There will be plenty of downsides to a Trump presidency. But this tweet last night from independent journalist Rania Khalek (who has harshly criticized Trump) snapped my head back: “I’ve been asking Syrians who they want to win for president. The vast majority say Trump because they feel he’s less likely to bomb them.” Many people voted against Hillary Clinton because of her war-mongering record. Even MSNBC’s Chris Mathews declared that that was one of the reasons she lost.
Here’s another Twitter comment that is apropos today:
@mckaycoppins MSNBC correspondent in Moscow says Russian people are reacting ecstatically to Trump’s victory. They view him as the “peace candidate.”
Trump has said many things on foreign policy that made me shudder. But Hillary Clinton’s record of warmongering from Bosnia to Serbia to Iraq to Libya to Syria sufficiently proved her bellicosity.
** update: Here’s another excellent tweet from last night:
Adam H. Johnson @adamjohnsonNYC
“I unironically still contend those who live in countries we bomb should get to vote in our presidential elections”
**
OK, I can’t resist throwing in some fun graphics I saw on social media in the past month –
Hmm, Donald Trump won’t bomb Syria, Iraq, et al. With John Bolton, Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Jeff Sessions and Tom Cotton, as his close advisors, what could go wrong?
Ya, well, I ain’t sanguine.
In the fullness of time, the country might fall back on its vaunted reputation for efficiency and simply make a direct deposit of the millions spent upon campaigns into the coffers of Boeing, Raytheon, Northrup Grumman etc ETCETERA. After all, this would appear to be how one drains a swamp AND wins a foreign entanglement, by utilizing the endlessly yearning services of the Laputan Neo Cons. Why waste time with all this sordid campaigning when a revolving door of Neo Cons are the accepted norm?
Hopefully the initial round of appointees are stacked in the direction of common sense. I’m not holding my breath, though…