2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Would cool-headed supporters of Hillary Clinton please attempt to persuade me why... [View all]RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I'm just addressing the comparison you made. Bush II had lots of connections to neoconservatives through his family, they had very specific plans and agendas, and they made sure they were in all the right places to carry them out.
Hillary Clinton, of course, wouldn't bring in 'peace-loving doves on foreign policy' either, and she seems to have made some connections among still-lingering neoconservatives. And she has, in some cases, very close relationships with various foreign parties that aren't difficult to identify.
Both Trump and Clinton have been rather hawkish in their language thus far on foreign policy. Some of Trump's nonsense has been pure propaganda which he later walks back on, and most of the top brass would resign rather than implement some of the things he's pitched. And he knows that, I think.
I don't know who would be actually better or worse with respect to foreign policy over the span of a presidential term. Trump, merely by being the President, would certainly do no good for our image abroad. But actual probable foreign and/or military policy? If someone could demonstrate to me that her leadership team in those areas are likely to scale down American military activity abroad, that would be something of value.