Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

[ZiprHead]

You mean " RED LINE Obama?" the first ever president to bow to a leader of a terrorist state, not to mention his groveling apologetic speech in Cairo soon after being elected. The very same man who proclaimed that the muslim call to prayer was the " most beautiful sound on earth."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-approval-rating-gallup-poll-obama-popularity/

Wrong.

Video: In a 2007 interview with the New York Times, Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer in a perfect Arabic accent, and then went on to say that the Muslim call to prayer was "the prettiest sound on earth."

Actual NYT passage: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

The video exaggerates. Kristof actually described Obama’s accent as "first rate" but not "perfect." And Obama said the call to prayer is "one of" the prettiest sounds, not the prettiest of all. These distortions are minor, but still part of a systematic misrepresentation of the record.

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/truth-on-the-cutting-room-floor/

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It was the job of the campaign to make these analyses and determine which locales weren't actually safe. Trump's team managed to do that.

No, actually, they did not. At least not in the manner you're making it seem. His team was all over the place in regard to strategy throughout the campaign. Here are two excellent in-depth articles showing constant disarray, disagreement and fundamental confusion over what to do at just about every turn of Trump's campaign: Final Days, which was published on October 31st, 2016 (just before the election) and this Politico piece Inside Trump’s Stunning Upset Victory published just three days after the election. Relevant snippets from Politico:

In August, Trump gathered a number of his top advisers in New York City for a presentation led by his chief pollster, Tony Fabrizio. The numbers showed the Republican nominee falling behind in a number of states. Trump was stunned by the numbers, but he didn’t push back.

“Jesus,” the Republican nominee told the group. “Can we come back from this?”

Trump would frequently ask his team whether he could win. But the mood was different this time around. His aides were struck by the feeling of helplessness that had overtaken a candidate whose public image was centered on his confidence. To some of them, it highlighted his political inexperience. While Trump was behind by high single digits in some battlegrounds, political history had shown that a comeback at this stage in the game, particularly with Clinton’s vulnerabilities, wasn’t out of the question. Yet Trump was acting like it was.
...
On Aug. 19, the day after the Alexandria meetings, Manafort abruptly announced his resignation.

And that’s when the campaign started to turn around for Trump.

Taking Manafort’s place were two people who would—as Lewandowski once famously said— let Trump be Trump. Bannon took over as campaign CEO and the campaign manager would be Kellyanne Conway, a pollster who’d been brought on in June and who developed a chemistry with Trump that Manafort had not, mainly by cloaking the difficult realities she delivered to the candidate in more optimistic terms.

Trump’s decision to elevate the two, especially Bannon, demonstrated that Trump wanted to end his campaign just as he’d begun it: as an unapologetic, bare-knuckled nationalist.
...
Yet, even in the final stretch, Trump’s team reminded divided about what their message should be. At one point, his pollsters complained to the candidate’s top aides on a conference call that Trump was missing a golden opportunity to run as a change agent—something that could help him build momentum.

“On Friday’s polling team call to review the state data, I think you heard all of us express frustration with DJT’s inability to “own” the “change” message,” the pollsters, Fabrizio, David Lee, and Travis Tunis, wrote in an Oct. 3 memo to senior aides Conway, Bannon, Bossie, and Brad Parscale.

The memo painted a bleak picture for Trump, noting that the campaign’s internal surveys showed him behind in swing states like North Carolina and Florida, and also in traditionally conservative Georgia – but argued that presenting Trump as a “change” figure was perhaps the only way to turn the tide. “This is why it is critical to get DJT to understand the importance of this message to his victory,” the pollsters implored.
...
And then, 11 days before the election, Trump got a break he needed—the FBI director’s stunning announcement that his bureau was reviewing new information in the Clinton email probe. A renewed sense of optimism rippled through the Trump ranks. Aides began openly discussing which jobs they might get in a Trump administration. And at the RNC, operatives said they detected a dramatic shift toward Trump among undecided and Republican voters who had been wary of the nominee.

As Trump hit the final stretch, and he searched for a narrow path to victory, his team decided on a gambit: to try to steal a blue state from Clinton. On Oct. 24, Fabrizio wrote a memo to Bossie—under the header “CONFIDENTIAL - EYES ONLY” that outlined a proposed plan for the final two weeks of the election.

“Bottom line, if we do NOT expand our targets to try and steal at least 2 of the current lean Clinton states, we are will be left with trying to draw to an inside straight flush,” he wrote.

Fabrizio argued that Trump would have to expand the map to have a realistic shot at winning, suggesting that the Republican compete in Michigan and Minnesota. Within days, Trump was heading to the Democratic-friendly states.

The odds were long. The RNC’s predictive model on the Friday afternoon before the election had Trump losing all-important Florida by 2 percentage points and finishing with 240 electoral votes—30 short of the tally needed to win the presidency.

Clearly, Republicans couldn’t see victory on the horizon. But Trump didn’t lose heart, as he did in August.

So there was chaos throughout and the final "strategy" was, apparently, a last ditch effort, not something planned all along. At least not on the surface.

Here's another excellent in-depth piece from Bloomberg from October 27, 2016: Inside the Trump Bunker, With Days to Go. It starts with Kushner and Parscale:

But after Trump locked down the GOP nomination by winning Indiana’s primary, Kushner tapped Parscale, a political novice who built web pages for the Trump family’s business and charities, to begin an ambitious digital operation fashioned around a database they named Project Alamo.
...
Several things jump out. Despite Trump’s claim that he doesn’t believe the polls, his San Antonio research team spends $100,000 a week on surveys (apart from polls commissioned out of Trump Tower) and has sophisticated models that run daily simulations of the election. The results mirror those of the more reliable public forecasters—in other words, Trump’s staff knows he’s losing. Badly. “Nate Silver’s results have been similar to ours,” says Parscale, referring to the polling analyst and his predictions at FiveThirtyEight, “except they lag by a week or two because he’s relying on public polls.” The campaign knows who it must reach and is still executing its strategy despite the public turmoil: It’s identified 13.5 million voters in 16 battleground states whom it considers persuadable, although the number of voters shrinks daily as they make up their minds.

Trump’s team also knows where its fate will be decided. It’s built a model, the “Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory,” to weight and rank the states that the data team believes are most critical to amassing the 270 electoral votes Trump needs to win the White House. On Oct. 18 they rank as follows: Florida (“If we don’t win, we’re cooked,” says an official), Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.

Neither Wisconsin nor Michigan are in their model. And rightly so, considering almost every poll going from October to the election itself (and certainly in the eleven days that they suddenly decided on a hail mary gambit in Wisconsin and Michigan in particular) showed Clinton the clear winner of both states by some consistent 6 points.

Go back to the Bloomberg piece:

Trump believes he possesses hidden strength that may only materialize at the ballot box. At rallies, he’s begun speculating that the election will be like “Brexit times five,” implying that he’ll upend expectations much as the Brexit vote shocked experts who didn’t believe a majority of Britons would vote to leave the European Union. Trump’s data scientists, including some from the London firm Cambridge Analytica who worked on the “Leave” side of the Brexit initiative, think they’ve identified a small, fluctuating group of people who are reluctant to admit their support for Trump and may be throwing off public polls.

At the time that Fabrizio--Trump's pollster guru, mind you--inexplicably said the campaign needed to pull a hail mary and go to Wisconsin and Michigan in the final eleven days (iow, on October 30th, 2016), the polls showed Clinton beating Trump in Wisconsin by 6.5 points; Michigan by 7 points. If you look at the aggregates for the week prior in both states, you see an even worse slam for Trump, so from a polling analysts perspective it makes even less sense for him to have argued--let alone for Trump and others to agree--to go to those two states.

Back to the Bloomberg article:

Still, Trump’s reality is plain: He needs a miracle. Back in May, newly anointed, he told Bloomberg Businessweek he would harness “the movement” to challenge Clinton in states Republicans haven’t carried in years: New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Connecticut, California. “I’m going to do phenomenally,” he predicted. Yet neither Trump’s campaign nor the RNC has prioritized registering and mobilizing the 47 million eligible white voters without college degrees who are Trump’s most obvious source of new votes, as FiveThirtyEight analyst David Wasserman noted.

To compensate for this, Trump’s campaign has devised another strategy, which, not surprisingly, is negative. Instead of expanding the electorate, Bannon and his team are trying to shrink it. “We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” says a senior official. They’re aimed at three groups Clinton needs to win overwhelmingly: idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans. Trump’s invocation at the debate of Clinton’s WikiLeaks e-mails and support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to turn off Sanders supporters. The parade of women who say they were sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton and harassed or threatened by Hillary is meant to undermine her appeal to young women. And her 1996 suggestion that some African American males are “super predators” is the basis of a below-the-radar effort to discourage infrequent black voters from showing up at the polls—particularly in Florida.

To reiterate, then, their PLAN did not involve Wisconsin or Michigan. In May, in fact, it was New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Connecticut, and California, all states where he lost big. Another strategy was: go after Sanders supporters, women and blacks.

The Bloomberg article furthers notes:

Campaigns spend millions on data science to understand their own potential supporters—to whom they’re likely already credible messengers—but here Trump is speaking to his opponent’s. Furthermore, there’s no scientific basis for thinking this ploy will convince these voters to stay home. It could just as easily end up motivating them.

Plus there is this:

Locations for the candidate’s rallies, long the centerpiece of his media-centric candidacy, are guided by a Cambridge Analytica ranking of the places in a state with the largest clusters of persuadable voters.

But, again, CA evidently also missed Wisconsin and Michigan in that regard, since it was a last ditch decision eleven days before the general for Trump to go to those states.

In regard to what they did spend on digital ads in Wisconsin and Michigan, Parscale only mentions "get out to vote" ads:

Specifically, he told The Associated Press, the campaign and Republican Party spent about $5 million in get-out-the-vote digital advertising targeted in the final few days to Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida. That proved critical; some of those states were won by razor-thin margins.

"You think, what if we hadn't spent that?" Parscale said. "We might not have won."

So, the question remains, why did Trump's pollster (Fabrizio) and Trump and Parscale suddenly decide that Trump's physical presence was important in Wisconsin and Michigan on October 30th in spite of the fact that the digital campaign in those states was little more than GOTV spots and BOTH states showed consistently in the week leading up to October 30th that Clinton was the clear winner--in every single poll taken--by significant percentages; so significant in fact that they could not possibly be overcome by microtargeting feedback data alone.

Here are the top polls during that time frame again for Wisconsin:

Remington Research (R)*11/1 - 11/2 Clinton +8
Loras* 10/31 - 11/1 Clinton +6
Marquette* 10/26 - 10/31 Clinton +6
Emerson* 10/26 - 10/27 Clinton +6

And for Michigan. Note in particular the Fox polls :

FOX 2 Detroit/Mitchell 10/31 - 10/31 Clinton +6
FOX 2 Detroit/Mitchell 10/30 - 10/30 Clinton +9
Emerson* 10/25 - 10/26 Clinton +7
FOX 2 Detroit/Mitchell 10/25 - 10/25 Clinton +6
Detroit Free Press* 10/22 - 10/25 Clinton +7

At best a marketer like Parscale would argue that their microtargeting information shows a 1 to 2 point differences, but sure as shit NOT a 6 or 9 point difference, just to break even with the poll numbers, let alone exceed them.

So, no, again, the facts simply prove that in regard to anything on the surface at least, the Trump team did not in fact have a superior grasp of the EC ground game.

Of further note about Parscale:

Parscale, who sees himself as more than just a staffer. “Because you know what I was willing to do? I was willing to do it like family.”

Weird comment to make. Unless one factors in how Russia was the one who actually targeted Wisconsin and Michigan (and evidently had been doing so since 2015) and that it wasn't until Jared Kushner brought in Parscale that anyone even mentioned Wisconsin and Michigan and then not until the very last minute, in spite of every poll telling them they don't have the numbers to get anywhere near a win in either state.

The Trump team made a good call

Well, someone was making the calls. It wasn't Trump and it wasn't Bannon. Supposedly it was Fabrizio that made the inexplicable call to go to Wisconsin and Michigan on October 30th, but the reason for that call still has not been fully revealed. At best, we have words like "last ditch" and "we needed a miracle" and the like, but, with the exception of Parscale after the fact, no one was ever strategizing on either state and the only time they did hit on them was at the last minute in the lead up to the actual election as a hail mary, so leaving out any ties to Russia in any of this, even by their own admissions it was a "miracle" against the polls, conventional wisdom and basic intellect.

Which is why it's being targeted by Mueller, evidently, with Kushner and Parscale as prime people of interest.

Iow, either they pulled something completely out of their asses in a last gasp, close your eyes and pray hope this works fashion--which destroys your argument--OR this was part of some deeper strategy that had been in the works for at least a year before the election even began and the puppeteers either pulled the strings or coordinated with the puppets on which strings to be pulled.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Iow, either they pulled something completely out of their asses in a last gasp, close your eyes and pray hope this works fashion--which destroys your argument--OR this was part of some deeper strategy that had been in the works for at least a year before the election even began and the puppeteers either pulled the strings or coordinated with the puppets on which strings to be pulled.

Or they made a good call while Clinton made a bad call and managed to win as a result.

You know, one or the other.

 

[Worldtraveller]

You mean " RED LINE Obama?" the first ever president to bow to a leader of a terrorist state, not to mention his groveling apologetic speech in Cairo soon after being elected. The very same man who proclaimed that the muslim call to prayer was the " most beautiful sound on earth."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-approval-rating-gallup-poll-obama-popularity/

Wrong.

Video: In a 2007 interview with the New York Times, Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer in a perfect Arabic accent, and then went on to say that the Muslim call to prayer was "the prettiest sound on earth."

Actual NYT passage: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

The video exaggerates. Kristof actually described Obama’s accent as "first rate" but not "perfect." And Obama said the call to prayer is "one of" the prettiest sounds, not the prettiest of all. These distortions are minor, but still part of a systematic misrepresentation of the record.

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/truth-on-the-cutting-room-floor/

Also, all the same idiots screaming about this were perfectly fine with Bush Jr. holding hands with the same people. It's not like there's any kind of principled, or even consistent, issue with the morons that make this stuff up. It's just red meat racist dog whistles. The real reason most people who hate Obama do so is simply because he had the audacity to be (half) black.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Or they made a good call

The point is that there was no “call” to make (absent some other far more tangible information we don’t know about, such as something provided by the Russians); there was only, at best, a Hail Mary, which isn’t a “call” in the sense of “good” or “bad;” it’s a last ditch act of desperation that almost always fails, but get’s made because there are no other options left.

Iow and again, it’s not a matter of well-designed, long-term strategy; it’s a matter of “we have no other option, so cut the green wire and pray we don’t blow up.”

To say after they didn’t blow up that the green wire was the “right call” is to imply some sort of reasoned choice, which was not the case.

while Clinton made a bad call

Also incorrect. You’re making a post hoc, ergo propter hoc mistake in regard to Trump’s physical presence in Wisconsin and Michigan and then unjustifiably applying the same illogic to Clinton. If their physical presence was all that was necessary to win a state, then each of them would have won every state they physically went to.

The only state she didn’t revisit was Wisconsin. So that illogic could only even remotely apply to that state, but then that would have meant that Democrat-leaning registered voters in that state—on the order of 23,001—would have ALL needed to be so pissed off at her for not returning after the primaries that they actively voted against her or passively chose not to vote at all.

I can only speak for myself, but I can’t even process the idea of giving a tiny shit whether or not a candidate physically visits the state I live in for any reason, let alone making me so angry that I won’t do something as important as voting, but I fully concede I’m not from Wisconsin. Since the Dems in that State voted for Sanders in the primaries, it at least certainly implies that they are smart enough to not drool in a bucket and therefore smart enough not to give a flying fuck about whether or not candidates physically visit their state.

But, again, the last polls conducted in the run up showed Clinton by 6-8 points over Trump in Wisconsin, 8 points being the result of the last poll taken between 11/1-11/2 by the right-leaning Remington Research Group. Which, in turn, would mean that in one week, there needed to be an 8.7 point swing.

Iow, no. That cannot happen. I don’t mean, oh, ha, ha, you and your silly science; I mean it’s statistically impossible. And, I don’t mean “statistically impossible yet it happened anyway” I mean it did not and could not happen that a candidate’s physical presence alone resulted in a swing that large.

So something else had to have happened to account for such an enormous swing. Many, including Nate Silver pointed to the “Comey effect,” but his letter dropped on October 28th, four days before the Remington poll (which showed an increase toward Clinton of two points over other polls) and Silver calculated the effect was maybe as high as 3 to 4 point drop in Wisconsin—which would have still meant Clinton favored by 4-5 points—or as minimal as just one point.

But that isn’t something Fabrizio would have known on October 30th, but even if he guessed it somehow and linked it directly to Wisconsin and Michigan, there’s this from Silver:

Another complicating factor is that Clinton had a slight rebound in the polls over the final 36 hours of the campaign, with her lead improving from 2.9 percentage points on Nov. 6 to 3.6 points in our final forecast on the morning of Nov. 8 (Election Day). It’s not entirely clear what this uptick represented — it may have reflected pollster herding as outlier polls magically changed their tune. But it also could have meant that the Comey effect was fading as the news cycle moved on to other stories.

So you could postulate that the Comey letter had only about a 1-point impact. Perhaps Clinton’s lead would have been whittled down to around 4.5 points anyway by Election Day because of mean-reversion. And she led in the final polls by about 3.5 points. Yes, she also underperformed her final polls on Election Day, but that could reflect pollster error or undecideds breaking against her for other reasons, this case would say — there was no particular reason to attribute it to Comey.

Note, he’s referring to her national numbers, not specifically Wisconsin or Michigan. The Comey letter dropped on October 28th, Fabrizio apparently made the call to Hail Mary on October 30th (or the 29th), but the polls in Wisconsin not only didn’t go down with the Comey letter, they went up (from 6 to 8 between 12/28-11/2).

And remember that Fabrizio’s job was to study the polls, so everything he would have recommended Trump do would have come directly from that. So he would have had to have made the argument on October 30th—when Clinton was up consistently by a huge percentage in both states even after the Comey letter came out—that, hey, let’s go there for the last week of the election instead of any of the states they actually modeled and spent their resources in.

So, again, either it was a bend your knees and pray throw a dart at the map blindfolded fluke (and therefore no kind of reasoned, calculated strategy), OR something else was going on that was a different kind of reasoned, calculated strategy that Trump’s presence was serving to cover up.

From what most of the people who were there inform us (in the several different articles I posted previously), the official narrative is that it was a bend your knees and pray situation, with no logic at play and no indication as to why either state was chosen as neither had been part of any previous models.

Iow, just blind, dumb old luck that just also happened to coincide with two of the states Russia focused on as well.

Considering everything we know so far re: the Mueller investigation (Kushner in particular), I find such coincidences highly unlikely.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Until Trump showed up, I had Obama down as "most embarrassing President ever".

Why? After FDR and Kennedy I don't know any American president who has been better for the American image than Obama

I think that maybe Max was being sarcastic. I don't know. Obama was a great president. He was far from perfect and made some mistakes. But he brought dignity and grace to the office. He brought us out of a deep recession. He strengthened many international alliances. He increased health care for millions of people. He equalized mental health care with physical. He implemented Dodd-Frank which increased the amount of equity to be held by banks making downturns less likely. Ended US military action in Iraq. Supported LGBQ equal marriage rights. Tried to protect Dreamers. Reversed Bush era torture practices. Reversed don't ask don't tell. Increased standards for EPA. I could go on and on. Trump is reversing all this. HRC would have upheld most of it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And then there is this curious bit from another in-depth piece published by AdAge originally on December 14, 2016 (but must have been updated at some point after the election): How The Trump Camp's Data Inexperience Helped Propel His Win:

There were five days to go till election day and the RNC's data coalition saw inklings of a Trump lead in Michigan and Ohio, with Florida closing in for him. Ultimately, he won all three states -- Michigan by only around 10,000 votes, Florida by approximately 113,000, and Ohio by a wider margin of around 445,000 votes.

Aside from the fact that, once again Wisconsin is not mentioned, winning Ohio and Florida would have been far more important from a strategic analysis perspective at that point in the game and the "inklings" clearly had to have been much stronger toward those two states.

Here is where each of the candidates spent that last week:



They both spent a lot of time in Florida, which demonstrates how important the state was to both candidates, with Trump holding more events there than Clinton, but Ohio is curiously dominated by Clinton. Even more revealing is that Trump holds four events in Michigan but only one in Wisconsin. So, why in particular was Wisconsin so important as to be of focus by Parscale, yet not equally exploited? And why, then, in particular would it have mattered that Clinton didn't go there?

Also of note from the November 7, 2016 Guardian piece linked above:

The late moves of the 2016 campaign may be trickier to decode, in part because of the drunken-ninja style of the Donald Trump campaign, which reportedly ceased conducting its own polling last week or even two weeks ago.

So now the fact that it was Fabrizio (their pollster) who sent that memo on October 24th, actually (I misquoted previously; see below), which was several days before the Comey bombshell (at least from our perspective; what information they had, however, is still in question):

On Oct. 24, Fabrizio wrote a memo to Bossie—under the header “CONFIDENTIAL - EYES ONLY” that outlined a proposed plan for the final two weeks of the election.

“Bottom line, if we do NOT expand our targets to try and steal at least 2 of the current lean Clinton states, we are will be left with trying to draw to an inside straight flush,” he wrote.

Fabrizio argued that Trump would have to expand the map to have a realistic shot at winning, suggesting that the Republican compete in Michigan and Minnesota. Within days, Trump was heading to the Democratic-friendly states.

The "lean" Clinton states at that point--October 24th--were definitely NOT Michigan or Minnesota and there is no mention of Wisconsin. On October 24th, the polls showed Clinton with a ten point lead over Trump in Michigan and eleven points in Minnesota.

And, of course, Clinton won Minnesota, but likewise did not re-visit it in the final two weeks of the campaign.

Even more curious, then is what the Guardian piece noted next:

It’s not clear what explains Trump’s visit, in the final week of the election, to Minnesota, which has been a solidly Democratic state since the Great Depression. Trump may see something there no one else does.

Again, Minnesota, not Wisconsin and if that was such an important state to Fabrizio that he had to send out a "CONFIDENTIAL - EYES ONLY" memo with a plan to specifically visit Michigan and Minnesota, why only one visit as the last stop in Minnesota?

Remember, it is Parscale, primarily, who has subsequently boasted that they focused on Wisconsin and Michigan specifically, yet in all of this, it is actually only Michigan that gets the biggest attention. Why, when, again, Ohio and Florida were two far more important states and within their grasp far more so than Wisconsin and Michigan (or Minnesota, for that matter)? Wisconsin's polling went up in that period, not down. But, inexplicably, the team's pollster stopped conducting any polls at that time, so what information was he basing his "CONFIDENTIAL" plan upon?

Again, It couldn't possibly have been microtargeting feedback from Facebook and other social media as that information is nowhere near that "micro" and all they were doing at that point in the game was a GOTV campaign.

Which all, once again, shows that something unconventional--meaning nothing we've yet seen in any of this smoke--can explain what happened, other than, again, blind dumb luck.

So, even more so than previously, we are back to only two possible explanations:

1. Coincidental miracle having nothing to do with human actions;
2. Something else at play that we haven't seen yet that all of this smoke on top is covering

Regardless and again, neither scenario evidences anyone making "good" or "bad" calls.

 

[angelo]

You mean " RED LINE Obama?" the first ever president to bow to a leader of a terrorist state, not to mention his groveling apologetic speech in Cairo soon after being elected. The very same man who proclaimed that the muslim call to prayer was the " most beautiful sound on earth."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-approval-rating-gallup-poll-obama-popularity/

When on a diplomatic mission and you visit another country it's customary to follow local custom. Something which Trump failed to do. The Saudis are expected to follow American custom when in America. Which they also do.

I find it baffling that you think Obama's intelligence is a sign of failure, and Trump's idiocy a sign of strength. On all of these Obama did everything right.

Only weak people need to brag about how successful they are. Strong people don't. Trump is making USA come across as weak.

On the contrary, America is feared by despots and crackpot regimes throughout the world since the Trumpet's ascendancy to the White House where it was regarded as weak and impotent under the Obama regime.

 

[angelo]

You mean " RED LINE Obama?" the first ever president to bow to a leader of a terrorist state, not to mention his groveling apologetic speech in Cairo soon after being elected. The very same man who proclaimed that the muslim call to prayer was the " most beautiful sound on earth."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-approval-rating-gallup-poll-obama-popularity/

Wrong.

Video: In a 2007 interview with the New York Times, Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer in a perfect Arabic accent, and then went on to say that the Muslim call to prayer was "the prettiest sound on earth."

Actual NYT passage: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

The video exaggerates. Kristof actually described Obama’s accent as "first rate" but not "perfect." And Obama said the call to prayer is "one of" the prettiest sounds, not the prettiest of all. These distortions are minor, but still part of a systematic misrepresentation of the record.

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/truth-on-the-cutting-room-floor/

However it's put, the fact is Obama was a renown appeaser of the " religion of peace!'' It's a well known fact that CAIR, infiltrated the Obama white House as advisers. Leading to some nutters to proclaim Obama as the first Muslim president of the USA.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wrong.



https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/truth-on-the-cutting-room-floor/

However it's put, the fact is Obama was a renown appeaser of the " religion of peace!'' It's a well known fact that CAIR, infiltrated the Obama white House as advisers. Leading to some nutters to proclaim Obama as the first Muslim president of the USA.

Well, hey, if "some nutters" is the standard we are using...

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

On the contrary, America is feared by despots and crackpot regimes throughout the world

I'm sorry, exactly which "despots and crackpot regimes" fear Trump? North Korea has used him like a chew toy. Russia controls him; China shat all over him with their own retaliatory tariffs that will only further destabilize our economy and:

....although Beijing initially helped put economic pressure on North Korea at the request of the Trump administration, it has now relaxed those sanctions, thereby giving Pyongyang an economic outlet to avoid devastating penalties. On top of that, Beijing has moved closer to Moscow and Tehran since Trump entered the Oval Office, partially thwarting US efforts to isolate those countries.

Not to mention China's increasing involvement with Afghanistan and Pakistan that we won't do shit about while Trump is in office.

Saudi Arabia just openly assassinated a prominent journalist critical of the new position its taken (allying itself more and more with Russia, not us), Iran is most likely back to developing nukes thanks to Trump and ISIS is far from over.

So I'd love to see who you're referring to.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You mean " RED LINE Obama?" the first ever president to bow to a leader of a terrorist state, not to mention his groveling apologetic speech in Cairo soon after being elected. The very same man who proclaimed that the muslim call to prayer was the " most beautiful sound on earth."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-approval-rating-gallup-poll-obama-popularity/

When on a diplomatic mission and you visit another country it's customary to follow local custom. Something which Trump failed to do. The Saudis are expected to follow American custom when in America. Which they also do.

I find it baffling that you think Obama's intelligence is a sign of failure, and Trump's idiocy a sign of strength. On all of these Obama did everything right.

Only weak people need to brag about how successful they are. Strong people don't. Trump is making USA come across as weak.

On the contrary, America is feared by despots and crackpot regimes throughout the world since the Trumpet's ascendancy to the White House where it was regarded as weak and impotent under the Obama regime.

What? It's the exact opposite. When Obama took power he inherited two wars he was trying to exit. Not to mention that USA was broke. He did plenty of good things anyway.

Trump is erratic in his diplomatic plays. Unless there's a coherent strategy nobody is going to take USA seriously. Trump has monumentally failed to show where USA stands. Which is pretty much his only job. It's hard to imagine a man failing more at being the president than Trump.

I think we've reached a point where nobody takes USA seriously anymore and now its just waiting for an adult president to take over so that proper diplomatic relations can be resumed. Because now Its a farce. Trump is a clown

 

[angelo]

On the contrary, America is feared by despots and crackpot regimes throughout the world

I'm sorry, exactly which "despots and crackpot regimes" fear Trump? North Korea has used him like a chew toy. Russia controls him; China shat all over him with their own retaliatory tariffs that will only further destabilize our economy and:

....although Beijing initially helped put economic pressure on North Korea at the request of the Trump administration, it has now relaxed those sanctions, thereby giving Pyongyang an economic outlet to avoid devastating penalties. On top of that, Beijing has moved closer to Moscow and Tehran since Trump entered the Oval Office, partially thwarting US efforts to isolate those countries.

Not to mention China's increasing involvement with Afghanistan and Pakistan that we won't do shit about while Trump is in office.

Saudi Arabia just openly assassinated a prominent journalist critical of the new position its taken (allying itself more and more with Russia, not us), Iran is most likely back to developing nukes thanks to Trump and ISIS is far from over.

So I'd love to see who you're referring to.

Economy you say? Unemployment is at an unprecedented low 3.6% the lowest it's been in 60 years. If one must rubbish Trump, one also has to acknowledge his successes. Iran had Obama in their pocket, Syria despite Obama's drawing " red line" mocked him and America as gutless. If you count that as success, then WTH is failure!

 

[angelo]

Obama speak...........................https://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2014/01/15/a-dictionary-of-obamaspeak/#745195f74d8c

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm sorry, exactly which "despots and crackpot regimes" fear Trump? North Korea has used him like a chew toy. Russia controls him; China shat all over him with their own retaliatory tariffs that will only further destabilize our economy and:



Not to mention China's increasing involvement with Afghanistan and Pakistan that we won't do shit about while Trump is in office.

Saudi Arabia just openly assassinated a prominent journalist critical of the new position its taken (allying itself more and more with Russia, not us), Iran is most likely back to developing nukes thanks to Trump and ISIS is far from over.

So I'd love to see who you're referring to.

Economy you say? Unemployment is at an unprecedented low 3.6% the lowest it's been in 60 years. If one must rubbish Trump, one also has to acknowledge his successes. Iran had Obama in their pocket, Syria despite Obama's drawing " red line" mocked him and America as gutless. If you count that as success, then WTH is failure!

Ok, that's it. I'm blocking you now. You're a loony.

 

[angelo]

I'm sorry, exactly which "despots and crackpot regimes" fear Trump? North Korea has used him like a chew toy. Russia controls him; China shat all over him with their own retaliatory tariffs that will only further destabilize our economy and:



Not to mention China's increasing involvement with Afghanistan and Pakistan that we won't do shit about while Trump is in office.

Saudi Arabia just openly assassinated a prominent journalist critical of the new position its taken (allying itself more and more with Russia, not us), Iran is most likely back to developing nukes thanks to Trump and ISIS is far from over.

So I'd love to see who you're referring to.

Economy you say? Unemployment is at an unprecedented low 3.6% the lowest it's been in 60 years. If one must rubbish Trump, one also has to acknowledge his successes. Iran had Obama in their pocket, Syria despite Obama's drawing " red line" mocked him and America as gutless. If you count that as success, then WTH is failure!

Ok, that's it. I'm blocking you now. You're a loony.

Can't defend the indefensible hey!

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm sorry, exactly which "despots and crackpot regimes" fear Trump? North Korea has used him like a chew toy. Russia controls him; China shat all over him with their own retaliatory tariffs that will only further destabilize our economy and:



Not to mention China's increasing involvement with Afghanistan and Pakistan that we won't do shit about while Trump is in office.

Saudi Arabia just openly assassinated a prominent journalist critical of the new position its taken (allying itself more and more with Russia, not us), Iran is most likely back to developing nukes thanks to Trump and ISIS is far from over.

So I'd love to see who you're referring to.

Economy you say? Unemployment is at an unprecedented low 3.6% the lowest it's been in 60 years. If one must rubbish Trump, one also has to acknowledge his successes. Iran had Obama in their pocket, Syria despite Obama's drawing " red line" mocked him and America as gutless. If you count that as success, then WTH is failure!

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?15782-Would-Trump-be-the-1st-POTUS-to-win-a-Nobel-in-economics&p=611367&viewfull=1#post611367

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Ok, that's it. I'm blocking you now. You're a loony.

Can't defend the indefensible hey!

LOL. Good response. While I disagree that Obama was in Iran's pocket, I do agree that Obama was weak internationally. As for Trump, he's a moron whose greatest claim to fame will be that he beat Hillary in the 2016 election.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ok, that's it. I'm blocking you now. You're a loony.

Can't defend the indefensible hey!

LOL. Good response. While I disagree that Obama was in Iran's pocket, I do agree that Obama was weak internationally. As for Trump, he's a moron whose greatest claim to fame will be that he beat Hillary in the 2016 election.

I've made an effort to discuss things with Angelo and see things from his perspective. In many threads. But his only perspective in all of them seems to be that reality is wrong. I've been extremely patient. But there's no point arguing with people like that. I just reached a point where I gave up

 

[Max Rockatansky]

LOL. Good response. While I disagree that Obama was in Iran's pocket, I do agree that Obama was weak internationally. As for Trump, he's a moron whose greatest claim to fame will be that he beat Hillary in the 2016 election.

I've made an effort to discuss things with Angelo and see things from his perspective. In many threads. But his only perspective in all of them seems to be that reality is wrong. I've been extremely patient. But there's no point arguing with people like that. I just reached a point where I gave up

It's good for people to try and communicate.