I realize there are already at least a couple of threads regarding the debate, and I originally conceived this as a post in one of them, but as the scope of my post got bigger and bigger I realized I wanted to basically start a whole new conversation, thus this new thread.  I want to go over basically all the points on which Clinton and Trump clashed, giving my own commentary, and judgment where I feel it's warranted, and at least skimming over even the unchallenged points they made.  Despite all the criticism the debates have gotten about how they are being moderated (or not moderated) I think they're still one of the best ways to see the candidates' views and strengths and weaknesses as they directly challenge one another on their policies and other things.  Way better than rallies and so on. 

Let me start with some disclosure of my own potential bias:  firstly, I caught the second half of the debate before I saw the whole thing, and I think that the second half was where Clinton was stronger and Trump was weaker, so that may skew my perceptions compared to people who were exposed to the whole thing from start to finish normally.  Second, while I don't consider myself a Clinton supporter per se, I thought before the debate and continue to think after it that she is less potentially damaging to the office and to the country if elected President, so right now she has my vote.  Nevertheless, I think I'm a rational and logically minded person, and I believe I can judge the arguments and counterarguments set forth by each candidate with adequate fairness despite who I think should win the election. 

My references will be: 
1.  The NBC video of the debate posted on Youtube, not out of any love for NBC but because they are a major network and the website is clean.  The debate actually starts at about 25 minutes and 40 seconds into the video as reflected in the link. 
2.  The transcript posted by the Washington Post.  I wanted to find a "clean" one, that is, without annotations and color commentary, but I couldn't find one within a few minutes of searching.  Feel free to recommend a link.  [edit:  Here's one without notes, but I don't like the formatting as much.]
3.  Factcheck.org article "Donald Trump and the Iraq War", for reasons that will become clear. 

Please note:  'Half' quotation marks are only paraphrases of what people are saying.  These are not actual direct quotes.  All the actual direct quotes are in "full" quotation marks, and should additionally be in italics or bold.  You have been notified. 

TL;DR INTRODUCTION OVER:  ACTUAL ANALYSIS BEGINS HERE [edit: too long; didn't read]

[edit:  edited to clarify all acronyms and other initialisms; thanks, Slimebeast.  Also, NBC: National Broadcasting Company]

***QUESTION ONE***

Question #1 was basically (IMO [edit: in my opinion]) asking, 'Why are you better for Americans wanting jobs, or wanting their wages to get better, considering the current state and direction of the economy?'

Clinton's answer, in my view, boils down to 'make sure the jobs pay a decent wage and benefits under the law, and close tax loopholes on corporations and the rich.'  Proposals include raising minimum wage, "affordable" child care, "debt-free" college, and "clos[ing] corporate loopholes", but there is a lot of wiggle room there. 

Trump's answer IMO can be summarized as 'Other countries are stealing our jobs and a huge corporate tax cut will solve the problem along with renegotiating trade deals.' 

Clinton went after this as "trumped-up trickle-down", which is a fair criticism but an obvious canned zinger.  Expect to hear it about a million times by Halloween.  They argued a little over Trump's business history but then got back to policy. 

Trump said that Mexico's VAT (sales tax) [edit: Value Added Tax] put American exports at a big disadvantage in Mexico compared to Mexican exports to the USA [edit: United States of America], and suggested a tariff (import tax) to fix it.  So, basically repeal NAFTA.  [edit:  "North American Free Trade Agreement", meaning no restrictions on trade between Canada, Mexico, and the USA.]  No more free trade.  (My judgment:  I'm sure Mexico would retaliate, and big tariffs are bad for the overall economy IMO.) 

Clinton accused Trump of being hopeful that the housing market collapse would happen because he could buy up property cheaply and do well off the suffering of the country.  His response was "That's called business," which I don't think will earn him political points, but IMO his ego didn't allow any other response (nor silence). 

Clinton briefly accused Trump of being a climate change denier and saying it was a Chinese scam.  Then they went back to the trade argument and Trump said that Clinton had had 30 years to fix it and she hadn't.  He hit NAFTA by name this time, along with TPP, and dared Clinton to call Obama's TPP a mistake, which she avoided doing.  Point for Trump here.  [edit:  "Trans-Pacific Partnership", basically the equivalent of NAFTA for the US [edit: short for USA] and some Pacific economies.]

Trump now mentions that in addition to cutting taxes he will cut regulations, while Clinton will increase both and kill businesses.  They fight about that and a bunch of other stuff while the moderator fails to move them along to the next question.  Trump:  "no wonder you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life."  Srsly?  [edit:  Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, AKA (also known as) I. S. of Iraq and the Levant, or just the Islamic State.]

FINAL JUDGMENT ON QUESTION ONE:  On the basics of 'tax cuts, deregulate, and cancel free trade agreements' vs. 'raise taxes and add minimum wage and family leave requirements', I think both candidates did a good job of articulating their own proposals.  Clinton's best attack was 'trickle-down economics didn't work before and it won't work now', and Trump's best attack was when he painted Clinton into a corner that she could only get out of by saying Obama was wrong to back the TPP, and everyone could see it when she balked.  Trump made a bizarre comment about Clinton fighting ISIS for decades longer than is actually the case, but I don't think it will matter in the long run.  I think Trump can be called the 'winner' here because I don't think anyone can really be surprised by the criticism of his proposal as trickle-down economics, but he was effective at painting Clinton into a corner. 

***QUESTION TWO***

This was a follow-up question on the tax proposals:  'Defend your tax cuts for the wealthy; defend your tax raises on the wealthy.'

Trump said his tax cuts would benefit the middle class even more than the wealthy by virtue of the business boom that he claimed would follow from the huge tax cut on carried interest, which would give companies incentive to repatriate wealth currently held overseas (since they wouldn't have to pay as much tax on it as under current law).  He said Democrats and Republicans both see that it's common sense but just aren't getting it done; they are incompetent and Clinton is one of them. 

CLINTON: "I have a feeling that by, the end of this evening, I'm going to be blamed for everything that's ever happened."
TRUMP: "Why not?"

Clinton responded that she supports repatriation of the overseas wealth but in a way that isn't a humongous giveaway to companies just like (and including) Trump's own businesses.  She claimed that he wanted a $4 billion tax cut on himself (referring to what the estate tax would be if his claimed $10 billion net worth was actually true).  She said that focus needed to be on helping the middle class directly and not the people who are already at the top. 

Trump's only response was "all talk, no action; sounds good, doesn't work"; he didn't say why Clinton was wrong.  Instead, he claimed that we are in a false recovery propped up by very low interest rates (unsustainable? he didn't say) by a politically motivated Fed, and that as soon as interest rates rose the house of cards would come down.  He laid our current state at the feet of Clinton and others like her. 

QUESTION TWO JUDGMENT:  Clinton had a strong response to Trump's proposal, but Trump didn't seem to trust the strength of his comeback and instead diverted attention to whether the economic recovery is real.  If there's a winner here, I think it has to be Clinton for that reason, but Trump shrugged off the damage. 

***QUESTION THREE***

Pretty simple, asking Donald Trump why he won't release his tax returns:  "Don't Americans have a right to know if there are any conflicts of interest?"

Trump said he'd release them when the audit is done, and that most relevant information was already revealed by his financial disclosure statement.  The moderator showed that he wasn't completely without balls and reminded Trump that the IRS [edit: Internal Revenue Service] themselves had stated that Trump was free to release his tax returns even while under audit.  Trump's response to this was, 'my lawyers don't want me to relase it, but I will when Hillary publishes her 33,000 deleted emails.' 

Clinton had a field day with a target this big and began by pointing out the IRS's statement and that Trump is the first candidate in decades to not release his tax returns.  She threw out several possible reasons he might have to refuse:  'he's not as wealthy as he claims to be'; 'he's not as charitable as he claims to be'; 'he's hiding his debt to Wall Street and foreign businesses, possibly major conflicts of interest'; and 'he's hiding the fact that he claims to owe no income tax'.  She backed up the last hypothesis with the fact that the last time he was legally forced to reveal his tax returns, he had claimed to owe no income tax for those "couple of years".  Trump's response to the charge of being a tax dodger?  "That makes me smart." 

Clinton hammered home that if he is paying no income tax, he is not in reality supporting the troops or any other government program he claims to support, not with his actual dollars like most citizens do.  And if he is hiding the returns because they show debt to foreign interests, the public has even more of a right to know. 

Clinton also responded to the email reference by admitting that what she had done was a mistake. 

Trump then went on the attack by saying that he had so much property and income that he didn't have that much debt relative to his wealth.  He transitioned from this to the claim that his wealth and income demonstrated that he was well placed to address America's financial situation.  He said that our infrastructure (particularly airports) was very bad considering our debt:  that we had squandered our debt by not even getting a good return from it.  That that was because Clinton and people like her had squandered it. 

Clinton took this opportunity to hit him on the tax returns again: 
CLINTON: "And maybe because you haven't paid any federal income tax for a lot of years."
TRUMP: "It would be squandered, too, believe me."

(Interestingly, this seems to imply that her accusation is right by putting it hypothetically:  his income taxes "would be squandered, too" (even if he had paid any).  Then again, no one is accusing Trump of being careful in his usage of the English language.) 

Clinton then went directly after Trump's business practices, accusing him of failing to pay people for work they did (while still taking what they made for him).  She pointed out the business bankruptcies he's had.  He responded by saying that he took whatever advantage he could of the law to maximize the benefit to himself and his businesses, and if people don't like it they should change the law.  He moved on to mention a project that he said was proceeding on schedule and under budget and contrasted that with bloated government projects and implied that he would bring his success to the government. 

QUESTION THREE JUDGMENT:  Both candidates took some real hits here but IMO Trump came off far worse.  He didn't have a good answer for why the IRS's word wasn't good enough, why his lawyers were begging him not to release his tax returns.  As a result of his refusal, he had to stand there and take it while Clinton made speculations about why he was hiding them, every reason worse than the last.  And worst of all, when he did respond he seemed to support some of her claims!  This was a huge blow to Trump IMO. 

***QUESTION FOUR***

'How are you going to address troubled race relations, given the police shootings etc.?'

Clinton:  better police training, gun control (without using those words); "Everyone should be respected by the law, and everyone should respect the law." 

Trump:  Law and Order (DUN DUN), stop and frisk like in NYC.  [edit: New York City]
Moderator:  Yeah but NYC's stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional.
Trump:  Yeah, well, we would have won the appeal if that pansy new mayor hadn't backed down. 

Clinton picked up from there by saying that Trump was painting an unfairly and unrealistically dire picture of the situation, and that stop and frisk didn't even work.  They argued about what the crime statistics actually were saying.  Then Clinton found the excuse she must have been waiting for to throw out her other big sound bite:  "I think -- I think -- I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And, yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that's a good thing."  In retrospect, when she stutters the beginning of that sentence you can almost see her thinking 'THIS IS MY CHANCE!'  Very scripted.  Does that undermine her point or reinforce it? 

QUESTION FOUR JUDGMENT:  They clearly differ on policy here but I don't see a big "winner".  Clinton got to put out her other big line but I don't think it was a particularly good zinger against Trump; it is more of a positive argument for her campaign to make about Hillary herself, and maybe protect against an attack about her being an insider.  No winner or loser here IMO. 

***QUESTION FIVE***

Once again the moderator shows signs of life and shows that even today's TV [edit: television] journalists, once sufficiently provoked, are still capable of asking a tough question:  "Mr. Trump, for five years, you perpetuated a false claim that the nation's first black president was not a natural-born citizen. You questioned his legitimacy. In the last couple of weeks, you acknowledged what most Americans have accepted for years: The president was born in the United States. Can you tell us what took you so long?"

Trump's response was to say that other people questioned it, too, and that he was the reason Obama released his birth certificate. 

"The birth certificate was produced in 2011. You've continued to tell the story and question the president's legitimacy in 2012, '13, '14, '15...as recently as January. So the question is, what changed your mind?"

Trump:  "Well, nobody was pressing it, nobody was caring much about it."

SNAP JUDGMENT
I gave the actual quotation of the moderator's questions because I liked them.  I gave Trump's response because I don't even know what the fuck he's trying to say.  I mean, I understand what he's literally saying.  He's saying that he didn't change his mind because no one was pressing him on the question.  What? 
WHAT?  He brought this up again and again throughout the intervening years.  It's not like he was just silent on the issue.  And it's not like no one was arguing back.  He continued to push the idea that the birth certificate was or might be a forgery for years against opposition and derision.  And when put to the question on why he finally reversed himself on the issue, he doesn't even give a reason.  Even if it didn't matter when he changed his mind, he obviously changed it at SOME point!  This makes no sense unless he just changed his mind for no reason at all.  Come to think of it, that's not as implausible as it ought to be. 
BACK TO THE DEBATE

Clinton didn't miss the chance to hammer Trump for it as hard and as much as she could on this issue.  She called him a racist about half a dozen times in less than twenty sentences, including mentioning that he was sued for discriminatory housing practices many years ago, which he defended by saying his was only one of many, many sued over that at that time period and that he settled "with no admission of guilt".  He also shot back at her, claiming her 2008 campaign had relied on its own share of racist tactics against Obama.  He mentioned his current projects as having no racial discrimination and that being "the true way I feel." 

QUESTION THREE JUDGMENT:  See the Snap Judgment.  Nothing much changed after that.  Clinton would have had a very hard time doing worse to Trump than his own self-inflicted wound, in my opinion, and she did not. 

***QUESTION SIX***

"Our institutions are under cyber attack, and our secrets are being stolen. So my question is, who's behind it? And how do we fight it?"

Clinton said that the major rising threat is state-sponsored hacking, and pointed a finger particularly at Russia, and at Trump for egging them on, saying that he had been denounced by "50 national security officials" from Republican administrations.  Trump responded by claiming endorsements from military officers and border patrol agents.  He said that we don't know it was Russia that hacked the DNC but that we do know what they found:  shenanigans against Sanders.  [edit:  Democratic National Committee, the ones who run the Democratic Party's primaries.]

Clinton moved on to tying the discussion into combating ISIS online as well as on the ground. 

QUESTION SIX JUDGMENT:  Some basic sparring here, but I don't even really know whether they disagree on the actual policy.  I don't know if Trump even knows enough about "the cyber" to agree or disagree.  He'd probably just let the '400 pound nerds' on his staff take care of it, and I don't know if Clinton would do any better.  I'm sure Clinton's less ignorant on the subject just due to all her security briefings over the years, but this one's a tie in my book.  I don't think Trump scored any real points by bringing up the DNC hack, but it didn't hurt him, either. 

***QUESTION SEVEN***

'What do we do about homegrown terrorism?'

Apparently this question did not interest Donald Trump, because he completely ignored it to get on Clinton's back about ISIS being all her and Obama's fault.  And that "we should have taken the oil".  Clinton fired back that Bush had been the one to set the withdrawal from Iraq and that Trump had supported going into both Iraq and Libya. 

Clinton then moved on to answering the actual debate question, basically saying 'we need to gather as much information as possible and work with other countries, including NATO allies as well as the Muslim-majority countries that Trump keeps offending.'  [edit:  North Atlantic Treaty Organization]

Trump took that as an opportunity to talk about NATO and how the USA shouldn't be giving out freebies when it comes to international defense.  And took credit for a recent NATO anti-terror initiative.  'I talked about it and then they did it, so obviously they did it entirely at my suggestion.'  He also mentioned that Clinton engineered the (nuclear) deal with Iran, which he characterized as a disaster. 

Then the big fight began between Trump and the moderator over whether Trump had initially supported the war in Iraq.  In the arena of the debate, it was all he-said-she-said.  Trump said 'Go ask Sean Hannity, he'll tell you I was super against it in private conversations'. 

JUDGMENT ON QUESTION SEVEN:  On the debate question itself, Clinton was really the only one to talk about it and no one won.  On the question of Trump's opinion of war with Iraq, now is the time to refer to that FactCheck article.  From what it says, evidence suggests that he was more or less the same as the average American at the time.  At first he didn't have much of an opinion, but to the extent that he had one it was pretty much 'If you say so, sure, go for it.'  Then as the conflict aftually dragged on past "Mission Accomplished", he got more dissatisfied until he was against the "mess" by 2004.  As for "we should have taken the oil", that's just blatant silliness.  How would you even do that in a short period of time?  Let alone the morality and legality of it.  But Clinton didn't hit him on it so I can't count it too much against him.  Perhaps it will have an impact later, but probably not.  No winner, no loser.  Slight edge to Clinton because of Trump's silliness and the fact that he was feuding with the moderator. 

***QUESTION EIGHT***

(In light of your actual on-the-record position on going into Iraq at the time the decision was being made,) "why is your judgment any different than Mrs. Clinton's judgment?"

Trump responded, "Well, I have much better judgment than she does. There's no question about that. I also have a much better temperament than she has, you know?"  This was met by open laughter from the audience, which I think Trump was clearly not expecting.  It seemed to me in my first impression that Trump was completely taken aback by it and stuttered through his next couple sentences, but on reviewing the footage the sentences don't seem exceptionally broken compared to some of his others.  It could be that he was actually flustered, or it could be just the response of a person whose train of thought has been interrupted who needs a moment to get back on track.  In any case, he doubled down:  "I think my strongest asset, maybe by far, is my temperament. I have a winning temperament. I know how to win." 

Clinton strongly defended the deal with Iran and her role in it. "That's diplomacy. ... That's working with other nations."  She went after Trump for his comments about a minor naval encounter:  "He said, you know, if they taunted our sailors, I'd blow them out of the water and start another war. That's not good judgment." 

Trump replied, "That would not start a war." 

She said he didn't take our nuclear capabilities seriously and he gave a small speech about how he did take it seriously. 

JUDGMENT ON QUESTION EIGHT:  I had originally thought this was a large Clinton win on the basis of his reaction to the crowd, but now I retract that position.  I still think she came off better than Trump, effectively making it seem like she had experience dealing with these issues and he was just bumbling around.  Significant Clinton win IMO if people think it's plausible that Trump might actually start a conflict due to some minor ego bruising, minor Clinton win if they think he was just talking trash.  I myself am not really sure. 

***QUESTION NINE***

'What is your opinion on current US policy regarding "first use" of nuclear weapons?' 

Trump rambled out a response amounting to 'I wouldn't do it, but we need all options on the table', which seems more or less in line with current policy.  He then moved on to attacking the nuclear deal with Iran. 

Clinton strongly defended it, and countered that Trump had no alternative but was just naysaying:  "it's like his plan to defeat ISIS. He says it's a secret plan, but the only secret is that he has no plan."  I do not believe she actually answered the original question. 

QUESTION NINE JUDGMENT:  A wash IMO.  Rehashing arguments from earlier and the question itself was all but forgotten. 

***QUESTION TEN***

"You said [Clinton] doesn't have, quote, 'a presidential look.' ... What did you mean by that?"

Trump:  "You have so many different things you have to be able to do, and I don't believe that Hillary has the stamina."
Clinton:  "As soon as he ... spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina."

At this point, Trump apparently remembered that he hadn't hit one of his own talking points enough times, so he compensated by doing it about once per sentence for the rest of his answer.  "Hillary has experience, but it's bad experience. We have made so many bad deals during the last -- so she's got experience, that I agree. But it's bad, bad experience. Whether it's the Iran deal that you're so in love with, where we gave them $150 billion back, whether it's the Iran deal, whether it's anything you can -- name -- you almost can't name a good deal. I agree. She's got experience, but it's bad experience. And this country can't afford to have another four years of that kind of experience."  That's a lot of repetition even for Donald J. Donald J. Trump. 

Instead of responding, Clinton took the angle that he was attacking her as a woman, and attacked him for his other remarks about women.  She singled out a Miss Universe contestant whom she claimed he called "Miss Piggy" and "Miss Housekeeping" (she was Latina).  Trump responded by suggesting that he was actually being very restrained in his capmpaign:  that he considered really harsh personal attacks on Clinton but was just too good-hearted to do it.  His parting shot was that she had spent hundreds of millions of dollars on attack ads and he was pulling even with her, or better, anyway. 

QUESTION TEN JUDGMENT:  Minor Clinton win, not on her own merit, but just because of how awkward Trump's answers were.  But someone whom his attack on the Iran deal really resonated with would disagree, I'm sure. 


HOLT: We are at -- we are at the final question.

(APPLAUSE)

***QUESTION ELEVEN***

"One of you will not win this election.  ...Are you willing to accept the outcome as the will of the voters?"

Clinton:  Yes.
Trump:  If she wins, yes.

QUESTION ELEVEN JUDGMENT:  Dammit, Trump, I can't even tell if you're trying to wiggle or not.  But he did spend more time working his way up to it.  He had to be asked twice before he answered, but he could just have been trying to work in as much of a sales pitch as possible.  It just bothers me that his sales pitch included all that talk about illegal immigrants becoming citizens through corruption.  Cause you have to admit it sounds a little like he's working up to maybe not accepting the outcome. 

SCORE SHEET: 
1.  Solid Trump win (positive for Trump outmaneuvering Hillary)
2.  Slight Clinton advantage (negative for Trump seeming weak on his rebuttal, shifting topic)
3.  Big Clinton win (positive for Clinton hammering Trump on tax returns, negative for Trump putting foot in mouth)
4.  Tie (not too much positive or negative)
5.  Solid Clinton win (negative for Trump utterly failing to answer question, slight positive for Clinton hammering him for it)
6.  Tie (nothing to see here)
7.  Slight Clinton win (negative for Trump feuding with moderator)
8.  Slight to solid Clinton win (positive for potentially painting Trump as reckless with military assets)
9.  Tie (nothing to see here)
10. Minor Clinton win or Tie (positive for Clinton attacking Trump's attacks on women, possibly positive for Trump attacking Clinton's record)
11. C'mon, Trump!

Overall, I don't think Clinton dominated throughout, but after a strong start Trump had trouble keeping up on some of the policy questions.  He really got hammered on the question of his tax returns, and bringing up Hillary's email scandal wasn't nearly enough to make up for it.  And his "birther" past came back to bite him without Clinton having to lift a finger. 

Now you guys.  What do you agree with?  What do you disagree with? 

I think your analysis is perfect. Objective, detailed, well-justified and as succinct as possible given the amount of content examined.

Great analisis but what the hell is TPP?

Agreed a lot. Overall, for me Trump was unprepared, preferred pride over success (over answering, talking about his kid, whatever), and bombed, blame on him.

That said, it's incredible for me that Trump got 5 tough, direct (and legitimate) questions about taxes, Irak, the birther issue, Clinton look and stop and frisk policies, and was challenged or fact-check on every single answer while Clinton was not challenged or given a tough question a single time, whether it's Benghazi, the private server, the Clinton Foundation, medical records or the DNC/Bernie scandal, basket of deplorable. For me that's absolutely unthinkable there could be such a massive bias in a presidential debate in front of million people, it looked like a third world country debate.

Also, while Hillary as a politician was technically vastly superior, is it really OK she could get rid of much problem that concern voters just by smiling and looking at Trump like if he was a fool ? I mean, for example, he's talking about the DNC scandal, and she just shut him down by her attitude, is she not supposed to answer ? Ok, nice profiling, great preparation, superb script, but is it really good or not, I don't know. She win the argument, but regarding the overall picture, she does not improve her likeability, does not prove her accountability, she mostly shows that she is a veteran, well prepared politician. And people already knew that.

For me, regardless of her debate domination, I see this blatant bias, her arrogance, absence of accountability, and I'm still "anything but her". So, I don't know how people, undecided people will think, but it goes beyond a technical point by point analysis.

Trans Pacific Partnership...  It is a free trade agreement that is stalled in Congress due to election year and the negativity around it.  Bernie raised hell about it during the Democratic Primary.  It is similar to NAFTA but for an agreement with several Asian countries and the USA.

Maybe they were destined to give her softball questions after Matt Lauer basically sucked Trump's dick at the Commander in Chief forum?  I don't agree that she should have been let off hook on some questions considering it is the first true debate.

DNC?

I dislike when people usa shortages and assume everyone else know them. It's so common. Really, how long does it take to write the full meaning?

In lectures and guide books for discussion and rethorics actually they always advice people to only use extremely common shortages. Only use a shortage when you are 100% your reader knows what it is.

How the fuck am I supposed to be able to determine what DNC is? It's impossible to figure it out by myself without using Google and a combination of search words.

Dat National Conference. Dat Natural Cunt. It's fucking impossible.

DNC = Democratic National Committee

DNC chairwoman Debbie Schultz (spaghetti hair) got in trouble and had to step down after email leaks revelead that they were trying their best to not have Bernie beat Hillary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html?_r=0

Thank you. But it was unnecessary to use that shortage.

The UN or UN I can understand. Everyonew knows what the UN, EU or the USA is.

But TPP? Como'n.

Thankfully I have heard about NAFTA lol. Would China be part of the TPP?

Wow, I didn't know that that scandal become so big that a representative had to step down!