Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
In Foreign Policy Speech, Hillary Eviscerates The Donald
This is a preview from Friday morning’s The Daily Shot newsletter. Subscribe here free of charge.
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton gave a major foreign policy speech in San Diego. If you’re interested in seeing it for yourself, the video is here, and the transcript is here. However, we watched it all (35 minutes worth) so you don’t have to (and you damn well better freakin’ love us for it). In the speech Clinton laid out how her ideas for a “smart and disciplined foreign policy” contrast with Donald Trump’s, which she called “dangerously incoherent” and “not even really ideas – just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.”
Clinton actually was able to execute a merciless takedown of Trump’s general disconnectedness from reality, without her trademark shrillness. She also presented a plan that was designed to sound calm and reasonable with little that anyone could strongly disagree with. (Of course, it falls apart on the details.)
The entire speech was filled with brutal shots at Trump, but there were a couple of stunners up front: “He is not just unprepared – he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability, and immense responsibility,” and “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes – because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.” (And then she stomped on his corpse.)
Clinton listed her qualifications: She “wrestled with the Chinese” over a climate deal, negotiated a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, worked out a nuclear weapons reduction with the Ruskies, arranged international sanctions against Iran, and “stood up for the rights of women, religious minorities and LGBT people around the world.” (Again: Those pesky details…)
She set out her foreign policy plan thusly: Strength at home (infrastructure spending, education spending, blah, blah, blah), strong alliances, “embrac[ing] all the tools of American power” (whatever the hell that means), being “firm but wise with our rivals,” and an unspecified plan for terrorism.
Clinton also appealed to American exceptionalism, quoted Lincoln, played the Bin Laden card, and said all the calm, reasonable sounding things that her focus group testing told her she needed to say. It was a pretty solid speech. Unfortunately it came out of the mouth of Hillary Clinton.
This is a preview from Friday morning’s The Daily Shot newsletter. Subscribe here free of charge.
Published in Foreign Policy
It really doesn’t matter what she says, we know what those words mean to her, when she actually means them. Her State Department really was pusing gay rights and abortion as the world disintegrated around her. Infrastructure spending? Would be the pork projects that after 8 years are shovel ready. And the teachers unions must get their fix. Trump knows nothing as far as I can tell, but if he tells us who his cabinet will be and they’re responsible people with actual knowledge it will be an easy decision.
That assumes he’d actually appoint any name he gives us, which I have serious doubts about.
He has to name them at the convention, with 101 trombones and fireworks. Not a list but the actual people. But then yes. We cannot elect Hillary. The self congratulating gesture of voting for a good person will mean nothing 8 years from now.
Shot,
Anyone that could believe Hillary would actually follow through with the slick rhetoric of this highly stylized speech is truly a sucker. The Clintons have been conning the suckers for 35 years.
Trump is a deal maker and he gave us the list of judges. I think he’ll keep the bargain. This harpy lying creature of the beltway merry-go-round that you are so impressed with would pack the court with more psychotic megalomaniacal leftwing judges. An immense amount of damage would be done.
If you are frightened of Trump that’s too bad. Suck it up.
Regards,
Jim
Those are awfully big rocks in an awfully glass house.
It isn’t like she hasn’t been a stunning mediocrity to abject failure at literally everything, with a skin so thin that its translucent. Oh and a petty and vindictive nightmare. Whose sole qualification for anything is having a female parts who at some point received bill clinton’s male parts.
So can she articulate ways in which the hypothetical wars trump will start even after campaigning on not starting stupid wars, will be different from the wars that she voted for or launched herself?
I mean if Trump is asked about it he should just laugh, and ask if she is high or mentally ill, Bring up the 25th amendment and call it a day.
Shot,
In Foreign Policy Speech, Hillary Eviscerates The Donald
This particular feature of Ricochet is read by people who may or may not be reading and following full posts. I think this headline is a very dangerous form of aid and comfort to an obvious enemy. There are no security checks performed by the FBI. She has been under investigation for months with over 150 agents on the job. Massive evidence of multiple felonies has already been revealed and we haven’t seen all that the FBI possesses. The IG of the State Departments report has just been revealed. It is again massively damning as it was well known in 2010 that she was far outside the boundry of State Dept. procedure. The IG (appointed by Obama) tried to reign her in. She blew off the meeting entirely.
This is someone who should never have been Secretary of State. This is someone who should not be allowed near the White House. If Hitler gave a really great speech and you already knew what he was would you write him a nice headline too?
This is irresponsible.
Regards,
Jim
So he is disconnected and unserious because he prefers a non-interventionist foriegn policy (anybody remember what bush ran on in 2000), but he is going to bomb and invade all these countries because
She is as unfit as he, and I think Trump can make that case. I guess we will see.
But then, we could always vote Libertarian, for someone who is not sure we should have fought against the Japanese after they attacked us.
(As long as we are complaining about candidates).
And this time ’round we have a fantastic and luxurious smorgasbord of things to complain about with every candidate.
I wouldn’t believe Hillary if she told me the sun rose in the east. Sure, she offered a word salad of criticism of Trump (not hard at all), but as the matriarch of the Clinton Crime Family, even when she’s right she’s still wrong.
There was a report of who are acting as his policy advisers. I know one of the guys. He has been very hard to get a hold of lately.
I really have no idea why anyone with an IQ that remotely approaches three digits would believe anything Hillary Clinton says- but thanks to Moses Finley I have a good working hypothesis.
It’s all about social status. Hillary Clinton is a high-status member of the dominant social-political grouping- leftists- and the subordinate bunch- conservatives- quickly endeavors to shoehorn its supposedly competing ideology into the framework chosen for it by the dominant group.
Result-silly nonsense such as this stupid belief that Hillary is the true conservative, because she can mouth lies that an actual conservative might say.
Everyone actually knows Hillary is a shameless, contemptible liar. But because Donald Trump is outside the bounds of the pseudo polite leftist sanctioned political discourse, everyone is required to exclaim that Donald Trump is- well, today- I think the adjective required is “dangerous.”
Tomorrow, it might be “quotidian.”
In any case, it will be chosen by the left.
Pitiful, conservatives. You should stop the boot-licking. It earns you nothing but contempt.
“He is not just unprepared – he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability, and immense responsibility,”
-You mean like a CEO of a corporation that is worth billions of dollars of real estate?
because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.”
-You mean like Libya and Gulf War 2003?
I get enough spam in my mail without asking for it in the case of the Daily Shot. Eviscerates? This disconnection from reality doesn’t bode well for the Shot.
Her speech was filled with personal attacks, unsubstantiated opinions of Trump’s unfitness, a distorted view of her policy “achievements”, and a wholesale endorsement of an amalgam of both parties’ foreign policy blunders over the last decade or so.
She actually believes that people are put off by a candidate who questions and in some cases repudiates those tired policies? I doubt it, but we do know with certainty that if her lips are moving, only lies are pouring forth. She simply hopes that if she sounds adult-ish and informed, and bashes the known-to-be-stupid-Republican, that her vocal drivel will attract voters.
She’ll make for some great photo-ops in the Rose Garden in her orange jumpsuit and ankle iron.
I read an interesting viewpoint yesterday (Kurt Schlichter) that gives me hope that the nevertrumpers will not gain the effects they desire. If any third party alternative gives them an excuse to not vote for either main party, then those votes will largely subtract from Clinton’s total, not Trump’s. This is preferable to them selling their souls to Satan and voting directly for Clinton.
And for a final dash of nonsense, let’s quit calling her Hillary. Who’s on a first-name basis with this cretin?
These sentiments are familiar. They were cheerfully delivered last night by the giddy Andrea Mitchell.
Is this the same speech that’s causing Clair Berlinski to swoon?
http://ricochet.com/pretend-shes-not-hillary-clinton
If she is so good, if she is so smart, so disciplined and so damn Barack-Cooler-Than-School, why did she have to mention Trump at all?
She read a carefully crafted speech written by others. About a foreign affairs of which she was was Sec. of State. But which her positive accomplishments were nothing–NOTHING.
Trump should not worry.
With all due respect, if you’re going to misrepresent he man’s views, you should at least link to the source material.
Well, the problem is that each of her attacks really hit home. Her line about nuclear codes echoes something Rubio said last year. But each of them is almost unanswerable.
So this speech is useful as a preview of what we are going to see for the next five months.
I don’t disagree. Thus that final link.
See, I don’t see him has supporting a non interventionist policy. He always seems to be talking about how he’s going to fight ISIS and torture people.
I don’t know what that is, but it ain’t non interventionism.
The nuclear code bombast has been thrown at every Republican candidate since Barry Goldwater. Rubio was reaching for anything.
I don’t disagree. I suggest rereading the last line and clicking on the link.
Yeah. But it hits home with Trump because of his public instability.
Indeed. It was a miracle we all survived that madman Ronnie RayGun. He was gonna launch atom bombs FROM SPACE!
Granted there does seem to be a needle being threaded here.
I think its more of a we didn’t need to invade iraq or libya, but ISIS is something of a fait accompli, which has to be dealt with.
While bombing ISIS may be necessary he probably won’t invade yemen and topple the government there, or get into a shooting war with Russia, which seems to the current hallmark of a “serious” foreign policy.
Also Trump wants to “keep their oil.” Meaning, I think, ISIS’s oil. How you do that in a non-interventionist way, I can’t imagine.
So Ricochet is now officially a Hillary House Organ?
Hillary is now Center Right?
People like Hillary have been delivering slick lies about foreign policy for decades and they seem to get wealthier year after year and the grandchildren of friends and family go off to fight and die for no victory but further need to send more young warriors to fight more.
Damn people who think words are reality. Bury a friend or child and then listen to these words again.
A folded flag is little comfort when people such as these are considered effective.
Are we done kissing the former Secretary? And did we have to go full tongue?
Watch it, I hear Huma gets jealous.
It was laughable to see Hawkish HillBilly calling Trump “dangerous”. She supported the war in Iraq. In general, the Dems have loudly called for military intervention all over the world, like in Libya, where US interests were really in no way implicated (‘crept that at that time our European allies still needed their “sweet” crude…)
As for this myth of his “instability”, “you don’t want his finger on the button”–the only button she knows is the snooze button, which she hit while US territory (our embassy) was under attack and calling for help in Benghazi.
GOP columnists have taken to calling Trump “unstable” a neutral sounding word that when applied to a human being means insane and dangerous. What evidence is there of that? Any criminal charges,domestic abuse charges, ever brought or even considered?
Trump doesn’t hide from us and the press ( unlike Clinton who does hide.) He will answer any question at any time. If that accessibility sometimes results in his later having to clarify a point, well, doesn’t every one do the same?
The MSM has now decided, since Huffpost got away with its omnipresent tag about Trump being racist, xenophobic, etc., to use the same tactic, essentially putting “he’s lying” right in the banner below the videos of him.
The same thing could certainly be done with Clinton. F’rinstance, she claims to be fighting for women, yet she paid her female staffers less than the men–and then of course there’s her statements about Bill’s sexual conquests. Trump U? Look up Laureate, world’s largest for-profit university system, which uses the same hard sell tactics and by which Bill has been paid undisclosed millions for promotional speeches .
But it won’t be done to her, of course–it’s “vulgar” not in good taste, to bring those things up.
I was not impressed with her speech. I do not see that anything Omega has done has made us safer and more respected. My impression from traveling in Europe is that they like him because he has knocked America off her “high horse” as he likes to say.
This minatory insistence that we just have to take her word for it that, behind the scenes in closed diplomatic clubs, everything is working to America’s advantage, demonstrates total contempt for the American people.
So–do we get fooled again, just cuz now she’s lifted Trump’s Greatness theme?
I’m so sad to say, it’s a good possibility.