Am I correct in saying that HC's speech in San Diego was not made to some existing group but rather was an event arranged by her campaign staff in a hired venue with an audience created by them from her supporters in the area? pl
RSS- Open Thread – Inauguration Day 2024
- On December 19, 2024 Congress tried to suspend the federal debt limit until 2027 but the vote failed. The January 2 limit is full. What now?
- Dave Chappelle’s SNL Monologue
- Aurimas Mockus and his grueling quest to row from San Diego to Brisbane – mostly naked
- Drone Industry: American Style
- What really happened with the Pacific Palisades water hydrants?
- Two big launches scheduled for this week
- DeSantis Pitches Moving NASA Headquarters to Florida
- A renewed Ukrainian offensive in Kursk?
- True story of “Anna of Kyiv”: SBI launches investigation into formation of 155th Brigade
Between Prez Gay Urkel stammering and Crooked Hillary’s robotic, Speak and Say script, Emperor Trump (PBUH) is inside the OODA loop of his foes absolutely wrecking their sh-t.
Some of you already sound like you need to be talked off the ledge. November gonna be amazing.
Col. You mean a campaign event? It must have been.
Doesn’t matter. The speech sucked.
Laura
What else could I mean? pl
Sir
Don’t know if the San Diego event was scripted but it seems there may be a pattern here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3621275/Emails-Clinton-staff-reviewed-remarks-questions-events.html
Now, I’m sure the Borg Queen will claim and correctly so I suppose that all politicians do it.
Jack
IMO nether Sanders not Trump stage manages events in this way. Look at the numbers, Her claque in that room amounted to a couple hundred. pl
The on-the-ground report is that people were prevented from entering with the reason given that it was a ‘donors-only’ campaign event. Perhaps the audience was handpicked by the campaign from their existing donor list.
Sir
If the polls are any indication she’s sinking fast relative to Sanders in the coming California primary compared to a few months ago. Maybe, she’s hard pressed unlike Sanders or Trump to quickly get a few thousand people to an event in California. That would likely imply the momentum is swinging against her for next week’s primary. If she loses California next week that’s gonna be another week of loss amplification in the media and more questions about her “inevitability”.
Tyler wrote: ‘Between Prez Gay Urkel stammering and Crooked Hillary’s robotic, Speak and Say script, Emperor Trump (PBUH) is inside the OODA loop of his foes absolutely wrecking their sh-t.’
Very intelligent discussion. Didn’t you have a thread a while back about not putting up with this any longer?
It was an audience of invited guests in a ballroom. Unlike a lot of Trump and Sanders events where the size of the audience is a major part of the message, this Clinton event was all about her ridiculing Trump’s foreign policy credentials. It was billed as a major foreign policy address. It wasn’t. It was an extended political attack ad.
I believe that if there are shall we say three debates between Clinton and Trump, she will have a lot on her hands. I truly wonder whether she will agree to debate him. The entire Neocon strategy is directed at silencing him.
In terms of Potemkin Village speeches, once again she is the reincarnation of George W. Bush. Vote for her, you’re voting for W. in drag.
GCP,
If that’s the case how are you posting here?
TTG,
As far as I know Trump didnt get anyone killed in Benghazi, destabilized Libya, pressed to wreck Syria, and indirectly flood Europe with rapefugees.
She should definitely keep bringing up foreign policy.
The tone is not directed at you, btw, but her handlers.
I will go further than Tyler and say that if Clinton makes foreign policy the focal point of her campaign (and how can she not? she’s trapped by having been Secretary of State and by the email scandal and criminal activity, she must emphasize foreign policy) then there is hope for the U.S. and for the world.
The problem will be a false flag moment. If Putin cannot be provoked into acting rashly, the people who brought us sarin attacks in Syria will act rashly in his name. There is another possibility that has been mentioned here in the past, and I will not mention it again. it is too despicable and repellent.
Tyler,
So Trump’s foreign policy credentials are no more or less impressive than Obama’s were in 2008. That shouldn’t hurt him anymore than it hurt Obama. Clinton’s biggest albatross is her charter membership in the Borg Hegemony. Nuland and Pyatt worked directly for her when they destroyed Ukraine. She’s a charter member of the “Assad must go” club. As far as Benghazi goes, I consider her biggest problem is her being up to her neck in the CIA scheme to transfer Libyan arms to the unicorn army in Syria. Yeah, she has baggage. Whether that matters to the electorate, I don’t know.
Don’t worry about your tone here. You’re in neutral compared to a lot of your comments.
Colonel
There is no question in my mind, that was a staged campaign event, and not a major policy
presentation, like everything Clinton does it was fully scripted and staged. Trump for good or bad is completely spontaneous I don’t think Trump is or wants or even cares to be scripted and coached.
Tyler, Agreed. Going after Trump on foreign policy is a desperate act; a political kamikaze attack. She’s done.
That said, the idea was clearly for her to “give a speech” so that it could be repeated endlessly, as “news”, on CCN and other unbalanced Clinton supporting outlets populated by elitist fools that just can’t accept that their day in the sun is coming to an end.
Bill Herschel,
Since we here sometimes try to “think the unthinkable” to see where it goes and what it implies, perhaps the other possibility should be mentioned here again, for those like me who either didn’t read it when it was mentioned, or can’t remember what it was. It could be carefully bracketed with all kinds of disclaimers about how despicable and repellent you know it to be and that you are certainly not accusing anyone of actually thinking about it, but rather just offering a pure hypothetical which has to be thought about in today’s strange world of today.
TTG,
Cause I like you buddy.
Colonel, where did you hear it?
I think there is a general disgust brewing, and Hillary’s insistence that what she did is ‘just like’ what Colin Powell did is being met with contempt and derision by people who realize that if they’d put information on a ‘private server’, they’d have been doing time in jail. I also think that, more generally, people are out of patience with being lied to and expected to continue paying taxes to fund the Borg Hegemony.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/wall-street-2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-213931
Interested to read that Mike Flynn is supposedly on Trump’s VP shortlist, I also note that my tip Kris Kobach is also supposedly shortlisted. I don’t expect Flynn will get it but Trump has always delegated with his business affairs and I suspect he will be doing so for foreign policy, with Flynn the likely beneficiary.
MRW
Where did I hear what? pl
A scripted speech in front of a ‘hand picked’ crowd. Didn’t Dubya do exactly this? I remember a Borgist wannabe I worked for once being excited because he had been ‘invited’ to go to a public venue to cheer ‘his President’ on. Anyone with a Leftist ‘history’ was excluded from the appearance. (I knew one such who was turned away from the door.)
What H Clinton did was pure “Machine Politics.”
It was a (Robert) Kennedy treatment.
DC is the capital of “Kabuki Theater”. Several years ago a friend who works in one of the many government cube warrens in downtown DC was informed by her boss that the entire staff had been invited to the White House for the afternoon. Upon arrival they were lead to the Rose Garden, presented a little US flag & a little foreign flag & instructed on how & when to wave the flags & cheer. Soon the President & a visiting despot appeared before the “enthusiastic” crowd of citizens. All on the taxpayers clock.
Once while giving a SC aunt a tour of the Capital,we entered the empty House chamber and there was my aunt’s congressman & a camera crew. Her congressman was giving a “give’em hell” speech for an empty chamber. News at 6:00. She never voted for the fraud again.
The press makes the illusions possible by what they choose to cover & how they frame & edit. Crowd close ups mean small crowds no matter what the report says. The coverage of Hillary’s San Diego “foreign policy” speech that I saw showed no audience shots, only Hillary draped in the American flags.
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest of them all.
I agree, just like in EU, or Brazil or many other places, we are facing a crisis of jobs and employment – especially for young people – and I think the electorate (the 99%) understand that very well.
Iime put it online, I would assume that Pat has a reason to not link it. Maybe it’s not worth taking a closer look?
“Read Hillary Clinton’s Speech on Donald Trump and National Security
Katie Reilly @katiemacreilly
June 2, 2016
“Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different – they are dangerously incoherent””
Having been around some accident/labor/crime/terrorist events that have appeared (or not appeared) in the news I tend to see stories and images in the the framing of “What am I looking at, and who wants me to see it.”
Muffled zones indeed.
Yes it was a campaign event, invitation only, with seating for about 300 people according to a local CBS reporter.
If they debate, I wonder if they will match the vituperation and skill exhibited in the Buckley-Vidal debates of 1968? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Vidal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY_nq4tfi24 (at about 10:30)(as an aside, the same issues debated in 1968 are at issue today.)
My guess is that Trump will overcome in the debate because he is so much better at ridicule.
Clinton just cannot close on a sale. Several months back, Cruz asserted that Clinton supported abortion up until the day before a normal delivery or something like that. Then Clinton appeared on one of the Sunday morning shows and was asked the question as to whether Cruz’s characterization was accurate. Clinton hemmed and hawed, never giving an answer and leaving the impression that Cruz was right and she was heinous.
While Clinton could have said that an “abortion” just before normal birth is a crime if the baby is viable and that viable babies must be assisted to live as is the overwhelming state of the law in all states. Instead, she just stuttered some unequivocal nonsense. She could have stated the overwhelmingly accepted position of the law and won over thousands. She just could not do it due to her fears.
It is as if, after all of the years of being attacked, Clinton is suffering from PTSD (Political Traumatic Stress Syndrome) and just does not have the confidence to take stands on the borderlines of issues. Clinton is fully frightened that no matter what she says, it will always come back to bite, so she garbles and qualifies everything so as to say nothing. Trump will exploit that innate Clinton hesitancy and lack of self-confidence-fear-of-being -caught-in-a-bad-sound-bit part of her psyche.
To beat Trump, Clinton will have to get Trump’s confidence broken or his anger up so that, like Buckley, Trump will spew out something that shows he has lost self-control or shows fear.
It seems to me to be unlikely she can find Trump’s weakness due to her own fears. Technocratic perfection and issue mastery will not win the match. The only thing that can trump Trump is for him to lose his cool in a big way.
LeaNder
I thought her prepared speech was a trivial catalog of the complaints of her coalition of followers and do not choose to post it. pl
I think it was billed as a campaign event, invitation only. I think she should keep hammering on Trump as being unstable because he does seem that way. He is emotionally labile, paranoid and vindictive. However it seems many people find these good qualities in a president. If Trump wins then I guess we will have the democracy we deserve, at least until the next election or he is impeached.
Tyler:
I believe you will find these news items of interest:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/12/30/mother-v-mother-former-lesbian-couple-battles-over-child/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/gay-custody-fights-redefine-legal-parenthood-1464818297
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/12/31/custody-battle-pits-gay-couple-against-surrogate/
It’s both sad and maddening that the msm for the most part has gushed over the speech. As a campaign ploy or event it worked well for her.
But in terms of substance and the lack of any real critique from the media her speech indeed sucked. No mention whatsoever of her support for coups in Honduras, Libya, Ukraine, Syria, or her gratuitous sabre rattling against Russia, nor her whole-hearted endorsement of an increasingly fascist Israel. Nothing at all.
She scored some points against Trump according to the media horserace metric, was “witty” and “engaging”. That about sums it up imho.
Col, this may be more appropriate to an open thread but it does have to do with Hillary Clinton and foreign policy.
It’s a war game scenario that I call ‘How a Nuclear war with Russia would start’. Like the sinking of the Titanic, it is a worst case scenario where everyone makes a plausible bad decision.
1. President Hillary Clinton declares a no-fly zone in Syria but the implementation doesn’t go well because the Russians don’t back down and their S400’s perform well.
2. A newly assigned Gen. Breedlove suggests simultaneous naval and land attacks on both Latakia and Crimea with the backing of the Ukranian army to pin the Russians down. He might even throw in eastern Ukraine just for good measure under the premise, if you stand up to bullies, they will run.
3. The Russians decide that if they have to fight a war on their turf it’s about time the U.S. gets a taste of what they is like so they use long range cruise missiles launched from either subs, frigates, or bombers to attack a U.S. military base on our mainland, like San diego. Please note that this is a CONVENTIONAL attack on a military installation. This is not a nuclear war yet.
4. Hillary has a choice to either try to negotiate a cease fire or escalate. Being a Narcissist, she gets convinced that an all out nuclear attack on Russia would succeed and while devastating to the U.S. we would still be functional. Reagan ended the Cold War but she ended the Russians, to her, problem solved and being safely bunkered with her family, acceptable.
If someone senses that I think Hillary is evil then please get tested, you may be a psychic and you might be able to quit your day job. In all seriousness, if there is a nuclear war I think something like this will happen. Scenarios involving pure accidents are non-zero but I think that a series of blunders will be our downfall.
If there is an open thread, I’ll probably re-post this. BTW thanks for keeping SST, I would really miss it.
I would think Trump could effectively respond to Clinton’s diatribe by asking her what’s wrong with seeking to be on friendly terms with Russia and China. She’ll probably just ignore him. That’s how politics is played, but the question should be asked… repeatedly.
Is BREXIT a FP issue for HRC or the Donald?
Well, yes, Pat. Maybe, compared to Trumps ideas on foreign policy? I realize I am an outside observer in the latest US election circus.
if I could, I’d model the ideal candidate from some Bernie, may even add some Hillary from this speech and some from Donald’s slightly less ad-hoc’s straight-guy scripted statements on foreign policy.
*****
And seriously, apart from the fact that I can understand Americans dislike for democratic dynasties, the larger setup may be much more troubling longterm. The center does not hold. Yours, and no doubt ours too. Could be that we have moved beyond lesser-evil-choices.
LeaNder
IMO she is more dangerous than Trump. he is merely a loud mouth but expresses moderate views in foreign affairs. You Europeans are quite comfortable in the amount of services we provide you but there is no reason for us to be. He would seek accommodation with Russia, and is not blinded by neocon ideology. He would re-negotiate the trade deals. I am all for that. As president he would be severely limited in what he could do independently by the structure of the Constitution and might easily face impeachment. She, on the other hand is a highly skilled Washington player adroit at manipulating the organs of government and a neocon hawk who when frustrated in a lack of progress toward achieving the Obama vision of utopia will decide to go to war. I will do nothing to help elect her. pl
I too am shocked at the appearance of politics in the midst of a Presidential campaign.
You Europeans are quite comfortable in the amount of services we provide you
Well, not so much Sir.
There’s clearly a rift between ordinary people and ours local “Borg”.
More and more people are fed up with NATO ” Drang nach Ostern ” politic that make europeans people less and less safe.
And nobody want to die for Kallin,Riga or Kiev.
Maybe Varsovie ?
Hum, not sure.
When last heard from on the subject, the Donald did not seem to be quite clear on what “Brexit” meant.
Trump has been distinctly hostile to China in ways large and small. He has claimed that climate change is a Chinese hoax. As a refresher, here is Trump’s “impersonation” of Asian negotiators:
http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1852785/we-want-deal-trump-fakes-asian-accent-mock-chinese-japanese-businessmen
That said, the Chinese could probably make hay out of a Trump presidency, which would enable them to say, “See? We told you so. This is what Americans are really like.”
aleksandar,
Hopefully the European publics will find or create parties devoted to dissolving NATO. If they feel a need for collective security after NATO is dissolved, they can create NEATO . . . the North East Atlantic Treaty Organization.