Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Hillary has experience, yeah bad experience

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 11:22:22 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
In the debate Trump said that "Hillary has experience, but it's bad experience", and he is dead on. So...what does that mean?

http://youtu.be...

Why Clinton's "experience" is not a good thing-

First, there was the Iraq War. Without question, it was the single greatest foreign policy catastrophe of the past 40 years. Undertaken without UN endorsement, with a justification that was totally wrong, Iraq fast became a strategic quagmire. De-Baathification destroyed the Iraqi state, gave rise to a Sunni insurgency, and cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars. Hillary Clinton voted for the war.

Meanwhile, in 2003 Iran offered the United States a grand bargain. Everything was on the table. Iran would dismantle its nascent nuclear program, assist the U.S. stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, cease its support of proxy militants and even accept the existence of Israel. The Bush administration rejected it. Back then Iran had tested a single ten-centrifuge cascade, which increased to over nineteen thousand centrifuges by 2014. Under the 2015 nuclear deal that limit is now over five thousand centrifuges, which continue to enrich uranium and will be upgraded in less than eight years" time.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was a cheerleader for those overthrowing governments friendly to the United States (such as in Egypt). These governments ended up being replaced with the Muslim Brotherhood, dictatorship and chaos.

The Arab uprisings, combined with the ham-fisted withdrawal from Iraq, led to the formation of ISIS, which subsequently took over much of Iraq and Syria, extending its reach deep into the surrounding Arab states.
This includes Libya. Gaddafi had previously given up his WMD program and sought to reconstitute himself into the international system. The price he paid for this cooperation was severe. Relying on Clinton"s assurances, Russia abstained from UN Resolution 1973, enabling military intervention to protect civilians under the explicit understanding that this would not mean regime change.

Clinton immediately reneged on the deal (which I warned against at the time). NATO bombing led to Gaddafi"s overthrow in favor of ISIS-style militants. Later, four Americans including Ambassador Stevens were murdered at an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi on Clinton"s watch. Today Libya is a failed state. Obama has since labelled this his single greatest failure as president, a failure for which Clinton is largely responsible.

So much for the reset. In the wake of the Libya betrayal Russia became hostile and resurgent in Europe (albeit not merely because of it). After the Georgia conflict Russia reorganized its military, and began fielding new medium-range missiles in violation of the INF Treaty. In 2014, Putin annexed Crimea and fueled the Ukrainian civil war in open defiance of NATO and the United States. Obama"s response has been risible.

And then there"s Syria. In 2011 Secretary Clinton then repeatedly stated "Assad must go" (FYI six years on he"s still in power). Obama destroyed America"s credibility around the world by imposing a "redline" on chemical weapons being used in Syria that he was never willing to enforce. In the end Obama had to be bailed out by Russia, who brokered a deal with Assad to have those weapons removed.
Most damning, however, is Clinton"s boast about how she strongly advocated arming Sunni rebels against Assad. Of course, ISIS later captured Mosul, seizing billions of dollars in U.S. military equipment anyhow.

While the United States was lurching from one failure to the next in the Middle East, massive challenges arose in Asia. North Korea has now completed four nuclear tests of increasing sophistication, and has made strides in long range ballistic missiles and SLBM technology. As a consequence, Obama bequeaths his successor a North Korea that will have the capability to conduct a nuclear strike on the United States within an eight-year term of office.

nationalinterest.org/feature/hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-performance-the-worst-ever-16436
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
slo1
Posts: 4,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 2:14:00 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 11:22:22 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
In the debate Trump said that "Hillary has experience, but it's bad experience", and he is dead on. So...what does that mean?

http://youtu.be...

Why Clinton's "experience" is not a good thing-

First, there was the Iraq War. Without question, it was the single greatest foreign policy catastrophe of the past 40 years. Undertaken without UN endorsement, with a justification that was totally wrong, Iraq fast became a strategic quagmire. De-Baathification destroyed the Iraqi state, gave rise to a Sunni insurgency, and cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars. Hillary Clinton voted for the war.

Meanwhile, in 2003 Iran offered the United States a grand bargain. Everything was on the table. Iran would dismantle its nascent nuclear program, assist the U.S. stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, cease its support of proxy militants and even accept the existence of Israel. The Bush administration rejected it.

If I recall right it was rejected because they wanted to keep their centrifuges to make fuel for their nuclear power plant and that was unacceptable. The 6 country negotiating team even offered to have Russia provided nuclear fuel and waste disposal for the power plant so Iran would not have reason to have centrifuges. Iran obviously didn't take that deal.

As a result of not making a deal and a lack of any enforcement, Iran was able to greatly expand their centrifuges.

I hardly see how all of this relates to Hillary other than she was involved in the current resolution that greatly dismantled the centrifuges and reintroduced UN inspections.

Back then Iran had tested a single ten-centrifuge cascade, which increased to over nineteen thousand centrifuges by 2014. Under the 2015 nuclear deal that limit is now over five thousand centrifuges, which continue to enrich uranium and will be upgraded in less than eight years" time.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was a cheerleader for those overthrowing governments friendly to the United States (such as in Egypt). These governments ended up being replaced with the Muslim Brotherhood, dictatorship and chaos.

The Arab uprisings, combined with the ham-fisted withdrawal from Iraq, led to the formation of ISIS, which subsequently took over much of Iraq and Syria, extending its reach deep into the surrounding Arab states.
This includes Libya. Gaddafi had previously given up his WMD program and sought to reconstitute himself into the international system. The price he paid for this cooperation was severe. Relying on Clinton"s assurances, Russia abstained from UN Resolution 1973, enabling military intervention to protect civilians under the explicit understanding that this would not mean regime change.

Clinton immediately reneged on the deal (which I warned against at the time). NATO bombing led to Gaddafi"s overthrow in favor of ISIS-style militants. Later, four Americans including Ambassador Stevens were murdered at an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi on Clinton"s watch. Today Libya is a failed state. Obama has since labelled this his single greatest failure as president, a failure for which Clinton is largely responsible.

Even more important it was under Ambassador Stevens watch, who took more risks than he should have.

I agree here Arab Spring policies have lead to very unfavorable power struggles in the region. However, one has to realize any dictator situation in the Middle East is going to have tremendous sectarian violence to fill the void because a dictator will never last forever.

Our policy does not necessarily have to be stability. It could very well be that in the long term causing the various groups to war may create longer term stability in the region. I hate to speculate on that as there are great costs to warfare, but it is a possible outcome.

With that said Lybia is indeed a huge failure of Obama and Hillary.

So much for the reset. In the wake of the Libya betrayal Russia became hostile and resurgent in Europe (albeit not merely because of it). After the Georgia conflict Russia reorganized its military, and began fielding new medium-range missiles in violation of the INF Treaty. In 2014, Putin annexed Crimea and fueled the Ukrainian civil war in open defiance of NATO and the United States. Obama"s response has been risible.

And then there"s Syria. In 2011 Secretary Clinton then repeatedly stated "Assad must go" (FYI six years on he"s still in power). Obama destroyed America"s credibility around the world by imposing a "redline" on chemical weapons being used in Syria that he was never willing to enforce. In the end Obama had to be bailed out by Russia, who brokered a deal with Assad to have those weapons removed.

I'm not certain bailed out is the right term.

Most damning, however, is Clinton"s boast about how she strongly advocated arming Sunni rebels against Assad. Of course, ISIS later captured Mosul, seizing billions of dollars in U.S. military equipment anyhow.

While the United States was lurching from one failure to the next in the Middle East, massive challenges arose in Asia. North Korea has now completed four nuclear tests of increasing sophistication, and has made strides in long range ballistic missiles and SLBM technology. As a consequence, Obama bequeaths his successor a North Korea that will have the capability to conduct a nuclear strike on the United States within an eight-year term of office.

NK is a failure of three Presidents now. I imagine it will be a failure of the next. Donald's strategy to leverage China is the right approach, however, his talk about how evil China is in terms of trade deals and currency manipulation will reduce leverage. There is no possible way he is going to get China to kneel to US economically and with NK at the same time. He is going to have to pick one or the other.

I'm not certain I have even heard Hillary on NK, but every policy expert understands the key to unlocking the NK problem begins with China.

nationalinterest.org/feature/hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-performance-the-worst-ever-16436
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 4:18:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 2:14:00 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 11:22:22 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
In the debate Trump said that "Hillary has experience, but it's bad experience", and he is dead on. So...what does that mean?

http://youtu.be...

Why Clinton's "experience" is not a good thing-

First, there was the Iraq War. Without question, it was the single greatest foreign policy catastrophe of the past 40 years. Undertaken without UN endorsement, with a justification that was totally wrong, Iraq fast became a strategic quagmire. De-Baathification destroyed the Iraqi state, gave rise to a Sunni insurgency, and cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars. Hillary Clinton voted for the war.

Meanwhile, in 2003 Iran offered the United States a grand bargain. Everything was on the table. Iran would dismantle its nascent nuclear program, assist the U.S. stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, cease its support of proxy militants and even accept the existence of Israel. The Bush administration rejected it.

If I recall right it was rejected because they wanted to keep their centrifuges to make fuel for their nuclear power plant and that was unacceptable. The 6 country negotiating team even offered to have Russia provided nuclear fuel and waste disposal for the power plant so Iran would not have reason to have centrifuges. Iran obviously didn't take that deal.

As a result of not making a deal and a lack of any enforcement, Iran was able to greatly expand their centrifuges.

I hardly see how all of this relates to Hillary other than she was involved in the current resolution that greatly dismantled the centrifuges and reintroduced UN inspections.

Back then Iran had tested a single ten-centrifuge cascade, which increased to over nineteen thousand centrifuges by 2014. Under the 2015 nuclear deal that limit is now over five thousand centrifuges, which continue to enrich uranium and will be upgraded in less than eight years" time.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was a cheerleader for those overthrowing governments friendly to the United States (such as in Egypt). These governments ended up being replaced with the Muslim Brotherhood, dictatorship and chaos.

The Arab uprisings, combined with the ham-fisted withdrawal from Iraq, led to the formation of ISIS, which subsequently took over much of Iraq and Syria, extending its reach deep into the surrounding Arab states.
This includes Libya. Gaddafi had previously given up his WMD program and sought to reconstitute himself into the international system. The price he paid for this cooperation was severe. Relying on Clinton"s assurances, Russia abstained from UN Resolution 1973, enabling military intervention to protect civilians under the explicit understanding that this would not mean regime change.

Clinton immediately reneged on the deal (which I warned against at the time). NATO bombing led to Gaddafi"s overthrow in favor of ISIS-style militants. Later, four Americans including Ambassador Stevens were murdered at an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi on Clinton"s watch. Today Libya is a failed state. Obama has since labelled this his single greatest failure as president, a failure for which Clinton is largely responsible.

Even more important it was under Ambassador Stevens watch, who took more risks than he should have.

I agree here Arab Spring policies have lead to very unfavorable power struggles in the region. However, one has to realize any dictator situation in the Middle East is going to have tremendous sectarian violence to fill the void because a dictator will never last forever.

Our policy does not necessarily have to be stability. It could very well be that in the long term causing the various groups to war may create longer term stability in the region. I hate to speculate on that as there are great costs to warfare, but it is a possible outcome.

With that said Lybia is indeed a huge failure of Obama and Hillary.

So much for the reset. In the wake of the Libya betrayal Russia became hostile and resurgent in Europe (albeit not merely because of it). After the Georgia conflict Russia reorganized its military, and began fielding new medium-range missiles in violation of the INF Treaty. In 2014, Putin annexed Crimea and fueled the Ukrainian civil war in open defiance of NATO and the United States. Obama"s response has been risible.

And then there"s Syria. In 2011 Secretary Clinton then repeatedly stated "Assad must go" (FYI six years on he"s still in power). Obama destroyed America"s credibility around the world by imposing a "redline" on chemical weapons being used in Syria that he was never willing to enforce. In the end Obama had to be bailed out by Russia, who brokered a deal with Assad to have those weapons removed.

I'm not certain bailed out is the right term.

Most damning, however, is Clinton"s boast about how she strongly advocated arming Sunni rebels against Assad. Of course, ISIS later captured Mosul, seizing billions of dollars in U.S. military equipment anyhow.

While the United States was lurching from one failure to the next in the Middle East, massive challenges arose in Asia. North Korea has now completed four nuclear tests of increasing sophistication, and has made strides in long range ballistic missiles and SLBM technology. As a consequence, Obama bequeaths his successor a North Korea that will have the capability to conduct a nuclear strike on the United States within an eight-year term of office.

NK is a failure of three Presidents now. I imagine it will be a failure of the next. Donald's strategy to leverage China is the right approach, however, his talk about how evil China is in terms of trade deals and currency manipulation will reduce leverage. There is no possible way he is going to get China to kneel to US economically and with NK at the same time. He is going to have to pick one or the other.

I'm not certain I have even heard Hillary on NK, but every policy expert understands the key to unlocking the NK problem begins with China.

nationalinterest.org/feature/hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-performance-the-worst-ever-16436

The Chinese have made it clear that they see our current failed administration as the biggest group of clowns to ever lead the U.S.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
slo1
Posts: 4,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 6:48:14 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 4:18:19 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 9/27/2016 2:14:00 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 11:22:22 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
In the debate Trump said that "Hillary has experience, but it's bad experience", and he is dead on. So...what does that mean?

http://youtu.be...

Why Clinton's "experience" is not a good thing-

First, there was the Iraq War. Without question, it was the single greatest foreign policy catastrophe of the past 40 years. Undertaken without UN endorsement, with a justification that was totally wrong, Iraq fast became a strategic quagmire. De-Baathification destroyed the Iraqi state, gave rise to a Sunni insurgency, and cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars. Hillary Clinton voted for the war.

Meanwhile, in 2003 Iran offered the United States a grand bargain. Everything was on the table. Iran would dismantle its nascent nuclear program, assist the U.S. stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, cease its support of proxy militants and even accept the existence of Israel. The Bush administration rejected it.

If I recall right it was rejected because they wanted to keep their centrifuges to make fuel for their nuclear power plant and that was unacceptable. The 6 country negotiating team even offered to have Russia provided nuclear fuel and waste disposal for the power plant so Iran would not have reason to have centrifuges. Iran obviously didn't take that deal.

As a result of not making a deal and a lack of any enforcement, Iran was able to greatly expand their centrifuges.

I hardly see how all of this relates to Hillary other than she was involved in the current resolution that greatly dismantled the centrifuges and reintroduced UN inspections.

Back then Iran had tested a single ten-centrifuge cascade, which increased to over nineteen thousand centrifuges by 2014. Under the 2015 nuclear deal that limit is now over five thousand centrifuges, which continue to enrich uranium and will be upgraded in less than eight years" time.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was a cheerleader for those overthrowing governments friendly to the United States (such as in Egypt). These governments ended up being replaced with the Muslim Brotherhood, dictatorship and chaos.

The Arab uprisings, combined with the ham-fisted withdrawal from Iraq, led to the formation of ISIS, which subsequently took over much of Iraq and Syria, extending its reach deep into the surrounding Arab states.
This includes Libya. Gaddafi had previously given up his WMD program and sought to reconstitute himself into the international system. The price he paid for this cooperation was severe. Relying on Clinton"s assurances, Russia abstained from UN Resolution 1973, enabling military intervention to protect civilians under the explicit understanding that this would not mean regime change.

Clinton immediately reneged on the deal (which I warned against at the time). NATO bombing led to Gaddafi"s overthrow in favor of ISIS-style militants. Later, four Americans including Ambassador Stevens were murdered at an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi on Clinton"s watch. Today Libya is a failed state. Obama has since labelled this his single greatest failure as president, a failure for which Clinton is largely responsible.

Even more important it was under Ambassador Stevens watch, who took more risks than he should have.

I agree here Arab Spring policies have lead to very unfavorable power struggles in the region. However, one has to realize any dictator situation in the Middle East is going to have tremendous sectarian violence to fill the void because a dictator will never last forever.

Our policy does not necessarily have to be stability. It could very well be that in the long term causing the various groups to war may create longer term stability in the region. I hate to speculate on that as there are great costs to warfare, but it is a possible outcome.

With that said Lybia is indeed a huge failure of Obama and Hillary.

So much for the reset. In the wake of the Libya betrayal Russia became hostile and resurgent in Europe (albeit not merely because of it). After the Georgia conflict Russia reorganized its military, and began fielding new medium-range missiles in violation of the INF Treaty. In 2014, Putin annexed Crimea and fueled the Ukrainian civil war in open defiance of NATO and the United States. Obama"s response has been risible.

And then there"s Syria. In 2011 Secretary Clinton then repeatedly stated "Assad must go" (FYI six years on he"s still in power). Obama destroyed America"s credibility around the world by imposing a "redline" on chemical weapons being used in Syria that he was never willing to enforce. In the end Obama had to be bailed out by Russia, who brokered a deal with Assad to have those weapons removed.

I'm not certain bailed out is the right term.

Most damning, however, is Clinton"s boast about how she strongly advocated arming Sunni rebels against Assad. Of course, ISIS later captured Mosul, seizing billions of dollars in U.S. military equipment anyhow.

While the United States was lurching from one failure to the next in the Middle East, massive challenges arose in Asia. North Korea has now completed four nuclear tests of increasing sophistication, and has made strides in long range ballistic missiles and SLBM technology. As a consequence, Obama bequeaths his successor a North Korea that will have the capability to conduct a nuclear strike on the United States within an eight-year term of office.

NK is a failure of three Presidents now. I imagine it will be a failure of the next. Donald's strategy to leverage China is the right approach, however, his talk about how evil China is in terms of trade deals and currency manipulation will reduce leverage. There is no possible way he is going to get China to kneel to US economically and with NK at the same time. He is going to have to pick one or the other.

I'm not certain I have even heard Hillary on NK, but every policy expert understands the key to unlocking the NK problem begins with China.

nationalinterest.org/feature/hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-performance-the-worst-ever-16436

The Chinese have made it clear that they see our current failed administration as the biggest group of clowns to ever lead the U.S.

Lol, thanks for the well though out response to my response.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 8:24:48 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 2:14:00 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/27/2016 11:22:22 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
In the debate Trump said that "Hillary has experience, but it's bad experience", and he is dead on. So...what does that mean?

http://youtu.be...

Why Clinton's "experience" is not a good thing-

First, there was the Iraq War. Without question, it was the single greatest foreign policy catastrophe of the past 40 years. Undertaken without UN endorsement, with a justification that was totally wrong, Iraq fast became a strategic quagmire. De-Baathification destroyed the Iraqi state, gave rise to a Sunni insurgency, and cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars. Hillary Clinton voted for the war.

Meanwhile, in 2003 Iran offered the United States a grand bargain. Everything was on the table. Iran would dismantle its nascent nuclear program, assist the U.S. stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, cease its support of proxy militants and even accept the existence of Israel. The Bush administration rejected it.

If I recall right it was rejected because they wanted to keep their centrifuges to make fuel for their nuclear power plant and that was unacceptable. The 6 country negotiating team even offered to have Russia provided nuclear fuel and waste disposal for the power plant so Iran would not have reason to have centrifuges. Iran obviously didn't take that deal.

As a result of not making a deal and a lack of any enforcement, Iran was able to greatly expand their centrifuges.

I hardly see how all of this relates to Hillary other than she was involved in the current resolution that greatly dismantled the centrifuges and reintroduced UN inspections.

Back then Iran had tested a single ten-centrifuge cascade, which increased to over nineteen thousand centrifuges by 2014. Under the 2015 nuclear deal that limit is now over five thousand centrifuges, which continue to enrich uranium and will be upgraded in less than eight years" time.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was a cheerleader for those overthrowing governments friendly to the United States (such as in Egypt). These governments ended up being replaced with the Muslim Brotherhood, dictatorship and chaos.

The Arab uprisings, combined with the ham-fisted withdrawal from Iraq, led to the formation of ISIS, which subsequently took over much of Iraq and Syria, extending its reach deep into the surrounding Arab states.
This includes Libya. Gaddafi had previously given up his WMD program and sought to reconstitute himself into the international system. The price he paid for this cooperation was severe. Relying on Clinton"s assurances, Russia abstained from UN Resolution 1973, enabling military intervention to protect civilians under the explicit understanding that this would not mean regime change.

Clinton immediately reneged on the deal (which I warned against at the time). NATO bombing led to Gaddafi"s overthrow in favor of ISIS-style militants. Later, four Americans including Ambassador Stevens were murdered at an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi on Clinton"s watch. Today Libya is a failed state. Obama has since labelled this his single greatest failure as president, a failure for which Clinton is largely responsible.

Even more important it was under Ambassador Stevens watch, who took more risks than he should have.

I agree here Arab Spring policies have lead to very unfavorable power struggles in the region. However, one has to realize any dictator situation in the Middle East is going to have tremendous sectarian violence to fill the void because a dictator will never last forever.

Our policy does not necessarily have to be stability. It could very well be that in the long term causing the various groups to war may create longer term stability in the region. I hate to speculate on that as there are great costs to warfare, but it is a possible outcome.

With that said Lybia is indeed a huge failure of Obama and Hillary.

So much for the reset. In the wake of the Libya betrayal Russia became hostile and resurgent in Europe (albeit not merely because of it). After the Georgia conflict Russia reorganized its military, and began fielding new medium-range missiles in violation of the INF Treaty. In 2014, Putin annexed Crimea and fueled the Ukrainian civil war in open defiance of NATO and the United States. Obama"s response has been risible.

And then there"s Syria. In 2011 Secretary Clinton then repeatedly stated "Assad must go" (FYI six years on he"s still in power). Obama destroyed America"s credibility around the world by imposing a "redline" on chemical weapons being used in Syria that he was never willing to enforce. In the end Obama had to be bailed out by Russia, who brokered a deal with Assad to have those weapons removed.

I'm not certain bailed out is the right term.

Most damning, however, is Clinton"s boast about how she strongly advocated arming Sunni rebels against Assad. Of course, ISIS later captured Mosul, seizing billions of dollars in U.S. military equipment anyhow.

While the United States was lurching from one failure to the next in the Middle East, massive challenges arose in Asia. North Korea has now completed four nuclear tests of increasing sophistication, and has made strides in long range ballistic missiles and SLBM technology. As a consequence, Obama bequeaths his successor a North Korea that will have the capability to conduct a nuclear strike on the United States within an eight-year term of office.

NK is a failure of three Presidents now. I imagine it will be a failure of the next. Donald's strategy to leverage China is the right approach, however, his talk about how evil China is in terms of trade deals and currency manipulation will reduce leverage. There is no possible way he is going to get China to kneel to US economically and with NK at the same time. He is going to have to pick one or the other.

I'm not certain I have even heard Hillary on NK, but every policy expert understands the key to unlocking the NK problem begins with China.

nationalinterest.org/feature/hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-performance-the-worst-ever-16436

We used to leverage them just fine. The Clinton's sold us out at Chinagate. Take the free trade away from China and the whole game changes.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...