Hillary Clinton's evisceration of Donald Trump

A carefully crafted political speech. Yeah, yeah, I know, it was supposed to be a foreign policy speech. But it's not like Donald carefully follows the rules:

Hillary Clinton's evisceration of Donald Trump - CNNPolitics.com


"A speech that was billed as a major foreign policy address instead unfolded as a savage, mocking evisceration of Donald Trump Thursday as the former secretary of state adopted an aggressive new campaign persona designed to repel the unpredictable challenge posed by the presumptive Republican presidential nominee."

"In one of the most striking speeches of her political career, Clinton dispensed with the sober diplo-speak that has characterized her previous national security addresses and went straight for the jugular, unleashing a series of biting attacks on Trump."

I do disagree with the article. I wouldn't describe her speech as "savage". She is simply dealing with a man who doesn't play by the rules. I would say HRC handed Donald his head on a platter quite effectively.

 

She simply used his own words against him. You can only say stupid things for so long before they start to come back on you. This is just the beginning. It will be an epic political season.

 

Hillary is barking up the wrong tree if she thinks she can win a mud-slinging contest with Donald Trump.

She's come to expect total deference, almost to the point of idolatry, from the media, with good reason. She's not going to know what hit her once Trump gets going, because she's never had to deal with a direct challenge, and he's more concerned with winning than being a gentleman, ala Mitt Romney.

 

I would normally agree with this, but that's not what happened. It was his mud that he has already been slinging. That's why it got the reaction it did. She wasn't playing his game. She was illustrating his game.

I'm wondering where are all those GOP leaders who endorsed him? Pretty quiet.

 

Trump returned fire last night, but of course it was completely ignored by all media outlets except Fox News.

Wait until after the nominations, and the real election begins. As I said, Hillary isn't going to know what hit her when the Benghazi version of the Swift Boat Veterans pops up, not to mention how she squares "I'll sit down and talk with anyone about my emails", with refusing to actually do so with the IG of the State Department.

 

Business tactics and politics

Here is what I see. Donald is trying to apply his business tactics in a political settings. His way of doing business involves eliminating his competition by "Threatening to sue them and make their life a living." He is now saying basically that if Obama involves himself, he is "going to hit him like Bill Clinton". see link:

Donald Trump warns Barack Obama he

Unfortunately, in the political world he doesn't get to control who says what, unless he threatens to sue the President I suppose.

 

Clinton’s warnings about Trump actually describe … her | New York Post

 

Wrong again. I saw his response on CNN. Do you even watch other news outlets, or do you just blindly make assumptions? The only good thing I can say about Fox is that they've been harder on Trump than CNN.

 

I saw it this evening on MSNBC.

I have trouble believing Trump was ignored, since a major issue for the media has been their desire to cover him relentlessly because he brings ratings and clicks. I doubt seriously that the media suddenly went silent. There's no indication of this.

 

Right. Because Benghazi hasn't been covered at all--it will come as a complete shock to the voting public.

The e-mail thing is troubling, but we'll see what come of it from the FBI. We already know the facts; it's up to organizations like the FBI to make assessments about it.

 

Two days later.

 

If you have some evidence that the media have now begun to ignore Trump, please share it. Your assertions themselves are too vague and shifting to demonstrate your point.

 

This implies there aren't voters left to influence. If that was really the case, they would pack it in and go home to wait out the election in November. But it isn't.

 

In addition to undecided voters--and the polls show there are lots of them, Clinton's attacks give cover to Republicans who don't want to actively support Trump. Lots and lots of cover. Also, these kinds of exposure could help some people decide to sit it out.

There will be a lot more where this came from.

 

He could be a spoiler, but for whom? I'm not sure he wouldn't be successful taking votes away from both Trump and Clinton. Except....unlike Nader or Perot, people still haven't heard of Johnson. And I'm not sure they're going to listen, between Clinton's e-mails and Trump's...well...everything.

 

The reason why third party candidates fail is that our system is designed to support two parties; no fewer and no more. The Founding Fathers didn't intend this; they (largely) loathed the idea of political parties and the machines they inevitably build and run. But the way Congress is designed, not to mention the Electoral College, two parties is the way it's always been. Even when a party dies, it is replaced by one other, not more.