Only 3 weeks into the presidency and Trump has shaken up the political landscape, leaving many in anticipation for what might happen next. Trump is certainly no veteran when it comes to politics; however, his policies and (lack of) allegiances have proven himself a more viable candidate than Clinton – especially when it comes to the interests of the average American.
For posterity’s sake, here are a few reasons why this is so:
1. The Trans Pacific Partnership/NAFTA
The TPP was a trade agreement that benefited corporations, so much so that were it to be passed, median wage in the United States would decline, making it even worse off for the falling middle class. According to studies done, 450,000 jobs, mainly in the manufacturing sector, would end up being gutted and exported.
Furthermore, financial regulations which hold banks accountable for their actions would likely be undermined as governments not conforming to TPP financial policies could be sanctioned and tried in extrajudicial tribunals, until brought into conformity.
From an environmental standpoint, the TPP would have given power to corporations to sue cities, states, or countries that have environmental regulations in place if they were found to obstruct certain business interests. If a matter was deemed detrimental to corporate interests, or environmental regulations obstructed certain business practices, settlements that generally favor these corporations would be dealt with in an out-of-court matter, leaving most Americans footing the bill.
In further regards to outsourcing jobs, we should consider the fact that Hillary supported the Neo-Liberalist practice, which mainly only benefits CEO’s and shareholders, whereas Trump, recognizing the strength of having a manufacturing sector, is striving to bring back those jobs to America.
2. Open Borders/Globalization
In a private speech delivered to Goldman Sachs, Clinton said her dream was a “hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.” This further hammers in the fact that Hillary is a globalist.
Indeed, these were not just empty words as Clinton previously mentioned that she wanted to incorporate a 550% increase of Syrian refugees.
With the rise of terrorism in Europe and the increase in violent crimes, intensive-vetting processes are needed more than ever to maintain the safety and sovereignty of the United States.
Clinton also inferred that she wanted to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, meaning she wanted to grant citizenship to 11,000,000 illegals. The cost of this to taxpayers would result in a staggering $1.2 trillion dollars.
No doubt, she would’ve continued upon Obama’s lax immigration policies. Illegal immigration is a strain on the taxpayers and regular citizens, as it has to account for school, welfare, infrastructure, a dilution of the labor market and an increase in crime.
Trump’s stance, although a controversial one, can arguably be seen as more beneficial for regular, blue-collared Americans.
3. Increased Prospects For War
Certainly, for a democrat, Hillary was a war-hawk. She supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and instigated the overthrow of Gaddafi (allowing ISIS to metastasize in doing so). Over the months she rallied the further support of Neocons who had originally brought us the travesties of these Middle-East invasions.
Hillary’s policies would have brought us continued interventionism in Syria. This meant increased funding for ‘moderate’ terrorists (in fact she was a big proponent of this outrageous policy), and the imposition of a no-fly zone – something that would’ve created a huge conflict with Russia. Clinton, who likened Putin to Hitler, would have also pursued aggressivist policies in Ukraine, which only would’ve further pushed Russia to the brink of war.
As far as Trump’s policies go, he’s made it his own personal mission to eradicate Islamic terrorism. Certainly, Trump is taking an active policy in the ME, rather than a isolationist one – however, this is better than Hillary’s, who would’ve likely instigated further conflict in the Middle-East under Neocon leadership and guidance.
4. Wall Street Servility
Hillary Clinton, in the $225,000 dollar an hour Goldman-Sachs speeches revealed by Wikileaks, said financial reform and regulation “has to come from the industry itself.” Considering what the bankers and financiers have wrought on the regular people of America; this notion in itself seems ludicrous. She also mentioned, as a senator, she “represented and worked with” so many on Wall Street and “did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper.”
It was also mentioned in these speeches that as a presidential candidate you must have a ‘public’ position (one for her average voters) and a ‘private’ position (one representing her special interests) as well. She was a demagogue at its finest, and essentially had no problem lying to the populous.
She and her husband also received $68.7 million in campaign contributions from New York banks and $8.8 million more in speaking fees. Her campaign contribution list also consisted of names like Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, CitiGroup etc.
Hillary, as secretary of state also earned $22 million dollars before resigning.
Indeed, her interests clearly lie with the bankers. Were corruption to run rampant on Wall Street under her presidency, it’s likely the same pattern we’ve seen in the past would continue. A blind eye turned to egregious crimes or widespread collusion, no arrests made and small fines imposed.
Trump, who holds familiarity in this field, stayed financially independent from banks/Wall Street throughout his campaign. Trump has called out banks for unethically profiting off the backs of average American workers, has said he would like to reinstate the Glass-Stegall act, has called to audit the fed, mentioned that hedge fund managers are “getting away with murder” – clearly he is not making many friends on Wall Street.
Indeed, Trump may have some former bankers in his cabinet – however, as far as we know, his interests do not lie with the banks themselves.
5. Collusion with the Media and Overall Corruption
Throughout the campaign, Wikileaks slowly leaked e-mails which revealed the chilling amount of collusion between the media and the complete lack of integrity that permeated throughout the once-legitimate media landscape. It had been revealed that dozens of media personalities and organizations personally donated money to the Clinton Foundation, which included New York Times owner Carlos Slim, Bloomberg and Reuters.
The Clinton Campaign also held a dinner party for dozens of journalists, where the intended goal was to frame the message they (Hillary’s campaign) wanted (the media) to convey throughout Hillary’s campaign. Furthermore, specific journalists like New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman was specifically outed to work as a Clinton operative and Politico reporter Ken Vogel sent an article for review to DNC staffer Luis Miranda before publication.
Donna Brazile, DNC interim chair, was revealed to have leaked CNN debate questions and sent them to the Clinton Campaign, prior to the debate.
DNC staffers wrote the questions for Wolf Blitzer when he interviewed Trump.
Essentially, when you control the media, you control the narrative. Clinton would’ve been left to exploit the system without have to deal with much scrutiny from the corrupt mainstream media.
Further corruption was revealed by Wikileaks throughout the campaign which left many aghast.
For one, the DNC surreptitiously colluded to sabotage Bernie Sanders’ campaign.
Moreover the Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from repressive and brutal foreign governments during the campaign including a $25 million donation from the KSA and millions more from Qatar, Kuwait, Brunei and the UAE revealing a serious conflict of interest.
She used public donor money to illegally sabotage Donald Trump’s campaign, showing her contempt and complete disregard for the democratic/election process.
We can go on, but the point is made.
Clinton, a proven and corrupt liar, who does not give a damn about average working-class Americans, all the while representing the interests of the 1%, the shadow government, the globalists, Neocons, military-industrial complex, Wall Street, corporatists, other big-lobbyists and everyone else in the dark state, was luckily not voted in.
Whereas Trump, the billionaire business-mogul who by the corrupt media deemed as an alleged ‘sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, bigot who doesn’t know much about politics’, won in an astonishing upset.
Weighing my two options almost a month after inauguration, I’d still take the latter any day of the week.