Debate: It is preferable Hillary Clinton is elected rather than Donald Trump

I shall first start by quoting George Orwell: "Looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the reimposition of slavery. We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity."sources in comments.Let the show begin.1. The Wars in Iraq and AfghanistanFirst let me state that in 2003, like many other Americans, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton supported the War in Iraq. However, the Donald, at the time, was little more than a private citizen. Hillary was an elected official: It was her duty to understand the facts, and not just vote in the heat of patriotic fervor for a war with Iraq (a state that had done nothing to the United States or her allies for over a decade), especially when there was a war already raging in Afghanistan, which needed more urgent attention and resources which were inevitably wasted in Iraq, both on the invasion and overthrow of Saddam, as well as the propping up of the officially recognized puppet state there now.The problem with the War was how the rules of engagement were adjusted to make it a more politically fought war than a violent war, a decision that cost many US and coalition soldiers dearly. This is not a critique of President Obama's decisions, as that the policies he enforced were already in place during the Bush Administration. However, such policies, such as adopting the counter insurgency tactics of the French in the French-Algerian War, particularly those ideas of David Galula. It should be noted that France lost this war. So the US adopted the failed tactics of a defeated military to fight two wars simultaneously.This decision was not made by US soldiers on the ground. These choices were made by individuals who sat in comfortable offices in the Pentagon or on Capitol Hill, quite safe from the reality of the violent nature of war. Clinton was one, and staunchly remains one, of these people. Trump has stated that he will adopt different, more violent tactics to win these wars.2. Foreign Affairs Such as Trade, Refugees, and with Respect to Foreign StatesTo keep this brief, and elaborate at a later date, many of the free trade deals benefit not the American People nor the populations of other countries, but the multinational corporations which found sources of cheap labor. Americans lost jobs which were sent overseas to factories which employed what amounts to slave laborers.Those staunch Capitalists who dislike my abhorrence of these internation free trade deals, please understand: These deals are not Capitalist. They are Corporatist, the scary bridge between Capitalism and Socialism. In Wealth of Nations, in those chapters dealing with Colonization, Adam Smith discusses, at lenght, what happens when large Corporations and Companies gain special favors from the government to conduct free trade outside of its borders. I encourage you all to read it, but in short, the larger companies, such as the British East India Company, profited greatly at the expense of indigineous peoples in India, as did the British African Company (at the expense of native Africans). Also, true British Capitalists, those entrepreneurs who sought to trade with far away lands and make a small fortune of their own found themselves at odds with trading laws. They were forced to pay a share of their profits to the big companies and were eventually swallowed up by them. Likewise, today the big American Corporations benfit, while small American companies must either rely on their gargantuan competitors for supplies, effectively giving them a share of their profits, or be willingly absorbed in the monster that is economic globalism.The Refugee Crisis is certainly a heated topic. I wholly admit that Trump's plan to ban all Muslim immigrants (refugee or not) is foolish: A dedicated Wahhabiist will merely lie about being a Muslim in order to gain access and attack. However, this does come from the intention of protecting American citizens, which is a government's primary purpose. Clinton wants to accept many more refugees, putting more at risk of an attack. Even if not one of these refugees is a Wahhabi or Salafist, there is still the cultural clash to deal with. Look at what happened in Germany on New Year's Eve; a night of celebration turned into a nightmare for women as they were groped, robbed, and some even raped by refugees from an entirely different culture.This final one is a topic which will touched upon again in a future number: donations made to the Clinton Foundation by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is known for not only funding terrorist organizations, such as ISIS, but also pushing the ideology of Wahhabiism in order to expand its own political influence. Mr. Trump has stated that he would enter into negotiations with many other Nations, and many times drawn criticisms for his comments, which included admitting he would talk to Kim Jong-Un. These policies, although not the most informed, are also not those policies which retain alliances and good relations with donors to a personal slush fund, as Ms. Clinton does.3. Civil LibertiesMany of those policies enacted on the homefront as measures against terrorism were rightly criticized as erosions of Constitutional Rights and hard won civil liberties. Clinton and the Democrats were among those politicians pushing for these programs, claiming she favored "legal" spying. To quote my avatar "National Security at the expence of Personal Liberty is hardly a bargain" -The Marquis de Sade. This is coupled with her avoiding prosecution for careless and wreckless handling of classified information. Whereas any other citizen, be it an individual who somehow gained access to classified information or a servicemember with a grudge, would not have gotten off so easily. However, the anointed successor to the current POTUS is free from even being charged with such treasonous behavior. This is truly Hobbesian. The President is still a citizen, and thus bound by the rule of law. All citizens are equal before the law, and Hillary does not get a free pass for herprogressive views.4. Gun RightsHere's a hot button issue. So, those of you who claim that you want to ban guns, may I make an argument made by many (especially in Progressive ranks) regarding the ban on drugs: How did banning someting work out during Prohibition?The Right to Bear Arms is meant to keep the government in check. It keeps assemblies of the people peaceful, because should the government attempt a violent crackdown (as governments are historically prone to do), this can only ignite a civil war or a full-scale revolution (something nobody in a position of power wants). Hillary wants to remove this Right, so fundamental to Liberty. Donald does not. Although one may call me a conspiracy theorist for assuming she wants to instill authoritarian measures, her character certainly points to that conclusion. 5. Prominent Journalists Have Abandoned All Ethics to Support HillaryThis is shameful. Indeed, there is no wrong in reporting with a bias, but to deliberately ignore facts about her health and ask her softball questions such as "How was your weekend?", the prominent journalists of the mainstream have betrayed the ethics once made their professions so revered. The have disgraced the name the profession held by men like Jean-Paul Marat. To stand by, allow this to happen, and vote for Clinton is to betray not only the Revolutionaries who wrote our Constitution, but also those Revolutionaries in France, who crafted the Decleration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, a document that was the foundation for defining Human Rights in the Twentieth Century.Essentially, the Second Estate has been again filled with many individuals claiming to be Intellectuals, but avoiding Intellectual debate. The Fourth Estate, which has been so praised as the watchdog against tyranny, has been abandoned by its members who flock to the Second Estate. They, like the Cardinals and Bishops of that Second Estate not so long ago, have rallied to coronate a ruler. They just want the Third Estate to shut up and sit down, and meekly accept their serfdom.6. Clinton's CorruptionSomething I have touched upon already many times in this argument. From shady dealings with Wall Street Big Shots and Hollywood Progressives*, to accepting donations to the Clinton Foundation from shady sources and Totalitarian Regimes, Clinton has been caught numerous times with her Corruption in her hand. As stated above, her supporters in the Media have not even tried to spin this in her favor, they have merely written it off as business as usual. "The most corrupt candidate in history" must not win, for then the Nation is sold. 7. Trump's BusinessThe Donald, although he started off with a decent inheritance from his old man, did reinvest that money and become a billionaire. There is much criticism of his failure at a few businesses, but many of his businesses thrived. Many entrepreneurs fail, but Trump succeeded many a time, and failed occasionally. He could bring his expertise into the political world. His ability to negotiate could help this country avoid more costly wars and more costly trade deals. Besides, unlike Clinton, who is a Progressive, Trump is a true Liberal is the classical sense of the word.8. It comes down to this: Authoritarianism vs. LiberalismTonight I caught a brief glimpse of Obama's speech to the UN. In it, he said the current election is a contest between Authoritarianism and Liberalism. How right he was! However, he made the error of placing himself and Clinton as the Liberals. Are they not the side that wishes to remove the right to Resistance to Oppression? Is it not his Justice Department that wants to prosecute those who criticize theories of gloabal warming? Indeed, it is the current establishment which is authoritarian. It is time for a new leader, a man of the people.Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite!