Posted on 10/21/2015 9:25:19 PM PDT by MeshugeMikey
When Clinton last ran for office, Trump was torn between supporting her and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. ” They’re both terrific people, and I hope they both get the nomination,” he told CNN in 2007, adding that he thought Clinton would surround herself with good people to negotiate a deal with Iran. A year later, Trump wondered publicly why Clinton wasn’t chosen as President Obama’s running-mate.
In 2012, as Obama was running for re-election, Trump called Clinton “terrific” again in an interview with Fox News, saying she performed well as Secretary of State.
“Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman,” he told Greta Van Susteren. “I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Trump was full of effusive praise for Hillary in 2012, near the end of her tenure as SecState. With the Arab Spring, Russia and Iraq disasters already well under way. Yet, three years later, she’s “the worst.” Why the inconsistency?
Oh, wait... in 2012, praising Hillary was “good business.”
Acting like inconsistency is the only possibility commits the fallacy of too few alternatives. Like I said, Trump reassessed and changed his mind. How is that not a good thing? Much better than a narcissist locked into their own opinions to tight they end up neutering themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os_iedaMlYE
“Trump reassessed the situation and changed his mind.”
What was there to reassess? The world was on fire in 2012 as well. Back then, he was full of praise for Hillary.
What I find interesting is whenever someone like Marco Rubio reassesses a past position, say, immigration, that’s dismissed as a pandering policy flip-flop.
Sorry, but that doesn’t fly. “Reassessing” implies Trump then saw the world as far more stable in 2012. How could this purportedly brilliant strategic thinker somehow miss all that?
Yes, Trump’s praise of Hellary is as confusing as Cruz’ crafting immigration legislation, for W Bush, which called for speeding up the application process, increasing the number of work visas, and allowing the relatives of permanent residents to visit the U.S. while their applicants were pending.
Trumps COMMENTS regarding Hellary are not as dangerous as proposing increasing immigration or having a joint foundation (ala Bush Clinton Initiative). A nice compliment and a wedding invite pale, in comparison.
But, let’s keep harping on historical comments, shall we?
I think Trump gives people the benefit of the doubt, to the point of it being a fault. It’s obvious in his rally speeches. He’s a glass half full kind of person, looks for good in people before bad.
Watch the video.
Here’s what Trump had to have assessed in 2012 when he praised her and her tenure as SecState:
1. The gross mishandling of the situation in Iran, when the Green Movement for a short time threatened the rule of the mullahs. A real SecState would’ve gathered contemporaries across the world and condemned the brutal crackdown by the Iranian government and its basiji thug militia. She did nothing.
2. The horrendous diplomatic backing by the US Mohammed Morsi’s muslim brotherhood regime in Egypt and with it the vicious oppression of Coptic Christians.
3. The needless war and overthrow of Ghadaffi in Libya. The same Ghadaffi who had “reassessed” the situation in the reign and come to align agains Islamic terror. Remember Hillary’s statement in 2011 — “we came, we saw, he died?”
4. The abject diplomatic failure to secure a workable SOFA pact with Iraq to allow some of our troops to remain there, resulting in the resurgence of ISIS.
5. The diplomatic isolation of Israel as it fought against repeated missile attacks from HAMAS.
Failures, all.
And Donald Trump was — as you say — giving her the benefit of the doubt? Really?
reign=region
Jane.. are you going to say Trump’s comments aren’t a reflection of his impressions of Hillary? Remember... comments from other candidates and other figures over the years are what have bought them the label of RINO.
But, just to be clear, from this day forward, comments don’t have impact then, right?
Maybe he wasn’t paying enough attention to Hillary to assess her correctly. Maybe he didn’t even care that much. After all he’s pretty busy with business, not like the those who have the time post all night long about how wrong Trump was in 2012. He’s personally done more good for the country and people than all the other candidates combined.
If you don’t like him don’t vote for him. I like him and will vote for him if he gets the nomination.
And read my #248. Historical comments - especially those only three years old - matter greatly for presidential candidates.
Are you going to say we should hold Ted Cruz accountable for his love for all things Bush? He actually wrote a 16 page love letter about Bush. I happen to have lost much respect for Bush over his immigration policies and the awful way he threw Ramos and Compean under the bus. Cruz is attached to Bush’s immigration legislation. Do we say that’s not “a reflection of his impressions”?
My point is, Trump has obviously changed his opinion about Hellary. I’m sure Cruz has about the immigration legislation he himself crafted for Bush. You may believe Cruz still supports Bush’s pathetic immigration policies. I have a feeling he may not :-/
An international businessman had sure as hell better be paying attention to world events. Look - I get that he likes and admires her .. the Clintons have good friends of Trump, and the recent anti-Hillary remarks are just political theater. His fans here in FR even admit his words are designed to soothe a particular audience, because that’s what he sees as necessary to achieve his business goals.
Did Ted Cruz say he loves all things Bush?
And this isn’t about Cruz. It’s about Trump.
Good point about Cruz-Bush-immigration. Absolutely kills the premise of the opening post. Cruz has to be criticized the exact same way to not be hypocritical.
Jane Long killed the premise. It’s dead.
Anyway.. gotta go. Heading on a road trip in an hour. My appreciation to both of you for not launching into an ad hominem tirade. Too much of that has been occurring here in FR.
Though I don’t support Trump, I do try to keep the perspective that we in FR are still on the same team... we’re just having a rather spirited discussion about picking the team captain.
This thread was started by a Cruz supporter attacking Trump. Cruz should be run through the exact same vetting process, and when that’s done, Cruz-Bush-immigration, he could be criticised the exact same way. To not do that is hypocritical.
Besides that;
Trump 10-18-2015; ““Personally, I think that Hillary was one of the worst, if not the worst, I mean if you look at the record, secretary of States ever, ever in this country,” Trump told Wallace. “I think that’s the bigger problem that she’s got. I don’t think Benghazi is as big a problem for her as her past and what’s happened. The world blew up around her. You look at the world, it just blew up around her. Everything … that happened during her tenure were a disaster.”
Trump 10-21-2015; “Personally, I would rather run against Hillary because her record is so bad.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.