I have not yet seen any evidence for Trump being more dangerous than Clinton. I have not heard any "Clinton would have already removed all troops from Syria and Afghanistan".
You should probably take the time, now and again, to make sense.
The problem is that you're being too dualistic, and according to mythopoeic poles.
Non sequitur, as such, might be orderly if lined up just so, but it's still fallacious.
To wit, of course you "have not yet seen any evidence for Trump being more dangerous than Clinton"; we're already aware you would fail to see the sun were it named Hillary Clinton.
It's like after Desert Storn, when Gen. H. N. Schwarzkopf admitted he screwed up the end of the war; Stormin' Norman blamed the politicians, of course, and acknowledged that he rushed and didn't think a particular point through, but the thing is that error would not have been so damaging except for what it led to being, if not part of the design, just fine with President George H. W. Bush. You couldn't ask for a better setup; we went to war over this, but in the end, having called on the Shia to stand up, we apparently accidentally just happened to empower the alleged villain we just went to war against, and then just happened to look away.
Twelve years later, we
quietly apologized↱, though as near as anyone could tell it was only because we really needed them to help once we invaded again, this time for oil and Bush family honor.
Fifteen years after↱, we were still trying to find all the mass graves. At a
quarter-ceuntury↱ out, neoconservatives still struggled with finding someone to blame for what happened to the Shia and Kurds after Desert Storm.
Meanwhile, it is quite easy to forget all this, given the amount people talk about
Bill Clinton's role, which was to bomb the hell out of Iraq according to the quasi-statutory and often purely political catastrophes created by his predecessor. Also easy to forget in the warring danger comparison is that President Clinton rejected a neoconservative National Security Strategy, devised by neoconservative longtime insiders°, that called for triggering a domino-effect series of wars in the Middle East. It would be President George W. Bush who would haul out the Wolfowitz Doctrine and burnish it with his own imprimatur.
Beyond that, the, "I have not heard any 'Clinton would have already removed all troops from Syria and Afghanistan'", line is absurd for wondering why you would.
Non sequitur is
non sequitur, and a straw man is a straw man, but that latter really increased the chances of the former. That sort of fallacy is better than two female interns and a panda suit, but, still, it's pretty fallic. Fellatious. I mean, fellatious. Damn it,
fallacious. It's fallacious.
(ahem!)
Were
Hillary Clinton president, it's likely we would be wading through a vociferous societal argument about whether Surging troops is a viable consideration in Syria even as we undertake it. Compare this to what happened under Trump, a Surge that accomplished nothing but getting ambushed by Russians. Well, okay, as we hear it even from the Russians, the Americans kicked the hired hands' asses; for many Americans, however, the macho thrill of boasting rights is a stupid and disdained custom, such that we aren't impressed by would-be he-men playing willy games with death tolls.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton likely would not have followed Trump's course of empowering SecDef to lighten the rules of engagement while deeper entrenching American forces in Afghanistan. We might further note that beyond your immediate range of critique in the range where American and Russian interests overlap, Trump's rules of engagement for domestic deployment targeting Hispanics along the nation's southern border would imitate Israeli infamy°°, an extraordinary danger outside the expected range of a hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidency. And while the mundane human rights offenses the U.S. commits on a regular basis do in fact require discussion, reconciliation, and correction, the President Clinton who is not would not have established an internment camp for children at Tornillo, nor authorized unqualified persons to medically experiment on interned children at other facilities.
The reason you "have not yet seen any evidence for Trump being more dangerous than Clinton" is akin to its American article of blind faith, that no matter how awful Donald Trump may be, Hillary Clinton would have done worse. Seriously, here in the U.S., they even try to do it with Donald Trump and his cadre of fellow sex offenders; no other wife will ever answer for her husband the way a politically influential wife on the allegedly liberal side of our society's divide is expected to.
Everyone fails the standard Americans demand of Hillary Clinton, which is why nobody else is ever expected to answer it°°°.
There is a sentimental argument many find accessible, that in running away with the job unfinished, we devalue the human sacrifices demanded by our actions. In addition to the five service members we've given, we have taken over 3,700 civilian lives; military partners in the effort have paid dearly; some who really needed us to show up are betrayed by a precipitious withdrawal.
Which also points to what we might normally call diplomacy, and while much depends on one's definition of danger or prejudices about Hillary Clinton, we can easily say her State Department would not have made a point of empowering Kim Jong-Un, nor kowtowed so anxiously, or at all. She would not be taking her foreign policy advice from foreign governments anxious to disrupt American influence and prestige; nor would a Clinton presidency so eagerly lackey up to the crimes of international strongmen.
A hundred years later there will be those who will say the hazardous presidency of Donald Trump wan't really so bad because Hillary Clinton would have been worse. No, really, if the Supreme Court ever reverses
Roe, people will say Hillary would have had Justices killed in order to stack the court to overturn
Roe even faster and harder. Raise her up on a pedestal, hate her for being deified; sounds about like how we treat Woman in these United States, anyway, which in turn ain't really so different from anywhere else.
The stupidest thing about it all, though, is that your complaint, compared to reality, is so damnably absurd as to make its own point. Eventually, the Temple of Hillary, in which the cultists need her in order to hate her as a means of self-justification, reminds that, sure, she is a symbol of a deeply imperfect system, but that wasn't really the problem.
One of the most apparent failures of the present counterrevolution, and seemingly on proverbial both sides of a meaningless aisle, is its reinforcement of what it purports to reject. It's not quite total, but virtually all the identifying leftists in my circles are backing unrest quite literally for the fuck-shit-up fact of uprising; there's no point in raising certain questions with them, because in the end they could still end up being correct, but when they're wrong, well, this time around they left a record, so it will be possible to ask what was up, and they won't be able to say they don't remember what anyone is talking about. And if certain elements do prove as antisocial as they sound, it will be harder for those associates to blame everyone else.
On the American scene, remember, while it wasn't really about supremacism, according to Trump's supporters, even though they really appreciated how he said what he wanted to say, the real problem was the warmongering, corrupt, dynastic elitism of Hillary Clinton ... which was why they backed Donald Trump.
This is why many aren't believed: When their revolution only accomplishes what they pretend to argue against, it does stand out.
Kind of like your anti-Americanism. Look, there's plenty awry about these United States; you're better served attending reality. Making believe is one of those really clear signals.
____________________
Notes:
° Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle were both around the Beltway since Nixon; they met nearly fifty years ago, studying under Strauss, Wohlstetter, Nitze and Acheson.
°° Indeed, the amount of this that reads like conservatives waxing romantic for the 1980s is very nearly scary.
°°° Can you imagine conservative Christine O'Donnell, who ran for U.S. Senate in 2010, answering the Elizabeth Warren standard at any point in the latter's tenure? How about former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN06), who actually won, and destroyed by doing so, the Ames Straw Poll? Which one would conservatives mock with an intern in a panda costume for lesbian furry porn? Oh, never mind, that would be the Minnesota Moonbat; O'Donnell, for her part, was already submissive unto her husband, but only after Jesus. And, well, (sigh), it is axiomatic, i.e., Rule #34, the zealot getting double-ended by Jesus and a tubby queer scene already exists, though it inevitably existed well before Lady Belfry found her light bulb.
Argano, Tim. "A Long-Awaited Apology for Shiites, but the Wounds Run Deep". The New York Times. 8 November 2011. NYTimes.com. 30 December 2018. https://nyti.ms/2s3fDLm
Burns, John F. "Uncovering Iraq's Horrors in Desert Graves". The New York Times. 5 June 2006. NYTimes.com. 30 December 2018. https://nyti.ms/2St7rQe
Zenko, Micah. "Who Is to Blame for the Doomed Iraqi Uprisings of 1991?" The National Interest. 7 March 2016. NationalInterest.org. 30 December 2018. http://bit.ly/2Rn4xPT
