49

      You’re right. Big business targets Trump because he is talking about reversing trade and military policies that make them fabulously wealthy. Trump is right about most of his “policy positions”. However, I personally am opposed to mass deportations, building walls, and attacking peaceful muslims. For example, some white people are racist…but I wouldn’t be for wiping out white people because of the actions of a few (which is similar to the Muslim reality). I’m for good policy decisions, and against extreme actions that harm people.

      • dahoit
        April 6, 2016 at 11:28

        The voting map of Wisconsin;Trumps support was the hinterlands,while the more urban areas went crazy ineligible Cruz.Weirder than weird.
        Cruz invoked Churchill;Very similar,American mothers but born in a foreign land.Was Churchill eligible for POTUS?
        The MSM dried up all talk of hookers,eligibility and the positions of Cruz re world and America.
        He is their stealth candidate for Shillarys coronation.Go Sanders!Go Trump!

  7. Sally Snyder
    April 5, 2016 at 09:00

    Here is an article that looks at the failed Clinton foreign policy:


    Sometimes,the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats are almost impossible to determine.

Comments are closed.