Luke Ford

The only member of Obama’s foreign policy team in his first term who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq was Barack Obama himself. There’s little difference between liberal interventionism and neo-conservatism. All sides of America’s political establishment like to meddle overseas. They just use different rhetoric to justify it.

Donald Trump is against America intervening overseas unless it is in America’s national interests. He doesn’t want to nation-build and launch wars for democracy.

Washington Post:

There is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump’s scorched-earth presidential campaign is treated as a mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama’s departure from the White House — and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton — is being met with quiet relief.

The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House.

It is not unusual for Washington’s establishment to launch major studies in the final months of an administration to correct the perceived mistakes of a president or influence his successor. But the bipartisan nature of the recent recommendations, coming at a time when the country has never been more polarized, reflect a remarkable consensus among the foreign policy elite.

This consensus is driven by broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the limits of American power, especially in the Middle East. “There’s a widespread perception that not being active enough or recognizing the limits of American power has costs,” said Philip Gordon, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama until 2015. “So the normal swing is to be more interventionist.”

Steve Sailer writes: “In summary: both candidates were pretty good.

Trump was much better than in first debate, and was helped by moderator who wasn’t out to get him. Hillary was mostly running out the clock, bobbing and weaving. She didn’t land much in the way of heavy punches on Trump, but managed to distract him from too many knock out blows.

I imagine Wallace will hear a lot of “You’ll never work in this industry again” denunciations from his media colleagues for being pretty fair.

Give Trump back the first half of the first debate and he probably won the debates overall, but Hillary did a good job of getting Trump talking about himself in the second half of the first debate. She didn’t have to win the series of debates overall, just keep from losing badly.”

COMMENTS:

* My FAVORITE part of the entire debate was Trump telling the moderator that he’d keep him in suspense as to how Trump would act aghast the elections.

* The MSM is already going ballistic over that. Pretty funny — if there is obviously massive fraud, they expect the Donald to just roll over and play dead rather than go to the courts as Bush II did?

Yeah, I guess they do expect him to roll over and play dead — after all, Nixon did.

Personally, I would have just blandly said, “Of course, I’ll accept the results.” Which just shows that I am not as fast on my feet as the Donald: no sane person would just accept the “results” even if obviously fraudulent.

I think there is no way to predict how this will play out: could be a 55/45 Hillary victory, could be a 55/45 Trump victory (I’m excluding third-party votes).

* Trump’s answer is a Rorschach test of sorts. If you like him, it means legal challenges and recounts are on the table. If you don’t, it means he’s storming the White House with guns blazing.

* To put more simply: they were trying to bait Trump into saying “No recounts,” in so many words. Trump demurred.

They don’t want Trump to be president, and they certainly don’t want to go through 2000 again, so they’re pretending like Trump’s the one who’s baiting. As if out of the blue he said, “I win, or we go to the mattresses.”

Because, surprise, surprise, the media is deceitful. Trump didn’t give the best possible answer, or really even a good answer. He gave a politician’s answer. But there wasn’t any way out of the trap except to be deceitful himself. So I give Trump credit for being honest. Relative to other politicians, that is.

* What the party elites and the MSM (Wallace included) want him to say, at least by implication, is that he won’t legally challenge the results in the manner of Gore. That’s why they’re hammering him on it. They want to back him into a corner.

He could have handled it better, which is true of virtually everything he’s handled this election. But there’s no reason to infer a devious plot to overthrow the Sacred Process on his part. That’s bad faith on the part of everyone who would turn this into a Thing.

What’s rely at stake issue is his status as an outsider, and the damage such an amateur politician/loose cannon can do to the Establishment’s prestige. They rely on their prestige. We live in , a world of massive deception, and reputation is paramount. If people stop believing in the Democratic Process, they could start believing in anything.

* Exhibit A on why women should not be allowed to vote. It was a disaster. Women operate on feelz, and WANT a high inequality society.

Think, where do women go to Eat-Pray-Love? Switzerland, with its stunning natural beauty that inspired Tolkien to write Lord of the Rings? Japan, home to ancient traditions and samurai? New Zealand, home to beauty to rival Switzerland?

Nope. To some of the highest inequality, High GINI coefficient nations on the planet. In Africa, in places like Thailand, in India, in Latin America. That’s where your average UMC woman goes to Eat-Pray-Love. And they’re all voting Hillary.

Heck Hillary’s Open Borders and Dynastic Rule sounds thrilling to most women. Where Game of Thrones is a “hot” fantasy and they all want to be the Dragon Queen luxuriating in the approval of various poor, non-White hordes. Even better a society of the miserable poor and a few high Upper Class means any White man with success MUST be an Alpha and not some nerdy pretender.

Compare / Contrast the amount of ultra hot women and kids had by same of say, Z-lister Kevin Federline, and King of the Nerds Steve Jobs, worshiped by millions (of nerds only though). Yes women will vote Team Woman and sink the nation in a sea of the Third World mass immigration. Because Trump was mean or something.

* Trump blew it. The debates were his opportunity to substantively destroy Hillary on policy grounds and show he could be a good President. Unfortunately his ego, indiscipline and deformed personality kept getting in the way.

All the debate chatter has been about him insulting Miss Universe, boasting about sexual assault and refusing to accept the election result. It’s been very painful to watch all the own goals.

* I think Trump started off slowly, so I was bumming for a while there, having tuned in anticipating a debate like the second one, with “the silverback gorilla” throwing combinations all over the place. I felt high all day the day after that second debate! But this one wasn’t on that level.

Nonetheless, I think he won, and I’m very glad he brought up those “Rigging the Election” videos. If I were in charge of things, I’d have a very obvious, easily found, “can’t miss it” entire section right on the Trump website that has those videos in it, direct links to the WikiLeaks material, “Clinton Cash” embedded, links to all manner of things that show Clinton for what she is. Let her go on all she wants about how “when they go low, we go high”; all that stuff speaks for itself and shows just what she means by that phrase — i.e., when they tell too much Truth, we’ll ignore it and talk about how important it is that homosexuals get to play house while possessing a “marriage” license.

* Except women really do not like it when other women support husbands who are seen to be sexual predators, so that issue is not really a winner for her. And even the lowest-information of low-information voters think they know that she could not refrain from laughing after getting a good deal for a client who was convicted of criminally assaulting a female child. Saying she gets the support of women because she says nice things about how hard it is to be a woman is like saying Clarence Thomas is beloved by African-Americans because he has said nice things about how hard it is to be an African-American.

* Kudos to Chris Wallace. I’m glad someone finally pointed out that Hillary’s plan to jumpstart the economy and create millions of new jobs is exactly the same as Obama’s plan back in 2009. That plan cost nearly a trillion dollars and mostly went to connected green energy “entrepreneurs” and government workers. There was no jumpstarting whatsoever. The infrastructure was not fixed, as promised. “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected, heh heh,” chuckled Obama.

If she’s elected, I’m sure a lot of Hillary’s trillion–or more–will end up in the hands of contractors who contributed to the Clinton Foundation. Boy, did she lie about the Clinton Foundation! It spends 90 percent of its funds on charitable purposes? It gets the highest ranking from watchdog groups? As someone in the Wikileaks said, “She doesn’t know what planet she’s on.”

Hillary talked about the hard work and difficult decisions Obama had to make to get our economy back on track. I’m not clear on what those were. Can anyone explain them to me? I’m serious. My impression that all Obama did as far as getting the economy back on track was to pump several trillion dollars of quantitative easing into it. The economy he’ll be passing to the next president will be even less sound than the one he inherited.

* Mr. Trump’s answer was partly deliciously subversive of the present $ellout Regime, and was mostly masterful politics of the Keep ‘Em Guessing school.

His answer proved that he’s a superb politician, way above Hillary’s bush league boilerplate recitation-regurgitation, because Mr. Trump adroitly didn’t answer the question.

Recall the line that Arthur Kennedy, portraying reporter Jackson Bentley, says to Omar Sharif’s Sherif Ali in Lawrence Of Arabia:

“You answered without saying anything. That’s politics!”

In short, Mr .Trump just gave the chattering chowderheads of Enemedia-Pravda and the Know-It-All snobs of the punditocracy a NON-issue to keep them busy chasing one another’s tails from now until the morning of November 9th.

Brilliant!

* As long as he remains advised by Bannon, Miller & Sessions, we should be fine. That Florida speech he gave last week was all we needed to hear to know he is on track. Immigration patriots don’t have the luxury of quibbling over stylistics – we are 20 years too late for that. It is all hands on deck time. Do or die.

* Trump doesn’t need to win women. He only needs 35-40% of women to win the election. Nothing that happened in this debate will drop him lower than that and he may have boosted himself a little.

* …even if Trump loses, take heart. It could be similar to Goldwater in that it was a rebirth. I’d much rather live in an America with a “woke” 30% white population than a 75% white America full of deracinated boobs. And there will be secession possibilities in the future. Who’s gonna stop the white supermajority from seceding? A bunch of trannies, single moms, dindus, and Tiny Duck?

Steve Sailer writes: Would Hillary peacefully accept the verdict of the polls or would she demand that Obama strike back at Russia for rigging the election?

COMMENTS:

* Another Unanswered Quesion: Why do liberals say they’ll move to Canada, rather than Mexico, if Trump wins? Why do they so strongly prefer our northern neighbor?

* A even more interesting question is whether the military would obey the orders of a lame-duck President acting on behalf of a defeated candidate, especially if Donald Trump countermands the order? More likely, Hillary will not accept the electoral results and will challenge votes in swing states. Trump might do the same thing. I wonder if we might have the spectacle of rival electoral college results and rival inaugurations–whose orders will the military and police follow then?

* It’s about time we questioned the legitimacy of American electoral politics, is it not?

How legitimate is a result brought about by the importation of millions of foreigners against the will of the majority?

* If Russia wants to decide the outcome of US elections, it should do it the honest way, i.e. buy up the American media and Hollywood.

So @cnn claims that the election can't be hacked, but the Russians have already hacked it. pic.twitter.com/EWucedIYA1

— RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) October 20, 2016

Steve Sailer writes from Unz.com: “Right as the Presidential debate ended, we got hit with what appears to have been a major Denial of Service attack.

It must have been the fault of those hackers of Putin that Hillary is always warning us about.”