I agree with this, Hillary is a definite and immediate foreign policy danger

Ex-British Army chief Lord Richards endorses DONALD TRUMP

​More below.

​This quote is so dead on it hurts:

"The former general added: 'I'm a bit sorry they're the best candidates that can be put up in a country as great and as huge and powerful as America.

'I think he is wise enough to get good people round him and probably knows that he's got to listen to them, and therefore I think we should not automatically think it will be less safe.'

Turning to the Democratic rival for the White House, Lord Richards told the magazine: 'Unless she's prepared to do this properly and go to war with Russia, she shouldn't talk about no-fly zones and nor should we.

'We would have to shoot down Russian aircraft in order to impose it. Do we really want to go to a shooting war over Aleppo?'

Trump is ultimately a deal maker, and all deal makers want the same thing, they want everyone at the table to leave in a better position then they arrived in. Hillary is a neocon absolutist who believes she can manipulate the world to her whim. This is historically the way to war.

The other problem we have is that both Russia, and China are facing serious internal economic, social, and political turmoil. The leaders of these nations should this turmoil appear, will be looking for an "enemy" under which to rally their people. By this, these leaders can divert the peoples frustrations against an enemy, and avoid becoming the focus of their peoples frustrations. 

Hillary is simply walking directly into the role of "enemy." A role which could lead to actual war, just as Lord Richards infers here. 

Trump offers the only real way out of the current foreign policy quandary created by Obama, and Clinton, and "refined" by Kerry. We need a dealmaker, a negotiator, someone who can change the shape, and size of the pie, not someone like Hillary who will simply demand America get the lion's share. 

That these are Americas "best" candidates is a travesty. That we must choose between them a cruel joke. But we must. Hillary offers a return to the failed foreign policies of Obama/Hillary/Kerry, and a continuation of disastrous domestic policies which have left the economy winded, and moribund, policies like Obamacare. She might want to make a few changes, but she will generally stay the course. This is like adding water to thin gruel to make it more nutritious. It doesn't work that way. 

Trump has deep flaws, and has choses some disastrously bad policies, but at least he offers some minor hope. His foreign policy would be light years ahead of Clinton's. His other policies that I strongly disagree with like immigration, and trade, have all been essentially adopted by Clinton as well, making these areas neutral. Domestically, Trump would be for stronger human, individual, and Constitutional rights, and for upholding and following the US Constitution. Again, this is light years ahead of Clinton's anti human, individual, and Constitutional rights policies. Lastly, Trump's basic instincts regarding domestic policies are generally good. He is for either eliminating, or, at least doing a major overhaul on Obamacare. I think the law so poorly drafted, why bother with a rewrite, but it is a possibility. 

Trump offers a way to begin healing the unprecedented foreign policy mess of Clinton/Obama, while allowing the US to gain a bit of breathing room with respect to domestic policies, all while retaining our rights. 

Clinton offers none of these things. 

An election looms, choose wisely.