That’s so 2004 thinking though. The best reason to have a former NATO commander is because he’s already experienced at diplomacy. If you just want to look tough, pick Flynn, he’s a lifelong Democrat.
Flynn’s a wingnut. Or do you mean for Trump?
A little bright news going into the convention season: NBC/WSJ, ABC/WaPo and CNN all released polls finding Clinton with a 4-5pt (+4.6 avg) lead. A reversal from the batch of polls last week.
Thanks! Glad to hear it. I suspect Trump won’t have much of a bounce, if any, coming out of Cleveland.
And then there is Reuters/ipsos that reports Hillary ahead by 12 points. I still look at the aggregate to not get complacent. However, I do think that it is odd that Reuters did detect the past up-tick of Trump that most pollsters detected back in May. Making Trump to be ahead of Hillary for a few times in May. The odd thing is that this time the big downturn of Hillary from a few polls was not detected by Reuters as in other polls. So, I’m dubious about Reuters, but I’m more :dubious: then about polls from Rasmussen and Quinnipiac.
Whoops, not that it changes anything but I short-sold Clinton on the CNN poll.
NBC/WSJ +5
ABC/WP +4
CNN +7
So a +5.33 lead based on this morning’s polls
Last year on the campaign trail Ms Clinton stated that as President she would institute a no-fly zone in Syria. Russian planes were already active over Syria when she said it. The White House instantly poured cold water on the idea for obvious reasons. (American/Russian air wars escalating God knows where.)
It’s this sort of dumb ill-thought out proposal that makes me worry about Hillary as President. And yet look at the alternative. This whole election seems like a nightmare from which there is no waking up.
When people actually get to the Oval Office, they tend to think through things a bit more than while campaigning. (with the probably exception of GWB).
Here is Hillary’s current position(s) in regards to terrorism and ISIS:
Don’t have time to read now. Can you just tell me if she’s for them or against them?
Your characterisation is not accurate.
Unless “advocate” = “institute”
Her actual quote
This , to me, is symptomatic of why Trump can do so well.
Deliberate exaggerations don’t advance knowledge or reasoned debate…
They just make people dumber.
And it simply means everything has to be Factchecked
Reminds me of the story of the laconic Calvin Coolidge going off to church. He’s gone a long time and when he returns, his wife asks why he took so long.
“Preacher gave a long sermon,” he says.
“About what?” she asks.
“Sin.”
“Well, what’d he say?”
“He was against it.”
Oh, she would only advocate for a no-fly zone. How does that make this any less dumb?
Another choice Clintonism from today’s headlines:
Well, that is a bold and innovative pledge, Mrs Clinton. I’m sure no one before you has ever used the full weight of the law against cop-killers. They’ve been getting away with it for far too long.
If I’m Hillary’s rapid response team, my current theme is “What sort of man doesn’t fire the person who humiliated his wife in front of millions?”
Well it’s a good thing you aren’t on that team then cuz that’s kinda lame.
Or “What sort of man hires complete buffoons who can’t even fact check?”
It’s a pretty lame controversy. I mean, I wouldn’t be shocked if there was some plagarizing but the fact is that it was two strings of total cliches that were similar. Quick, do a fact check and make sure no one else used “your word is your bond” or “pass these values to our children” in a speech! Don’t want to plagarize!
Yeeeeeeaaaaahhhhh - No. I’m going with “no”. That’s my final answer.
Hey, Gingrich tells us that the speech was 93% plagiarism free! How awesome is that! Here’s a nice glass of water that’s 93% cholera free. Enjoy.
Why do you need a slogan? “Melania Trump’s Speech Stole From The One Michelle Obama Gave in 2008.” You’re done. The story’s taking off on its own. It’s front page on every news site. Why bother spending energy and money on it?