US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4967

On September 13 2016 00:09 LegalLord wrote:
I would wonder how much this approval rating is approval of Obama per se, rather than approval of a return to a less Bush-esque status quo. By default I'd expect approval of US actions to be relatively high by allied nations, unless they are particularly bone-headed and directly make their lives worse.

On September 12 2016 21:38 TheDwf wrote:

Odds are, this mostly reflects the way mainstream medias of each country treat said foreign leaders. In France, Obamania was the rule for a long time, Merkel's choices are rarely questioned, Putin is demonized, Clinton is seen as the “choice of reason” and Trump was exclusively portrayed as a populist, racist semi-lunatic (which is quite faithful, but there are rarely in-depth explanations about why ~half of the country can endorse him). International issues tend to be treated in a very superficial way.

On September 13 2016 00:09 LegalLord wrote:
I would wonder how much this approval rating is approval of Obama per se, rather than approval of a return to a less Bush-esque status quo. By default I'd expect approval of US actions to be relatively high by allied nations, unless they are particularly bone-headed and directly make their lives worse.

I also have seen that these "approval rating" polls, while showing a general approval of Obama/US during his tenure, tend not to ask about his generally less loved actions - Ukraine, Libya, encouraging South China Sea disputes, Syria "red line" issue, butting in and sharing his desired vote on Brexit (and "back of the queue"), disputes with Turkey right now, handling of the Greek crisis, etc. Incidentally, I don't think Obama has a bad FP, and in fact I would say that his was better than average because shit always happens, there's always issues people can be disapproving of, and he's had good enough judgment not to escalate most issues far above what they should have been. However, the fact that most of the specific policy questions tend to be softball ones - "handling of ISIS" and "handling of Iraq War" and the like - I question whether these polls have a push-poll quality to them (or if at least they are selective in reporting). I'm sure he is generally well-liked by Europe but these polls try to paint a much more flattering picture of him than he particularly deserves.

On September 13 2016 00:26 xDaunt wrote:

No surprise there. Declining to really say anything is the smart move. Hillary and her campaign fucked up pretty badly, so there's no reason to interfere with the process that's playing out.

That said, Trump's newfound self-restraint is noteworthy. Like I mentioned last week, it really looks like the Breitbart crew has turned things around for him and stricken the right balance between letting Trump be Trump and letting Trump implode.

On September 13 2016 00:38 On_Slaught wrote:


How is getting sick "fucking up really badly?" No way she could have skipped on the 911 memorial if she felt even 50% that morning.

On September 13 2016 00:44 ticklishmusic wrote:
So where's the lie? She omitted mentioning she was ill b/c she figured she could work through it. Turns out she couldn't. People say "I'm fine" because they feel they need to be fine all the time.

Anyways, it looks like no one will really care. Turns out overworking herself isn't exactly the campaign-killer that some people wanted it to be.

On September 13 2016 00:44 ticklishmusic wrote:
So where's the lie? She omitted mentioning she was ill b/c she figured she could work through it. Turns out she couldn't. People say "I'm fine" because they feel they need to be fine all the time.

Anyways, it looks like no one will really care. Turns out overworking herself isn't exactly the campaign-killer that some people wanted it to be.

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign just made a massive error. We'll know within the next few weeks if the error will prove to be catastrophic.

On Sunday, Clinton abruptly left a Manhattan ceremony marking the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A video shows her shakily stumbling while trying to get into a van to leave. The candidate's physician later offered this explanation: Clinton has had an allergy-related cough for some time, and during an examination on Friday, the Democratic nominee was diagnosed with pneumonia, put on antibiotics, and told to take time out to rest. She became overheated and dehydrated during Sunday morning's event, which led her to collapse. She's now home in Chappaqua and on the road to recovery.

Compare this timeline to details from Hillary Clinton's public schedule and behavior over these same two days.

After Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia and put on antibiotics, she did not, as her physician recommended, take time out to rest. Instead, she attended a fundraiser featuring Barbra Streisand. Then on Sunday morning, she attended the 9/11 commemoration, became "overheated," and woozily wobbled rather dramatically. Ninety minutes later she exited her daughter Chelsea's apartment building to tell the press she was "feeling great." The Secret Service permitted a young girl to come over to give the candidate a hug.

It was only a few hours later when her campaign finally announced that she has pneumonia and is recovering.

The most charitable reading of this timeline is that her campaign — presumably with the blessing and perhaps insistence of the candidate — fully intended to keep her illness a secret from the public. Let's be clear about what this means: Her campaign intended to lie. Even though doing so would require her to keep up a public schedule that might well make her condition worse and require ever-more elaborate forms of concealment. Because, of course, to curtail her schedule would raise questions that might reveal the truth.

So even after she collapsed, the campaign decided the ruse would continue. It arranged for the candidate to make her curbside declaration of wellness, even bringing on the girl to give her a "spontaneous" hug. (Clinton's protection detail would never have permitted a genuinely spontaneous embrace on the street, even by a child.)

It's easy to understand why the Clinton campaign would want to keep this kind of news a secret. The candidate doesn't trust the media. The right has been hitting her over supposed health issues for months (and even years), and the assault has picked up in intensity over the past week or so — since Clinton found herself in the midst of an extended coughing fit at a campaign event in Cleveland. Then there's the gender dynamic. Donald Trump presents himself as a hyper-masculine tough guy, while Clinton is the first female presidential nominee. The Clinton camp is probably twice as terrified of their candidate looking frail as a less path-breaking campaign would be.

So the campaign chose to lie. The potential reward was considerable: namely, an absence of politically damaging news stories about Clinton's medical condition. But the risk was enormous — and it's blown up in their faces. Because now the story isn't just that Clinton is ill. It's that, once again, she's untrustworthy — and this time about her own health.

That's why the announcement that she has pneumonia will only fuel more speculation about Clinton's physical condition, with potentially no end in sight. The world saw her collapse, and 90 minutes later, the candidate looked America in the eye and proclaimed that she was feeling great. Except now we know that she wasn't.

Not long after this charade, someone on the campaign staff made the call to come clean. But it may well have been too late.

The best the campaign can hope for now is that Clinton recovers quickly and soon looks healthy in her public appearances. Then maybe the topic will recede into the background of the campaign. The candidate got sick, but then she got better. End of story.

But if she doesn't recover quickly? If she appears weak and frail for more than a few days? Then, yes, she'll face perfectly reasonable questions about whether she's physically up to serving as president. But worse, she'll confront lingering doubts about what, precisely, is ailing her. "It's pneumonia," the campaign will proclaim over and over again. To which a skeptical America will justifiably reply, "Yes, we can tell that you'd like us to think so. But we have no reason to trust that's true."

Political trust is a fragile thing. Once it's gone, it's exceedingly difficult to get back — and without it, there's no basis on which to dismiss conspiracy theories that even normally level-headed observers will begin, for perfectly understandable reasons, to entertain.

Like so many of the scandals and pseudo-scandals that have dogged Hillary Clinton and her husband through the years, this one needs to be recognized as entirely self-inflicted. The campaign now has to live with the consequences of having chosen to lie to get out of a problem.

On September 13 2016 00:56 xDaunt wrote:
I'll just let this guy make the point for me:



You Hillary supporters need to shake yourselves out of your delusions. Her campaign clearly messed up, and I'm not sure why it's so hard for y'all to see it and concede that point (edit: Actually, I do know why, but I'm going to be nice).

On September 13 2016 01:00 ticklishmusic wrote:


You post an opinion article, aka someone's perspective, as if it's factual.

On September 13 2016 01:00 ticklishmusic wrote:


You post an opinion article, aka someone's perspective, as if it's factual.

On September 13 2016 01:03 xDaunt wrote:

Do you disagree with any of the facts in the article?

On September 13 2016 01:06 Plansix wrote:
Except they part where he claims they lied? What was the lie? Not telling everyone she was sick after the doctors visit Friday?