Evidence of the more extremely qualified nature of Hillary Clinton comes by way of her so-called opponent (aka candidate who in spite of any estimable future reality could become president):
The allusion to the conceivable murder of an adversary by gun is clear, just as was candidate Clinton's original, which came the last time she was in the running for the same office when she justified remaining in the Democratic race by reminding those li$tening that her husband in 1992 hadn't captured the nomination until June in California, adding, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."
Nevertheless, her shot was so much more skillfully put. First, she employed the passive voice, avoiding the appearance of having called upon potential perpetrators discretely. This aptitude for language in politics is crucial to executing the power of the office they seek, while maintaining control of its requisite chaos. Why, Trump doesn't even know what the passive voice is.
Second, unlike Trump, she was not referring to the potential of a resentful element taking the law into its own hands to prevent their paranoid fantasy's coming to life, but simply reminding a few influential friends with benefits along with her party's shakers that, in addition to being within easy electoral reach of her primary opponent, one of the many ways said opponent could falter might be exiting through the kitchen door before the dirty dishes had been cleared.
By comparison, Donald Trump's reference to "Second Amendment people" is so unsophisticated as to qualify the use of the word "dangerous" to describe it. Given his one-time status as Clinton family friend with benefits, one wonders how he could be so sloppy. He certainly doesn't come off as presidential.
Again, Clinton uses the language to signal those who help manage strict order and underwrite the American project, while Trump manages to use it to get his detractors as worked up as his supporters — for yucks or shocks or who knows what the hell for. Clinton's comment was about the deadly serious issue of seizing the nomination for President. Trump has long had the nomination wrapped up, and still he doesn't seem to take anything seriously enough to get the occasional good press. All he does is scare supporters away. Puzzling, to say the least.
What if Donald Trump were called upon to justify his prior vote for an unpopular war, or having supported a putatively pernicious trade agreement or seemingly creepy crime bill?
Not only is he not in the possession of foresight to have a non-apology issued through his spouse, he certainly does not have the capacity to start the next war, let alone does he have the ability to parse the language just so in order to give the Congress the cover needed to close the deal on the next trade agreement.
Can you seriously imagine him surrounding himself with the right people to effectively evolve the definition of threats to democracy and eliminate them with extreme prejudice in a way that is sustainable?
I'm sorry, it's not enough to appear racist when you're so gauche. On his watch the war on terror would be over before you could say Shoah! In a Commander in Chief, we need someone at the helm who can make the nation's wars also the next president's responsibility.
Anyway, given the volume and sources of cash the Clinton campaign has been receiving, she must be doing something better than he is. One can only hope that Trump's attempt to steal the Democratic party's final trump card, the SCotUS argument, backfires.
"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know."
The allusion to the conceivable murder of an adversary by gun is clear, just as was candidate Clinton's original, which came the last time she was in the running for the same office when she justified remaining in the Democratic race by reminding those li$tening that her husband in 1992 hadn't captured the nomination until June in California, adding, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."
Nevertheless, her shot was so much more skillfully put. First, she employed the passive voice, avoiding the appearance of having called upon potential perpetrators discretely. This aptitude for language in politics is crucial to executing the power of the office they seek, while maintaining control of its requisite chaos. Why, Trump doesn't even know what the passive voice is.
Second, unlike Trump, she was not referring to the potential of a resentful element taking the law into its own hands to prevent their paranoid fantasy's coming to life, but simply reminding a few influential friends with benefits along with her party's shakers that, in addition to being within easy electoral reach of her primary opponent, one of the many ways said opponent could falter might be exiting through the kitchen door before the dirty dishes had been cleared.
By comparison, Donald Trump's reference to "Second Amendment people" is so unsophisticated as to qualify the use of the word "dangerous" to describe it. Given his one-time status as Clinton family friend with benefits, one wonders how he could be so sloppy. He certainly doesn't come off as presidential.
Again, Clinton uses the language to signal those who help manage strict order and underwrite the American project, while Trump manages to use it to get his detractors as worked up as his supporters — for yucks or shocks or who knows what the hell for. Clinton's comment was about the deadly serious issue of seizing the nomination for President. Trump has long had the nomination wrapped up, and still he doesn't seem to take anything seriously enough to get the occasional good press. All he does is scare supporters away. Puzzling, to say the least.
What if Donald Trump were called upon to justify his prior vote for an unpopular war, or having supported a putatively pernicious trade agreement or seemingly creepy crime bill?
Not only is he not in the possession of foresight to have a non-apology issued through his spouse, he certainly does not have the capacity to start the next war, let alone does he have the ability to parse the language just so in order to give the Congress the cover needed to close the deal on the next trade agreement.
Can you seriously imagine him surrounding himself with the right people to effectively evolve the definition of threats to democracy and eliminate them with extreme prejudice in a way that is sustainable?
I'm sorry, it's not enough to appear racist when you're so gauche. On his watch the war on terror would be over before you could say Shoah! In a Commander in Chief, we need someone at the helm who can make the nation's wars also the next president's responsibility.
Anyway, given the volume and sources of cash the Clinton campaign has been receiving, she must be doing something better than he is. One can only hope that Trump's attempt to steal the Democratic party's final trump card, the SCotUS argument, backfires.
