Civil war redux?
This current United States presidential election cycle is completely out of the ordinary. Even though the division and contentions between Hillary Clinton's supporters and Donald Trump's supporters are not policy oriented, like they should be, they are nonetheless extremely vivid in the realm of rage and raw emotions. It appears that most Americans will be motivated to cast their ballots with hatred in their guts. In other words many will vote for Trump because they hate Hillary with a passion, and vice versa. The divide in the US collective psyche seems so great, that many could reject the outcome of the result, especially if Hillary Clinton wins. When a candidate calls the supporters of the other "the deplorables," this is hardly acting like someone who wants to unite all Americans.
The right-wing forces backing Trump largely because of his running mate Pence and their aversion to Hillary Clinton, are the evangelical Christians. They are the ones Clinton calls deplorable. They represent a strong voting block of about 10 percent overall nationwide, and much more in rural areas. When you look at a map of the electoral divide in the US, it is rather fascinating both sociologically and historically. It is as if the mid-19th century Civil War was never lost or won. The old Confederate south will go to Donald Trump, and this is precisely where a new form of resistance to a corrupt political class might begin. Most people like Trump because he is considered to be an anti-establishment candidate. Trump is a right-wing populist reacting against the ultra-globalist Clinton. Many will vote for Trump as a form of protest against a political class they despise. One could say, especially considering that this election cycle has become such an exercise in sleaze, depravity and joyful roll in the gutter, that a vote for Trump is a f**k you vote echoing the recent BREXIT vote in the United Kingdom.
Clinton: the ultimate globalist neocon tool
A long time ago, Hillary Clinton was considered to be a so-called liberal. That is, until her immense appetite for money and ambition turned her into a neoliberal instrument of Wall Street. In Orwellian times, notions that appear to be opposite morph into one another. Therefore, when it came to maintaining and expanding the US empire, neoliberal and neocon became synonymous. As opposed to the Southern Bible belt and blue-collar rust belt supposed deplorables, the neocons are a rarefied urban elite, in majority Jewish. Since the launch of the so-called Project for the New American Century in 1997, they have been the driving force behind almost every foreign policy decision made by US governments, either Republican or Democrat. Victoria Nulan, the person who masterminded the destabilization of Ukraine from the State Department, is the wife of one of the neocon founding fathers: Robert Kagan. You will not find neocons with mud on their shoes minding their fields in Alabama. Their natural milieu are the corridors of powers in Washington DC, organizations like AIPAC, the Council on Foreign Relations, American Enterprise Institute, and other think-tanks; or institutions like the Pentagon, the State Department, and the CIA. Neocons are, by definition, the ideologues and puppet masters of the empire behind the notion of US exceptionalism and uncontested global hegemony. In this regard, Hillary Clinton is, very much, a neocon controlled by Wall Street and its subsidiary of the industrial-military complex. If elected, her supra-national masters will make sure that their agenda of global government controlled by a minuscule global elite is implemented.
Who would run Trump?
This is a question that Donald Trump voters should ask themselves. The appeal of Trump is largely the notion that he would clean the cesspool that is Washington. But let's not be naive here: Donald Trump is a businessmen with zero political experience, and he is not exactly a modern day Hercules able to clean the Augean stables in a day. Trump will need help, but he is an outsider, and therefore a Trump cabinet is, in many aspects, a mystery. Which group of people would run Trump if he were elected? From day one of his presidency Barack Obama was surrounded and run by Clinton's crew, whom I call Clintonites. Therefore, in many ways, Obama's first and second terms were really Clinton's third and fourth term. Trump would like to be perceived as a new Ronald Reagan, but this does not fare well as an indication of the real power he might want to exercise. The man in power during the Reagan era was George Bush Sr., while the former actor was just a figurehead reading speeches he did not write. Ultimately, if Trump had the intention to assert his independence from Washington's usual suspects and heavyweights, and truly assume power, it would likely become extremely hazardous to his health.
Is Clinton more likely than Trump to start World War III?
In regard to foreign policy, there is, unfortunately, not much departure from Trump about the guiding precept of US global hegemony, by military force in most cases. A Trump presidency would not end the global Monroe Doctrine, which has been the cornerstone of US foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The somewhat moronic comments Trump made during the fist debate with Clinton should be alarming when he mentioned that countries such as Germany, Japan and South Korea, which are arguably occupied by US troops and have been since World War II and the 1950s for Korea, should pay the US for their own occupation. This is in line with the tribute paid to Rome by oppressed nations that the Roman empire had invaded. During the second debate, calling Iran a terrorist state was also an extremely alarming foreign policy faux pas obviously aimed at pleasing Israel. Trump is also still clueless about the rise of ISIS as a mercenary force financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar with the full knowledge and blessings of Washington and Israel.
That said, however, there is an unknown factor with Trump, and paradoxically it is a good thing. Donald Trump is the devil we don't really know. The devil we know, Hillary Clinton, seems to act as if she already has won the election and is directing US foreign policy in the worst possible way. The no-fly-zone over Syria is a Clinton idea, which is of course designed to put the US and Russia on a collision course. Hillary Clinton is the one who started comparing Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. Clinton is the one most likely to approve an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran, and by doing so trigger World War III. This is what Western Europe's leaders should think about when they more or less openly endorse Hillary Clinton. Let's keep in mind that Hillary Clinton was the driving force behind fostering fake revolutions for regime change purposes in Libya, Syria and Ukraine: the prime engineer of failed states, misery and death for millions. In many ways, Clinton was ISIS' godmother. Clinton's policy path is a well-documented trail of chaos. Neither of the US candidates is a good option, but Clinton certainly constitutes a clear and present danger to world peace.