Trump’s Speech About Hillary Was Terrifyingly Effective

[rangerrebew]

Trump’s Speech About Hillary Was Terrifyingly Effective
2.5k
194
He left the clown act to his surrogates, mixed in a truth or two among the lies, and zeroed in on what people hate about Clinton.
By Michelle Goldberg
 

Donald Trump’s Wednesday morning speech about Hillary Clinton’s record is probably the most unnervingly effective one he has ever given. In a momentary display of discipline, he read from a teleprompter with virtually no ad-libbing, avoiding digs at Bill Clinton’s infidelity or conspiracy theories about Vince Foster’s suicide. Standing in a low-ceilinged conference room bedecked with square chandeliers in the Trump SoHo, a lawsuit-plagued hotel and condo development, Trump spoke for 40 minutes without saying anything overtly sexist. Instead, he aimed straight at Clinton’s most-serious weaknesses, describing her as a venal tool of the establishment. “Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs and effectively let China completely rebuild itself,” he said. “In return, Hillary Clinton got rich!” He added, “She gets rich making you poor,” and called her possibly “the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.”
 

The point is not that this is true; as political analyst David Gergen said on CNN, the speech was slanderous. But the lies in the speech, many taken from Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash, were not obviously self-refuting. At one point, Trump said, citing Schweizer, “Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.” This has been debunked many times over, including by FactCheck.org.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/donald_trump_s_speech_about_hillary_clinton_was_terrifyingly_effective.html

READ MORE

[RedHead]

How effective it was remains to be seen.  But Trump has had effective speeches in the past and has immediately undone whatever good effect they had by making some stupid or bigoted off-the-cuff comment in a rally.  Now he is leaving the campaign so he can fly to Scotland to open up a Trump golf course? 

[Oceander]

Ahh, so now slander, not truth, is the measure of effectiveness, so long as the lies are not self-refuting?  That is demagoguery, not legitimate leadership, and it never ends happily.

[MBB1984]

Ahh, so now slander, not truth, is the measure of effectiveness, so long as the lies are not self-refuting?  That is demagoguery, not legitimate leadership, and it never ends happily.

Do you really believe "Clinton Cash" is slanderous?   Do you work for "Mother Jones?"

[Oceander]

Do you really believe "Clinton Cash" is slanderous?   Do you work for "Mother Jones?"

Did you read the article itself?  The person who wrote it noted that it contained lies that weren't self-refuting.

[geronl]

How effective it was remains to be seen.  But Trump has had effective speeches in the past and has immediately undone whatever good effect they had by making some stupid or bigoted off-the-cuff comment in a rally.  Now he is leaving the campaign so he can fly to Scotland to open up a Trump golf course?

didn't the last Scotland venture go way south...

[sinkspur]

Listening to the pundits last night and this morning, it was as if they were talking about a two year old who, for once, didn't throw his cereal against the wall.

He has such a low bar in terms of effectiveness.

I thought the speech was pointless and was a recitation of stuff we've heard already about Hillary.  Plus, how does he trash someone as "corrupt" when he donated to her foundation and praised her as SOS as late as three years ago, after she'd already left office?

[geronl]

I thought the speech was pointless and was a recitation of stuff we've heard already about Hillary.

None of it was new. Hillary is a known quantity. Every conservative has probably said the same thing many times for years, even while Trump was handing her cash and saying how terrific she was.

[Ghost Bear]

Listening to the pundits last night and this morning, it was as if they were talking about a two year old who, for once, didn't throw his cereal against the wall.

He has such a low bar in terms of effectiveness.

I thought the speech was pointless and was a recitation of stuff we've heard already about Hillary.  Plus, how does he trash someone as "corrupt" when he donated to her foundation and praised her as SOS as late as three years ago, after she'd already left office?

Sure, we here all know it, but we've been steeped in this stuff for years, some of us going back to Bill Clinton's first run in 1992. When was the last time a Republican running for office actually said any of it out loud in front of an audience (and in front of cameras)?  When was the last time that the "average joe" who gets their news from the old "Big 3" networks or from whoever took over Jon Stewart's show heard any of it?

[kevindavis007]

Sure, we here all know it, but we've been steeped in this stuff for years, some of us going back to Bill Clinton's first run in 1992. When was the last time a Republican running for office actually said any of it out loud in front of an audience (and in front of cameras)?  When was the last time that the "average joe" who gets their news from the old "Big 3" networks or from whoever took over Jon Stewart's show heard any of it?

The "average joe" knew about it and didn't give a damn..

[Ghost Bear]

The "average joe" knew about it and didn't give a damn..

Some did, sure. But many didn't, and many now don't know about them, especially younger voters. For example, this story:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,213180.0.html