Trump = Obama = Bush = Clinton On 4 Core Issues

On a superficial level, Trump and Bush couldn’t be more different from Clinton and Obama.  Indeed, pollsters say that many people voted for Trump because they wanted change … Just like they voted for Obama because he promised “hope and change” from Bush-era policies.

But beneath the surface, Trump, Obama, Bush and Clinton are all very similar on 4 core issues.

Moar War

Bush intentionally lied us into the Iraq war … a war which had no relation with U.S. security or defense.

Clinton and Obama intentionally lied us into various “humanitarian wars” … which had nothing to do with our security or defense.

And the same idiots who lied us into the Iraq war are now trying to lie us into a cold (or maybe even hot) war with Russia.

And what about Trump?

He campaigned on peace and non-interventionism …

But he’s already ramped up the war in Syria.

And the war in Yemen. … where the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are committing war crimes.

And he’s already increased drone strikes by 432%.

And Trump’s top advisor is predicting war with China and Russia. He said:

We’re going to war in the South China Sea … no doubt

So it doesn’t look like peace is going to break out any time soon.

And sadly, top experts say the geopolitical policies pursued by Trump – which are very similar to those pursued by Obama, Bush and Clinton – will lead to more terrorism.

Lap Dogs for Wall Street … Making the Rich Richer

Obama, Bush and Clinton all pushed economic policies which made the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

Bush and Obama bailed out the big banks, threw fistfuls of money at the banksters, and otherwise rewarded Wall Street and penalized Main Street.

Clinton repealed the Depression-era law which separated regular deposit banking and speculation (Glass-Steagall), allowed the giant banks to grow into mega-banks, and acted as a cheerleader for unregulated derivatives. And Clinton – like Bush and Obama – decided that white collar financial fraud didn’t exist, or at least shouldn’t be prosecuted.

What’s the effect of these policies?

Rick Baum notes, using official U.S. governments statistics, that inequality steadily increased under all 3 presidents:

Inequality Clinton Bush Obama

Real wages plummeted through the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.

What about Trump?

He’s appointed the same old bankster cronies.  Nothing will change. (And unfortunately, it’s not too early to criticize a new president.)

Spying On Americans

The NSA’s mass surveillance on Americans started by 1999 or earlier … under the Clinton administration.

3 months before 9/11, the head of the NSA admitted that the NSA was collecting so much information from spying that it was drowning in too much data.

Mass surveillance expanded under Bush … and then even more under Obama.

It’s gotten to the point that the government is spying on virtually all of our electronic communications and transactions.

And Trump?

Given that he’s called for whistleblowers like Snowden and Assange to be executed for treason, and quickly implemented gag orders as soon as he took office, he is almost certain to continue the expansion of mass surveillance on the American people.

In other words, a president who severely punishes anyone trying to reveal the extent of spying on Americans probably has no intention of reigning it in.

Supporting Dictators Who Support Terrorism

Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest sponsor of radical Islamic terrorists. The Saudis have backed ISIS and many other brutal terrorist groups. And the most pro-ISIS tweets allegedly come from Saudi Arabia.

According to sworn declarations from a 9/11 Commissioner and the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry Into 9/11, the Saudi government backed the 9/11 hijackers (see section VII for details). And declassified documents only amplify those connections. And the new Saudi king has ties to Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and Islamic terrorism.

Saudi Arabia is the hotbed of the most radical Muslim terrorists in the world: the Salafis (both ISIS and Al Qaeda are Salafis).

And the Saudis – with U.S. support – back the radical “madrassas” in which Islamic radicalism was spread.

And yet the U.S. has been supporting the Saudis militarily, with NSA intelligence and in every other way possible through the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.

Trump?

He’s selling them massive amounts of arms, keeping them off of the list of restricted countries for immigration, and supporting Saudi war crimes in Yemen.

It appears that the voters have been played … again.

Postscript:  If you think that the presidents are more different than we’re giving them credit for, then you must conclude that they have been overridden by other forces. In that case, you may wish to consider consider whether the Deep State and big banks have more power than democratically-elected officials.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Seen2013

    To be succinct:
    1). The US Dollar’s world’s reserve currency status is the difference between deficit to debt spending accounting for over 80% of GDP but under 93% of GDP point of no return to over 93% of GDP.
    2). Historically, shifts in global balance of power is decisively determined by major warfare such as the Developed World V Developing World.
    3). War and Rationing is very often the go to solution to government’s whose leadership possess expansionist aka open border political ideologies.
    4). The US politic leadership can’t afford to lose. Responsibility to Protect requires aiding the ‘Established Government’ not ‘deemed legitimate government’ making aiding rebel or otherwise revolutionary forces a war-crime.
    Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and etc would be war-crimes under RTP.

  • Eric Anderson

    Fifth area of commonality: unwavering support for Apartheid Israel.

  • diogenes

    This is excellent overall but the figures cited for distribution of wealth have been skewed by their sources. In fact, today, the top 1% of Americans own over 50% of America and the top 10% owns approaching 90% of it. For documentation and discussion see Part 1 of my essay, published elsewhere on this site, “The Distribution of Wealth In America.” Fudging numbers is another thing Trump, Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and Reagan all agreed on.

    • Marko

      From just a quick glance at your report , I gather you prefer not to include housing wealth in your calculations. Is that correct ?

      If so , the ‘skew’ is not really a question of “sources”. However , I do agree that top-end wealth is probably underestimated significantly , but mainly because some of it is hidden , offshore and otherwise. I’ve seen estimates ranging from $5-15 trillion or more of elite wealth that may not be showing up on the FRB Z.1 tabulations.

      • slorter

        Yes I have seen that as well! Money that the tax man never sees hidden!

  • David S

    = the democrats = the republicans.

    Everything they and the media focus on is window dressing to get the gullible to believe that there are such fundamental differences that NOT voting for “US” will mean the end of the world as we know it. In truth, no matter which horrible major party or which horrible candidate they have nominated, gets elected, NOTHING EVER CHANGES (most certainly NOT for the betterment of America, freedom, liberty, etc.).

  • DonRickles

    From a practical standpoint, Trump was the only alternative to Hillary Clinton. If in fact Trump turns out to be unacceptable for the same reasons – who can be an alternative to both Trump and the next establishment neocon puppet Democrat? There is no alternative.

  • Steve Carr

    The future is alternative search engines. We all need to us another search engine and than we take away the governments power, who have become to powerful, or we just go back to yelling loud try Lookseek com a no tracking search or one of the other alternative searches.. Have a great day

  • Marshalldoc

    “…you may wish to consider consider whether the Deep State and big banks have more power than democratically-elected officials.” Well, considering international finance is part of the ‘Deep State’, there’s no real sense in separating them. The Princeton study demonstrated that the U.S. is a functional plutocracy so the issue of ‘democratic elections’ doesn’t apply. And, as for Trump, had the ‘Deep State’ not found him more or less acceptable, he’d not have been in the running. Surprised that Trump is merely another manifestation of the ruling elite? Not really.