No difference between candidates on foreign policy plans
The presidential foreign policy debate was a debacle with no differences.
Both candidates pledged to continue the policy of having America act as a vassal and client state to Israel. Perhaps this is because there are a disproportionate number of dual Israeli-American citizens in the plutocratic institution of economic power such as Goldman Sachs, the U.S. Treasury, IMF, World Bank and the privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank? Could it be that these Fed owners and, incidentally, bail out recipients are still devotees of Theodore Herzl as they were in 1917?
Both candidates also pledged to aid in the expansion of the Sunni Caliphate sponsored and controlled by Saudi Arabia. Despite the fact that it was a Saudi Arabian Sunni jihadist that flew into the World Trade Center, we attacked every Shia or independent Middle East leader like Hussein, Gadhafi, Assad and Ahmadinejad of Iran. We help destabilize every government in the Middle East except Riyadh, even our allies like Mubarak of Egypt, and then aided their replacement by Sunni jihadists like those in the Muslim brotherhood, al-Qaida and the Taliban? Both candidates pledged to squander billions more of your tax money to aid the non-existent moderate Muslims like those in Egypt and Libya’s Muslim brotherhood.
Finally, both candidates also pledged to keep the current policy of allowing China to loan back to Washington the free trade profits acquired as a most-favored nation. The Chinese loaned back profits acquired under our trade policy that fosters such an imbalance of trade. For example, does the billions of dollars in debt due to China allow them to dictate that the EPA shut down competitive mines, mills and factories? It is apparent neither candidate is a Hamiltonian economic patriot, either.