A look into the Republican candidate’s policies before next week’s election
Bill Clinton’s job approval rating reached 73 per cent, his highest recorded, after his infamous sex scandals and impeachment. Clearly this, and numerous unconfirmed sexual assaults, have not stopped him from being beloved for his policies.
Policy is what matters in an election, not whether or not candidates are good people. Neither candidate is a good person, so from here we must discern whose policy is better. The clear answer is Trump’s.
Trump is the peace candidate. People claim he’s divisive and dangerous, but Clinton’s policies have politicians fearing World War III. And no, I am not being hyperbolic.
Clinton doubled down during the third debate on her plans to enact a no-fly zone over Syria and establish safe zones for Syrians. According to The Guardian, many military personnel feel this would likely lead to an air occupation and open conflict with the Russians, who were invited into Syria by President Bashar al-Assad. Some believe it could lead to nuclear war.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at the end of Cold War, said the situation has “reached a dangerous point.” After the Kremlin stated it would shoot down Western aircrafts, Gorbachev told the Russian news agency, RIA Novosti: “We need to renew dialogue. Stopping it was the biggest mistake.”
Trump sees Russia as the powerful nation it is. He has repeated throughout the debates that he wants to sit down and negotiate with Russia and come to a diplomatic solution.
“It’s actually Hillary’s policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump’s, who does not want to go to war with Russia,” said U.S. Green Party candidate Jill Stein during an interview with the American television network, C-SPAN. “He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route we need to follow.”
Such radically interventionist policies make Clinton a rehash of neoconservatives like George W. Bush. Trump’s outlook on interventionism, outlined in his book Crippled America advocates helping out only if countries can reimburse the U.S. This should be music to people’s ears.
Trump is also pro-ethics and transparency. In an Oct. 18 press release, he promised a constitutional amendment imposing congressional term limits, banning executive officials and members of Congress lobbying for five years, expanding the definition of “lobbyist,” banning former executive officials from lobbying for foreign governments and banning foreign lobbyists from interfering in American elections.
Hillary’s ethical stances simply do not stack up. Although Clinton has said she wishes to expand the definition of “lobbyist” and has historically supported a two-year ban on former government servants taking jobs at companies they oversaw, her relationship with lobbyists is far more concerning than Trump’s.
The Washington Post reported that Clinton’s campaign has received $7 million in donations from federally registered lobbyists, while Trump’s campaign has received no such money. Lobbyists raised an additional $2 million for the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee with the DNC. That’s a lot of owed favours.
WikiLeaks revealed that Clinton participated in the unethical campaign financing that Trump wishes to ban. Clinton advisors took contributions of questionable legality from foreign lobbyists registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, according to The Daily Caller. Her campaign accepted such donations based on donors’ relationships with the State Department during Clinton’s tenure there.
Her campaign may have used American lobbyists to launder this money, according to WikiLeaks. Campaign staff admitted in the leaked WikiLeaks emails that donors have pushed policy change onto Clinton. That should be terrifying—she can be bought. Trump, however, is not beholden to the same expectations from lobbyists.
Clinton is corrupt. WikiLeaks showed she took money in exchange for favours from both Morocco and Qatar, using the Clinton Foundation, while she was Secretary of State. These countries have awful human rights records, as both jail homosexuals and allow marital rape, according to Human Rights Watch. This shows she cannot be trusted to put American interests before hers or foreigner leaders’.
While we cannot verify the full authenticity of the WikiLeaks leaks, they raise disturbing questions regarding Clinton’s ethics.
Trump’s zero-tolerance immigration policies, while viewed as promoting inequality, put Americans first. Clinton’s policy, to deport only violent illegal immigrants, would be completely unfair to Americans who’ve attained citizenship legally.
The American Immigration Center explained while wait times for citizenship vary, a person moving to the U.S. can wait upwards of six years before being granted citizenship.
There would be few incentives to obey immigration law in Clinton’s America. The Center for Immigration Studies found that over 2.5 million people entered the U.S. illegally since President Obama took office—an average of about 350,000 per year. Amnesty can only make this number go up. Protecting your citizens, laws and sovereignty is not racism.
Trump’s immigration plan would also benefit current American citizens. The Federal Reserve found youth decline in employment is linked to unskilled, immigrant labour.
Trump plans to create a resumé bank for inner-city youth to help replace jobs made available by the removal of illegal immigrants and the elimination of the J-1 visa program. Trump claims this would greatly help Americans in disenfranchised communities, including many predominantly black communities.
Many accuse Trump of misogyny. While he has said things others deem offensive, it is also worth noting he is campaigning for paid maternity leave. Trump has been accused of being out for the rich, but has proposed a huge tax break on lower-income families, allowing families with a combined income of up to $50,000 to pay no taxes.
Clinton is not the moral candidate. Those siding with her for moral reasons forget she flip-flops on progressivism. Clinton was an opponent of gay marriage until 2013, according to PolitiFact. Some leaked Podesta e-mails imply she still privately holds this view.
Both candidates have scandals, from “locker room talk” to illegal e-mail servers, and neither of these candidates are clean choices. But Clinton’s corrupt, war-hungry policies make it is clear that Donald J. Trump is the candidate to elect. His pro-American policies will Make America Great Again.
I’m trying to figure out if this is piece is satirically mocking Trump supporters or is serious a serious defence of Trump.
On one hand, it seems pretty straight-faced, but then you have laugh lines like “Trump sees Russia as the powerful nation it is.”
Russia has a smaller economy than Canada. Between 2013 and 2015 its GDP dropped by 40 per cent (for reference, Canada’s GDP during the “great recession” dropped by less than one per cent) and its inflation rate is around 12%.
Russia is like a stumbling drunk throwing a few wild punches as it collapses, it’s impossible to take it seriously. Just like the opinons presented in this piece.
I think these are better read as arguments against Clinton… and there are many of those.. you did a good job making Trump look good!
Trump is an egomaniac who is capable of doing ANYTHING! He has claimed repeatedly that NUCLEAR WEAPONS are on the the table, he completely ignores the FACTS behind global warming and while I think there are legitimate reasons for tapping the breaks on immigration, there is never any reason for racism and hate.
Clinton is more of the same, including not respecting Russia as a super power (which caused the cold war to begin with), not giving a damn about the working class, and is wrought in corruption… but Donald J. Trump is a madman!
Vote for Clinton and then get ready to primary her, that’s what I’d do
Obviously I cant be impartial, but I think your article is well written and shows the reader that Trump is not as bad as the media would like to portray. Other questions I have as a reader and observer of this election is ; why didn’t Hillary answer her husbands infidelity, and how she treated it. As a woman who was publically humiliated by her husbands antics, shouldn’t she have divorced him after his presidency or is she so power hungry and political that she (by not doing anything) essentially supported his antics. Why when she ran for Senator was she Hillary Rodham-Clinton but as a presidential candidate she’s just Clinton, again using anything, saying anything to get elected which is status quo for Washington. She doesn’t represent change she is status quo, with special interests, and foreign lobbyists running the show. Will Trump build a wall if elected, I doubt it, but if he gets elected on that position then it gives him a position of strength when talking to the Mexican officials about their responsibility of policing their side of the border, same goes for drugs being smuggled into the US and how the Mexican Govt. needs to step up their vigilance. All in all I think the fact that you stayed away from those points is admirable, and you took the high road in the Benghazi debacle where Clinton left an American ambassador to die and did nothing about it. Bravo.
Well researched and written Kat. Good for you to stick your head out against the majority Canadian opinion – which I believe is going to be sorely disappointed on election day by Americans who want change in Washington – regardless of income levels. That is always the ballot box question. All you have to do is look at our last federal election in Canada. Hilary does not represent change. Far far from it.