Hilary Clinton vs Donald Trump

For Trump:1: Non-interventionistDonald Trump has a long track recod of opposing a criticizing the failed foreign policy of interventionism. In 2007, Trump condemned[1] the disastrous invasion of Iraq, which would later go down in history as a complete disaster:"And yet, 400,000 people, the way I count it, and probably millions have been badly maimed and injured. What's going on? What's going on?" "And the day we pull out, it is going to explode. We're keeping the lid on a little bit -- it is still a catastrophe. But the day we pull out -- because they are in a civil war, whether we want to admit it or not, they are in a civil war."He later stood up to George W. Bush's foreign policy legacy in his performance at the South Carolina debate [2]. Even amidst booing, Trump stood firm on his views.At his American Israeli Public Affairs Comittee Speech [3], Trump said:"I do think it’s a different world today, and I don’t think we should be nation-building anymore""I think it’s proven not to work, and we have a different country than we did then. We have $19 trillion in debt. We’re sitting, probably, on a bubble. And it’s a bubble that if it breaks, it’s going to be very nasty. I just think we have to rebuild our country."While some may be concerned over Trump's diplomatic prospects, it must be noted that he has done more for US-Russia relationships as a candidate than Barack Obama did after 8 years of presidency [4] .2: Nativist and nationalistTrump has made the interests of American citizens the forefront of his campaign since day one. Trump's refusal to reward illegal immigration, proposals to build more American jobs, and promise to restore America's past greatness have been the main driving force behind his campaign's runaway success [5]. Trump has vowed to overturn NAFTA[6], the free trade deal which had massive negative effects on the economic prospects of US citizens[7].Trump stands firmly for the interests of American people, and they know this.Against Clinton:Millitary interventionismHillary Clinton has a long history of being a warhawk. Her oft-touted record as a politician supports this[9]. As Joseph Mulkerin at Truthout writes[8]:"Hillary Clinton was reportedly one of the most hawkish members of President Obama's cabinet, pushing for the 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan and US intervention in Libya. She has also been a vocal proponent of the same drone war that has led to the deaths of 2,400 civilians. In her recent memoir, Hard Choices, she bragged about having presided over the imposition of "crippling sanctions" on the Iranian economy during her tenure as secretary of state. These crippling sanctions are a form of collective punishment and have benefited the wealthy only, while making life miserable for everyone else."There are many more problems with the prospects of a Clinton presidency. Since I ran into some unexpected time constraints whilst participating this debate, I will elaborate and highlight these in further rounds.ConclusionIf one wishes to defend American national interests, and put an end to pointless warfare, support Donald Trump.Sources:[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...[2] http://www.cnn.com...[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com...[4] http://www.cnn.com...[5] http://www.ontheissues.org...[6] http://time.com...[7] http://www.epi.org...[8] http://www.truth-out.org...[9] http://swampland.time.com...