Calling her “crooked Hillary,” a “liar,” a “devil,” and “unfit to serve” aren’t good enough. Ya gotta be more specific. Tiptoeing around her dark side is no winning formula.

I’m no political strategist but it strikes me that defeating her requires striking where she’s most vulnerable – with hard-hitting facts backing it up.

And hammering at them relentlessly. The Clinton campaign’s only ammunition is Trump’s rhetoric with no public record to attack him on.

It goes without saying that anyone reaching billionaire status has lots of skeletons to hide, but they’re mostly private, not public.

Hillary’s baggage is notorious, indictable stuff since her crooked lawyer days followed by a near-generation of more serious criminality – enough evidence to sink her if used effectively with an important caveat.

She’s the establishment candidate, thus the scoundrel media favorite, chosen to win in November, Trump to lose, electoral rigging easy to arrange it – the same way she stole the nomination from Sanders.

It’s all over but the postmortems unless Trump goes all-out against her no-holds-barred. He’ll lose otherwise. She’s already widely reviled and considered untrustworthy.

Volumes of hard facts add meat to the bones – discussed in detail in many articles I’ve written, other independent writers exposing her dark side the same way. It’s all there online for the taking to be used advantageously so why hesitate when holding back is a losing strategy.

I’m no Trump fan. I deplore duopoly rule, fantasy democracy, not the real thing – monied interests served exclusively, ordinary people everywhere harmed grievously.

Things worsen each electoral cycle. Trump is a deplorable choice for US president – with one redeeming feature I stressed earlier.

He’s not Hillary, the worst possible choice to empower with the fate of the nation and world – a self-serving war goddess, racketeer, Wall Street tool, threatening world peace if she succeeds Obama.

I support Green Party nominee Jill Green, but electoral rigging and media shunning assures her no chance of winning – just perhaps able to turn the election one way or the other by getting enough support in November.

I reject both duopoly power candidates. One will be the next US president. Better hope it’s Trump, not Clinton.

I’ve said it before, will say it again, and keep repeating it through election day. As president, greater imperial wars than already are virtually certain under her leadership – but that’s not the worst of it.

She’s militantly anti-Russia, anti-China, anti-Iran, anti-all other independent sovereign states. She wants them all toppled, violently if nothing else works, a recipe for disaster.

The threat of global war with nuclear weapons is greater with her in charge than any other US leader in history.

Is that a risk worth taking? Can any sensible person support her with it in mind?

World peace is too precious to lose if she succeeds Obama. It’s crucial to keep it from happening.