I don't know if I was commenting here on the race at a point where I'd be saying things just like this. There may be something in my posting history, somewhere. I think I at least indicated that I view Sanders as, ultimately, a party man, when I said those who were surprised by his backing Clinton didn't really understand him in the first place.
His backing Clinton does draw into question whatever "growth" he showed on foreign policy questions during the primaries. (He did improve on and distinguish himself from Clinton on FP during the primaries, whether he was sincere about it or not.)
I remember your thoughts on Ron Paul's foreign policy back in 2008 and your disillusionment over his hiring of family members for his campaign back then, which seems quaint now.
tl;dr: I agree with this post.
But I keep hearing people (I don't mean you, Spoon, but your post brought this to mind) explain their reasoning for supporting Trump vs. the alternative using reasoning that doesn't seem to be based on reality.
Like, yeah, Clinton was a neocon hawk.
Therefore, Trump will be the candidate of peace, the argument seems to go.
Is anyone watching the posturing over the Spratly Islands right now? Does war with China seem any less likely than a war with Russia under Clinton seemed?
Is anyone watching Trump promise the CIA we might get "another chance" to "take the oil" from Iraq, and still looking at him as an isolationist or non-interventionist?
