Trump is More Progressive Than Hillary on Trade, Military Intervention


The political establishment is waging full a full court press against Donald Trump, providing political pundits and media talking heads with an unending supply of scurrilous content and propaganda aimed at taking Trump down.

For decades, the Republican party has been a reliable mouthpiece for Wall Street, Big Oil, the military-industrial complex, et al. Rank and file voters had little control over the party or its leaders, and were frustrated that the only voice they had was through establishment politicians who paid lip service to their conservative social agendas.

Trump has profoundly changed that dynamic. And in doing so has made enemies of all who cannot bribe or control him.

Substantive evaluation of Trump’s positions has been obliterated in the rhetoric of establishment generated hysteria at the prospect of Trump becoming the Republican nominee, or, even worse for the establishment, the next president.

The establishment has enlisted unthinking and easily manipulated people to protest Trump, disrupt his rallies, demonize his supporters, misrepresent his positions, and attempt to thwart his candidacy.

Lost in the histrionics are some very interesting, and compelling, arguments why Trump should be considered by liberals to be a favorable alternative to Hillary Clinton.

On both trade policy and military interventionism, Donald Trump is substantially to the left of Hillary Clinton.

These are without question the most important issues in this election cycle, and certainly the most defining of the candidates.

Trade agreements have done irreparable damage to the environment, closed 60,000 US factories, cost Americans millions of jobs, overridden US labor and environmental laws, and dramatically increased the slaughter of animals by making it easier and more profitable to do so without the inconvenience of complying with US animal cruelty standards (such as they are).

On military interventionism, Trump opposes the US inserting itself in foreign civil wars, skirmishes and disputes, while Hillary Clinton has been a cheerleader for a neo-con US foreign policy that is indistinguishable from that of George W Bush.

Hillary’s fingerprints are to be found on regime changes in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. All of which cost American treasure and foreign lives, many of whom were innocent women and children.

In light of Hillary’s record as a neo-con hawk, and a supporter of almost all trade agreements she has weighed in on, liberal support for Clinton is a mystery.

An even bigger mystery is how liberals are so easily manipulated by the media and the oligarchy to embrace their enemy and to demonize an ally.



Author’s Notes:

I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.

If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.

• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!

Natasha Sainsbury, of Good Karma Graphic Design, has joined Armory of the Revolution as Editor, and is responsible for the transformation of the blog’s appearance. Visit and follow her blog V Kind.

If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.

There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.

• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot

You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!

Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty

If you support the Amory’s work and mission, please help us grow.

Just $3 per month will allow is to advertise!


6 thoughts on “Trump is More Progressive Than Hillary on Trade, Military Intervention

  1. Trump is a megalomaniac! How can any intelligent person, especially an animal rights activist, consider voting for him!!! Have you forgotten Bernie Sanders!! I would never consider voting for Hillary, except if Trump is the only other choice! There is absolutely no evidence that he would even consider doing anything for animals, or the environment. If Independents could vote in the primaries, Bernie would be winning by a landslide. The whole system sucks!


    • If you had actually read the article, you would know that I support Bernie Sanders. You would also know that I disagree with Trump on almost everything. You would even have gleaned the operative message contained in the piece: that Trump is better for animals than is Hillary. And that is because Trump opposes free trade agreements, while Hillary supports them. Trade agreements make it easier and more profitable to kill animals, they make live export impossible to regulate, they cause the deaths of millions upon millions of animals per year compared with no trade agreements.

      So, it would be helpful if you used logic instead of bile to evaluate how you will vote if it is down to Hillary versus Trump. For me, and for anyone who actually caresa about animals, there is no question of whom to support. Trump is better for animals than is Hillary. End of story.


  2. “On military interventionism, Trump opposes the US inserting itself in foreign civil wars, skirmishes and disputes, while Hillary Clinton has been a cheerleader for a neo-con US foreign policy that is indistinguishable from that of George W Bush.”

    The second part of that sentence is certainly true. But the first part seriously needs documentation. I could be convinced that it is largely true, but he contradicts himself so frequently that it’s quite difficult to ascertain what his real position is, if he has one at all.


  3. Dam…you know that feeling when you find out what you thought and those you have had confidence in, have been lying all the while. Who can we trust? What is the truth? How screwed over are we all? I have a feeling it’s to the point of no return…..and the animals have no chance…..I wish I didn’t feel such a cloud of darkness but I do. I give thanks to Roland and Good Karma Graphics the only 2 links I can count on for the truth and comprehensible information I can understand. ❤


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s