Ummm... why? The Democrats have never been particularly militaristic. During Obama's tenure, the U.S. was involved in Libya, but the U.S. didn't initiate it, and was just acting in response to an ongoing problem.
Plus, Democrats are likely to spend more on things like foreign aid and other elements of 'soft power', that tends to decrease the chance of international conflict.
While Trump hasn't engaged in any new military conflicts, that seems to be more due to luck than anything else. (And remember, the number of drone strikes has greatly increased under Trump, while at the same time oversight has decreased. Not a good combination.)
See: https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers
Why? RT is known as a site that combines a pro-russia bias with conspiracy theories. Antiwar is a little bit more sane, but they still have a strong libertarian bias.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/anti-war/
Both antiwar.com and RT.com tell you how pro-Trump they both are. Then with RT.com you would be able to reason why they are pro-Trump. It's in their foreign policy interests of course!
As to antiwar.com they're less concerned now about antiwar interests than they're concerned with their libertarian rightist interests. But some at that site still believe that the antiwar cause is better served with Trump.
Home
Contact
Login
Register