[13years]

He has espoused a non-interventionalist foreign policy. Unfortunately though, he is not a man of principle; therefore, I don't have high hopes he would follow through unlike someone like Ron Paul.

So for libertarian leaning voters, some might opt for Trump in hopes of less war. I feel that is a bit of a wildcard though. On the other hand, those same voters likely feel that Clinton is more certain of more war and debt.

[Apocryphon]

He's expressed a lot of contradictory statements, though. His recent rhetoric has been very gung ho about smashing ISIS and the like (to be fair, every candidate, even Sanders, following the Orlando attacks, has said the same). He's talked about killing the families of terrorists and bringing back torture methods worse than waterboarding. He might not be as canny or experienced as Clinton is at wielding this nation's military-intelligence systems to wage war with, but that doesn't mean he won't try, at some point. Trump just doesn't come across as a principled peace candidate.

Not to mention, there seems to be a tendency for third party, or dark horse candidates, to run on non-interventionism. Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, George Wallace, even Charles Lindbergh- I think when one doesn't have previous political commitments to defense contractors and other entrenched pro-interventionist interests, there's no need to suck up on them. Instead, it becomes natural to run on a populist, America first, foreign policy deemphasized campaign to appeal to the common people.

Trump is no longer dark horse, he's no longer fringe. He no longer needs to commit to non-interventionism. If anything, he is currently trying to outmaneuver Clinton as the candidate who can bring terrorism to heel.

[josephlord]

I thought his policy was to "bomb the hell out of ISIS"?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/18/new_trump_...