By Choe Sang-Hun:
When news broke less than two weeks ago that the Trump administration was sending the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson to the Korean Peninsula, many South Koreans feared a war with North Korea. Others cheered for Washington, calling the deployment a powerful symbol of its commitment to deterring the North.
On Wednesday, after it was revealed that the carrier strike group was actually thousands of miles away and had been heading in the opposite direction, toward the Indian Ocean, South Koreans felt bewildered, cheated and manipulated by the United States, their country’s most important ally.
“Trump’s lie over the Carl Vinson,” read a headline on the website of the newspaper JoongAng Ilbo on Wednesday. “Xi Jinping and Putin must have had a good jeer over this one.”
“Like North Korea, which is often accused of displaying fake missiles during military parades, is the United States, too, now employing ‘bluffing’ as its North Korea policy?” the article asked.
The episode raised questions about whether major allies of the United States, like South Korea and Japan, had been informed of the carrier’s whereabouts, and whether the misinformation undercut America’s strategy to contain North Korea’s nuclear ambitions by using empty threats.
Compounding their anger over the Carl Vinson episode, many South Koreans were also riled at Mr. Trump for his assertion in a Wall Street Journal interview last week that the Korean Peninsula “used to be a part of China.” Although Korea was often invaded by China and forced to pay tributes to its giant neighbor, many Koreans say the notion that they were once Chinese subjects is egregiously insulting.
“The 50 million South Koreans, as well as many common-sensical people around the world, cannot help but feel embarrassed and shocked,” said Youn Kwan-suk, spokesman of the main opposition Democratic Party, which is leading in voter surveys before the May 9 presidential election.
The Full Story (April 19, 2017)
Showing posts with label china. Show all posts
Showing posts with label china. Show all posts
Friday, April 21, 2017
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
[Special] Financial Times: Donald Trump in His Own Words
By Lionel Barber, Demetri Sevastopulo and Gillian Tett:
[Financial Times] How ambitious do you want to be with China? Could we see a grand bargain that solves North Korea, takes American troops off the Korean peninsula and really changes the landscape out there?
[Donald Trump] Well, if China is not going to solve North Korea, we will. That is all I am telling you.
[FT] And do you think you can solve it without China’s help?
[DT] Totally.
[FT] One on one?
[DT] I don’t have to say any more. Totally.
[FT] Do you start with North Korea and talk about trade, or pivot around?
[DT] I’m not going to tell you. You know, I am not the United States of the past where we tell you where we are going to hit in the Middle East. Where they say — I used it in the speeches — ‘We will be attacking Mosul in four months’. A month later, ‘We will be attacking Mosul in three months, in two months, in one month’. And why are they talking? There is no reason to talk.
The Full Story (April 2, 2017)
[Financial Times] How ambitious do you want to be with China? Could we see a grand bargain that solves North Korea, takes American troops off the Korean peninsula and really changes the landscape out there?
[Donald Trump] Well, if China is not going to solve North Korea, we will. That is all I am telling you.
[FT] And do you think you can solve it without China’s help?
[DT] Totally.
[FT] One on one?
[DT] I don’t have to say any more. Totally.
[FT] Do you start with North Korea and talk about trade, or pivot around?
[DT] I’m not going to tell you. You know, I am not the United States of the past where we tell you where we are going to hit in the Middle East. Where they say — I used it in the speeches — ‘We will be attacking Mosul in four months’. A month later, ‘We will be attacking Mosul in three months, in two months, in one month’. And why are they talking? There is no reason to talk.
The Full Story (April 2, 2017)
Friday, March 24, 2017
New York Times: Trump Abandons Trans-Pacific Partnership, Obama’s Signature Trade Deal
By Peter Baker:
Mr. Trump may also move quickly to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. He is scheduling meetings with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, the two main partners in that pact, which was negotiated by President George Bush and pushed through Congress by President Bill Clinton. While Nafta has been a major driver of American trade for nearly two decades, it has long been divisive, with critics blaming it for lost jobs and lower wages.
But free-trade advocates said that in canceling the Pacific pact, Mr. Trump lost an agreement that had already renegotiated Nafta under more modern rules governing intellectual property, internet access and agriculture, since both Mexico and Canada were signatories. He also undercut Mr. Obama’s so-called pivot to Asia and, critics said, essentially ceded the field to China, which was not part of the agreement.
“There’s no doubt that this action will be seen as a huge, huge win for China,” Michael B. Froman, the trade representative who negotiated the pact for Mr. Obama, said in an interview. “For the Trump administration, after all this talk about being tough on China, for their first action to basically hand the keys to China and say we’re withdrawing from our leadership position in this region is geostrategically damaging.”
Some Republicans agreed, but only a few would publicly challenge the president. Senator John McCain of Arizona called the decision “a serious mistake” that would hurt America. “It will send a troubling signal of American disengagement in the Asia-Pacific region at a time we can least afford it,” he said in a statement.
Mr. Trump may also move quickly to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. He is scheduling meetings with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, the two main partners in that pact, which was negotiated by President George Bush and pushed through Congress by President Bill Clinton. While Nafta has been a major driver of American trade for nearly two decades, it has long been divisive, with critics blaming it for lost jobs and lower wages.
But free-trade advocates said that in canceling the Pacific pact, Mr. Trump lost an agreement that had already renegotiated Nafta under more modern rules governing intellectual property, internet access and agriculture, since both Mexico and Canada were signatories. He also undercut Mr. Obama’s so-called pivot to Asia and, critics said, essentially ceded the field to China, which was not part of the agreement.
“There’s no doubt that this action will be seen as a huge, huge win for China,” Michael B. Froman, the trade representative who negotiated the pact for Mr. Obama, said in an interview. “For the Trump administration, after all this talk about being tough on China, for their first action to basically hand the keys to China and say we’re withdrawing from our leadership position in this region is geostrategically damaging.”
Some Republicans agreed, but only a few would publicly challenge the president. Senator John McCain of Arizona called the decision “a serious mistake” that would hurt America. “It will send a troubling signal of American disengagement in the Asia-Pacific region at a time we can least afford it,” he said in a statement.
Washington Post: Withdrawal From Trans-Pacific Partnership Shifts U.S. Role in World Economy
By Ylan Q. Mui:
Trump’s executive order formally ending the United States’ participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a largely symbolic move intended to signal that his tough talk on trade during the campaign will carry over to his new administration. The action came as China and other emerging economies are seeking to increase their leverage in global affairs, seizing on America’s turn inward.
Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto declared Monday that his country hopes to bolster trade with other nations and limit its reliance on the United States. Chinese state media derided Western democracy as having “reached its limits”; President Xi Jinping had touted Beijing’s commitment to globalization during his first appearance at the annual gathering of the world’s economic elite last week in Davos, Switzerland.
“This abrupt action so early in the Trump administration puts the world on notice that all of America’s traditional economic and political alliances are now open to reassessment and renegotiation,” said Eswar Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University. “This could have an adverse long-run impact on the ability of the U.S. to maintain its influence and leadership in world economic and political affairs.”
The Full Story (January 23, 2017)
Trump’s executive order formally ending the United States’ participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a largely symbolic move intended to signal that his tough talk on trade during the campaign will carry over to his new administration. The action came as China and other emerging economies are seeking to increase their leverage in global affairs, seizing on America’s turn inward.
Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto declared Monday that his country hopes to bolster trade with other nations and limit its reliance on the United States. Chinese state media derided Western democracy as having “reached its limits”; President Xi Jinping had touted Beijing’s commitment to globalization during his first appearance at the annual gathering of the world’s economic elite last week in Davos, Switzerland.
“This abrupt action so early in the Trump administration puts the world on notice that all of America’s traditional economic and political alliances are now open to reassessment and renegotiation,” said Eswar Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University. “This could have an adverse long-run impact on the ability of the U.S. to maintain its influence and leadership in world economic and political affairs.”
The Full Story (January 23, 2017)
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Washington Post: President Trump Signs Order to Withdraw From Trans-Pacific Partnership
By Ylan Q. Mui:
“This abrupt action so early in the Trump administration puts the world on notice that all of America's traditional economic and political alliances are now open to reassessment and renegotiation,” said Eswar Prasad, trade policy professor at Cornell University. “This could have an adverse long-run impact on the ability of the U.S. to maintain its influence and leadership in world economic and political affairs.”
The TPP was one of former president Barack Obama’s signature efforts, part of a broader strategy to increase American clout in Asia and provide a check on China’s economic and military ambitions. Several of the executives Trump met with Monday initially had supported the agreement, while the chief architect of the administration’s trade policy, Commerce secretary nominee Wilbur Ross, was also once a booster for the deal.
But ending TPP was one of the clarion calls of Trump’s campaign, part of a global backlash against the drive toward greater internationalization that has defined the world economy since the end of World War II. British Prime Minister Theresa May, who is in the midst of navigating her country’s own break from established trading partners, is slated to visit with Trump later this week. A White House spokesman said meetings with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto are in the works.
The Full Story (January 23, 2017)
“This abrupt action so early in the Trump administration puts the world on notice that all of America's traditional economic and political alliances are now open to reassessment and renegotiation,” said Eswar Prasad, trade policy professor at Cornell University. “This could have an adverse long-run impact on the ability of the U.S. to maintain its influence and leadership in world economic and political affairs.”
The TPP was one of former president Barack Obama’s signature efforts, part of a broader strategy to increase American clout in Asia and provide a check on China’s economic and military ambitions. Several of the executives Trump met with Monday initially had supported the agreement, while the chief architect of the administration’s trade policy, Commerce secretary nominee Wilbur Ross, was also once a booster for the deal.
But ending TPP was one of the clarion calls of Trump’s campaign, part of a global backlash against the drive toward greater internationalization that has defined the world economy since the end of World War II. British Prime Minister Theresa May, who is in the midst of navigating her country’s own break from established trading partners, is slated to visit with Trump later this week. A White House spokesman said meetings with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto are in the works.
The Full Story (January 23, 2017)
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Think Progress: China Makes it Clear They Are Ready to Lead on Climate if Donald Trump Won’t
By Natasha Geiling:
Trump, who does not accept the scientific consensus on climate change, has claimed that climate change is a “hoax” created by the Chinese to make the United States less competitive in global markets. He has called the Paris climate agreement “bad for business” and falsely claimed that it allows “foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use.” In reality, the Paris agreement is built off of a set of independently decided national contributions, meaning each country is able to decide exactly how it will reduce its carbon emissions. Moreover, proponents of the deal argue that it will spur investment in green energy and create jobs in countries that remain within the agreement.
Unlike Trump, Xi seems to understand the economic potential latent within the Paris agreement. In his speech at Davos, he championed the idea of globalization, calling the global economy “the big ocean you cannot escape from.” Xi also praised innovation, calling on the world to “develop a dynamic, innovation-driven growth model.”
Xi’s remarks come just weeks after China announced that it would be investing $360 billion into clean energy, a move that the Chinese National Energy Administration expects will create 13 million jobs by 2020. In the United States, meanwhile, Trump has promised to cut all federal funding for clean energy research and development.
The Full Story (January 17, 2017)
The Full Story (January 17, 2017)
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Washington Post: Kim Jong Un Isn’t The First Tyrant to Play Trump, and He Won’t Be The Last
By Jackson Diehl:
The testing of a new U.S. president by both adversaries and allies is a well-established phenomenon. What’s different about the Trump transition is the tactics some have adopted. Rather than dispatch delegations or lobby advisers, foreign governments, having taken the new man’s narcissistic measure, are doing their best to engage him personally, through tweets and other public statements.
It’s not that hard to succeed. After Trump held an unprecedented phone call with the president of Taiwan, the Chinese Navy grabbed a U.S. underwater drone from international waters. “Let them keep it!” was Trump’s baffling response, which handed a talking point to Beijing. “He seemed emotionally upset, but no one knows what he wanted to say,” mocked the Global Times, a regime mouthpiece, which went on to argue that Trump “has no sense of how to lead a superpower” — a message China wants to drive home with nervous U.S. allies in East Asia.
Trolling Trump is not the only option of course. It’s been noted in allied capitals that the man is deeply susceptible to flattery. “President-elect Trump, thank you for your warm friendship and your clear-cut support for Israel!” tweeted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after Trump criticized a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements. “President-elect Trump has shown deep and great understanding of what is taking place in the region as a whole and what is taking place in Egypt,” proclaimed Egyptian strongman Abdel Fatah al-Sissi in an interview that was splashed by the Trumpist Breitbart website.
The testing of a new U.S. president by both adversaries and allies is a well-established phenomenon. What’s different about the Trump transition is the tactics some have adopted. Rather than dispatch delegations or lobby advisers, foreign governments, having taken the new man’s narcissistic measure, are doing their best to engage him personally, through tweets and other public statements.
It’s not that hard to succeed. After Trump held an unprecedented phone call with the president of Taiwan, the Chinese Navy grabbed a U.S. underwater drone from international waters. “Let them keep it!” was Trump’s baffling response, which handed a talking point to Beijing. “He seemed emotionally upset, but no one knows what he wanted to say,” mocked the Global Times, a regime mouthpiece, which went on to argue that Trump “has no sense of how to lead a superpower” — a message China wants to drive home with nervous U.S. allies in East Asia.
Trolling Trump is not the only option of course. It’s been noted in allied capitals that the man is deeply susceptible to flattery. “President-elect Trump, thank you for your warm friendship and your clear-cut support for Israel!” tweeted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after Trump criticized a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements. “President-elect Trump has shown deep and great understanding of what is taking place in the region as a whole and what is taking place in Egypt,” proclaimed Egyptian strongman Abdel Fatah al-Sissi in an interview that was splashed by the Trumpist Breitbart website.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Washington Post: As Trump and North Korea’s Kim Spar, China Poses as the Responsible Actor
By Simon Denyar:
South Korea, not wanting perhaps to contemplate that possibility of rockets raining down on the Korean Peninsula, took a different view. Its Foreign Ministry said Trump in his tweet had issued a “clear warning” to North Korea that showed his awareness of the urgency of the threat — and that he will not waver from a policy of imposing sanctions.
“Because of our active outreach, President-elect Trump and U.S. officials are clearly aware of the gravity and urgency of the North Korean nuclear threat,” ministry spokesman Cho June-hyuck told a briefing. “They are maintaining an unwavering stance on the need for sanctions on North Korea and for close cooperation between South Korea and the U.S.”
This also raises the issue of how much interpretation should be required for the tweets of what will soon be the most powerful man in the world.
Euan Graham, director of the international security program at the Lowy Institute in Sydney, said the world was “on the slippery slope of trying to interpret one man’s not particularly coherent tweets.” But he added that the exchange has increased the chances that North Korea could be “the first crisis out of the box” in the Trump presidency, at least in Asia.
The Full Story (January 3, 2017)
South Korea, not wanting perhaps to contemplate that possibility of rockets raining down on the Korean Peninsula, took a different view. Its Foreign Ministry said Trump in his tweet had issued a “clear warning” to North Korea that showed his awareness of the urgency of the threat — and that he will not waver from a policy of imposing sanctions.
“Because of our active outreach, President-elect Trump and U.S. officials are clearly aware of the gravity and urgency of the North Korean nuclear threat,” ministry spokesman Cho June-hyuck told a briefing. “They are maintaining an unwavering stance on the need for sanctions on North Korea and for close cooperation between South Korea and the U.S.”
This also raises the issue of how much interpretation should be required for the tweets of what will soon be the most powerful man in the world.
Euan Graham, director of the international security program at the Lowy Institute in Sydney, said the world was “on the slippery slope of trying to interpret one man’s not particularly coherent tweets.” But he added that the exchange has increased the chances that North Korea could be “the first crisis out of the box” in the Trump presidency, at least in Asia.
The Full Story (January 3, 2017)
Friday, February 3, 2017
Washington Post: The Chaos Theory of Donald Trump - Sowing Confusion Through Tweets
By John Wagner and Abby Phillip:
Since winning the election, Trump has seemed to revel in tossing firecrackers in all directions, often using Twitter to offer brief but provocative pronouncements on foreign and domestic policies alike — and leaving it to others to flesh out his true intentions.
In the past week alone, Trump has publicly pitted two military contractors against each other, sowed confusion about the scope of his proposed ban on foreign Muslims, and needled China after its seizure of a U.S. underwater drone.
But nothing has created more consternation for many foreign policy experts than Trump’s assertion Thursday on Twitter that the country should “greatly strengthen and expand” its nuclear capability.
On Friday, after his staff had tried to temper his comments, Trump doubled down — telling a television talk-show host that in an arms race against any competitor, the United States would “outmatch them at every pass.”
The Full Story (December 23, 2016)
Since winning the election, Trump has seemed to revel in tossing firecrackers in all directions, often using Twitter to offer brief but provocative pronouncements on foreign and domestic policies alike — and leaving it to others to flesh out his true intentions.
In the past week alone, Trump has publicly pitted two military contractors against each other, sowed confusion about the scope of his proposed ban on foreign Muslims, and needled China after its seizure of a U.S. underwater drone.
But nothing has created more consternation for many foreign policy experts than Trump’s assertion Thursday on Twitter that the country should “greatly strengthen and expand” its nuclear capability.
On Friday, after his staff had tried to temper his comments, Trump doubled down — telling a television talk-show host that in an arms race against any competitor, the United States would “outmatch them at every pass.”
The Full Story (December 23, 2016)
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Washington Post: In a Day of Tweets, Trump Suggests Major Change on National Security Issues
By Karen DeYoung:
The Full Story (December 22, 2016)
Before lunchtime Thursday, President-elect Donald Trump said he would expand the U.S. nuclear arsenal, upending a reduction course set by presidents of both parties over the past four decades, and called for the United States to veto a pending U.N. resolution that criticized Israel’s settlements policy.
The policy prescriptions, communicated in morning tweets, followed calls since last month’s election to reconsider the arms-length U.S. relationship with Taiwan and to let China keep an underwater U.S. vessel seized by its navy. Trump declared within hours of this week’s Berlin terrorist attack that it was part of a global Islamic State campaign to “slaughter Christians” and later said it reaffirmed the wisdom of his plans to bar Muslim immigrants.
Late Thursday, Trump suggested in another tweet that the U.S. military’s years-in-the-making plans for a new stealth fighter, Lockheed Martin’s F-35, might be reconsidered, saying he had “asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!”
The Full Story (December 22, 2016)
Monday, January 9, 2017
Washington Post: Trump Flunks his First Foreign Policy Test
This jousting over Taiwan wouldn’t be so worrisome if other aspects of the U.S.-Asia policy were intact. But Trump’s pledge to tear up the TPP in his first days in office has sent the other 11 nations that signed the pact scrambling for cover — with some talking of making new deals with a Beijing that is eager to fill the void.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the United States’ most important Asian ally, said last month that TPP members would consider joining a rival, Chinese-led trade agreement known as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP. “There’s no doubt that there would be a pivot to the RCEP if the TPP doesn’t go forward,” Abe said. Peru and Australia, two other TPP signatories, also indicated they might join the RCEP.
“If you want to stand up to China, the last thing you should do is walk away from TPP,” said Michael Froman in an interview. He’s the U.S. trade representative Trump blasted during the campaign as an incompetent negotiator.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Vox: Trump Further Undermines Fake Blind Trust by Seeking Top Secret Clearance for His Kids
By Matthew Yglesias:
Julianna Goldman reported Monday evening for CBS that the Trump-Pence transition team “has asked the White House to explore the possibility of getting his children the top secret security clearances” in light of their role as advisers to their father.
The request is somewhat unusual since “nepotism rules prevent the president-elect from hiring his kids to work in the White House.” But you don’t need to be a government employee to have a top secret clearance, and the kids would presumably be willing to offer dad their thoughts on trade negotiations with China and the course of the war in Syria on a pro bono basis.
The only problem is this greatly exacerbates the massive conflict of interest problem surrounding the Trump Organization.
Trump’s proposed fake solution to the problem is to say that the management of his businesses will be handled by his kids, who will operate them through a fake blind trust. As dodgy as that arrangement would be under any circumstances, having his kids serve as senior advisers completely undermines any possible benefit. Imagine a normal president with a normal asset portfolio that he really does put in a blind trust, but then he taps the guy running the trust to be Treasury secretary — it doesn’t make any sense.
Julianna Goldman reported Monday evening for CBS that the Trump-Pence transition team “has asked the White House to explore the possibility of getting his children the top secret security clearances” in light of their role as advisers to their father.
The request is somewhat unusual since “nepotism rules prevent the president-elect from hiring his kids to work in the White House.” But you don’t need to be a government employee to have a top secret clearance, and the kids would presumably be willing to offer dad their thoughts on trade negotiations with China and the course of the war in Syria on a pro bono basis.
The only problem is this greatly exacerbates the massive conflict of interest problem surrounding the Trump Organization.
Trump’s proposed fake solution to the problem is to say that the management of his businesses will be handled by his kids, who will operate them through a fake blind trust. As dodgy as that arrangement would be under any circumstances, having his kids serve as senior advisers completely undermines any possible benefit. Imagine a normal president with a normal asset portfolio that he really does put in a blind trust, but then he taps the guy running the trust to be Treasury secretary — it doesn’t make any sense.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Newsweek: How Donald Trump Ditched U.S. Steel Workers In Favor of China
By Kurt Eichenwald:
A Newsweek investigation has found that in at least two of Trump’s last three construction projects, Trump opted to purchase his steel and aluminum from Chinese manufacturers rather than United States corporations based in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. In other instances, he abandoned steel altogether, instead choosing the far-less-expensive option of buying concrete from various companies, including some linked to the Luchese and Genovese crime families. Trump has never been accused of engaging in any wrongdoing for his business dealings with those companies, but it’s true that the Mafia has long controlled much of the concrete industry in New York.
Throughout his campaign, Trump has maintained that some controversial decisions for his companies amounted to nothing more than taking actions that were good for business, and were therefore reflections of his financial acumen. But, with the exception of one business that collapsed into multiple bankruptcies, Trump does not operate a public company; he has no fiduciary obligation to shareholders to obtain the highest returns he can. His decisions to turn away from American producers were not driven by legal obligations to investors, but simply resulted in higher profits for himself and his family.
Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump campaign, did not return an email seeking comment.
The Full Story (October 3, 2016)
A Newsweek investigation has found that in at least two of Trump’s last three construction projects, Trump opted to purchase his steel and aluminum from Chinese manufacturers rather than United States corporations based in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. In other instances, he abandoned steel altogether, instead choosing the far-less-expensive option of buying concrete from various companies, including some linked to the Luchese and Genovese crime families. Trump has never been accused of engaging in any wrongdoing for his business dealings with those companies, but it’s true that the Mafia has long controlled much of the concrete industry in New York.
Throughout his campaign, Trump has maintained that some controversial decisions for his companies amounted to nothing more than taking actions that were good for business, and were therefore reflections of his financial acumen. But, with the exception of one business that collapsed into multiple bankruptcies, Trump does not operate a public company; he has no fiduciary obligation to shareholders to obtain the highest returns he can. His decisions to turn away from American producers were not driven by legal obligations to investors, but simply resulted in higher profits for himself and his family.
Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump campaign, did not return an email seeking comment.
The Full Story (October 3, 2016)
Sunday, October 16, 2016
[Special] New York Times: The Lies Trump Told
By David Leonhardt:
[Editor's Note: I tagged this as "opinion" because it ran in the form of opinions, not because I think Trump's provable falsehoods are merely opinion]
- He lied about his endorsements.
- He lied about “stop and frisk.”
- He lied about “birtherism.”
- He lied about New York.
- He lied about Michigan and Ohio.
- He lied about Palm Beach, Fla.
- He lied about Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve.
- He lied about the trade deficit.
- He lied about Hillary Clinton’s tax plan.
- He lied about her child-care plan.
- He lied about China devaluing its currency.
- He lied about Mexico having the world’s largest factories.
[Editor's Note: I tagged this as "opinion" because it ran in the form of opinions, not because I think Trump's provable falsehoods are merely opinion]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)