Octopus Overlords

Archinerd wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Mediaite

There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s look at Trump’s announcement first. He writes on Facebook that he is “proud to share this report,” which he claims was “written by the highly respected Dr. Jacob Bornstein of Lenox Hill Hospital.” This is already false, because the opening lines of the report contradict the name of Trump’s doctor.
...
Dr. Jacob Bornstein was Trump’s personal physician until his son Harold took over in 1980. So either Trump is being nostalgic with his announcement, or he just doesn’t care enough to remember the name of his doctor.

This leads us to the statement itself, which has… problems. Like a weirdly-worded salutation (“To Whom My Concern”) and many other noticeable grammatical (and personality) issues.

Wait, this is real? As in, this is actually what Trump released. I seriously thought this was an internet joke.

El Guapo wrote: It's definitely real. At least, the letter is real. Although I assume if the doctor were unlicensed or fake or something I'm pretty sure the internet would've uncovered exploded that months ago.

Archinerd wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Mediaite

There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s look at Trump’s announcement first. He writes on Facebook that he is “proud to share this report,” which he claims was “written by the highly respected Dr. Jacob Bornstein of Lenox Hill Hospital.” This is already false, because the opening lines of the report contradict the name of Trump’s doctor.
...
Dr. Jacob Bornstein was Trump’s personal physician until his son Harold took over in 1980. So either Trump is being nostalgic with his announcement, or he just doesn’t care enough to remember the name of his doctor.

This leads us to the statement itself, which has… problems. Like a weirdly-worded salutation (“To Whom My Concern”) and many other noticeable grammatical (and personality) issues.

Wait, this is real? As in, this is actually what Trump released. I seriously thought this was an internet joke.

Archinerd wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Mediaite

There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s look at Trump’s announcement first. He writes on Facebook that he is “proud to share this report,” which he claims was “written by the highly respected Dr. Jacob Bornstein of Lenox Hill Hospital.” This is already false, because the opening lines of the report contradict the name of Trump’s doctor.
...
Dr. Jacob Bornstein was Trump’s personal physician until his son Harold took over in 1980. So either Trump is being nostalgic with his announcement, or he just doesn’t care enough to remember the name of his doctor.

This leads us to the statement itself, which has… problems. Like a weirdly-worded salutation (“To Whom My Concern”) and many other noticeable grammatical (and personality) issues.

Wait, this is real? As in, this is actually what Trump released. I seriously thought this was an internet joke.

Trump himself once again touted his "stamina" in a statement accompanying the positive bill of health.

"People have been impressed by my stamina, but to me it has been easy because I am truly doing something that I love. Our country will soon be better and stronger than ever before," Trump said in the statement.

Trump also touted his "great genes," noting that his parents "had very long and productive lives."

hepcat wrote:I'm surprised that he hasn't pulled a Jack Palance on stage.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Archinerd wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Mediaite

There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s look at Trump’s announcement first. He writes on Facebook that he is “proud to share this report,” which he claims was “written by the highly respected Dr. Jacob Bornstein of Lenox Hill Hospital.” This is already false, because the opening lines of the report contradict the name of Trump’s doctor.
...
Dr. Jacob Bornstein was Trump’s personal physician until his son Harold took over in 1980. So either Trump is being nostalgic with his announcement, or he just doesn’t care enough to remember the name of his doctor.

This leads us to the statement itself, which has… problems. Like a weirdly-worded salutation (“To Whom My Concern”) and many other noticeable grammatical (and personality) issues.

Wait, this is real? As in, this is actually what Trump released. I seriously thought this was an internet joke.

Yeah, that looks like it was intentionally laced with errors so as not to make the fake too convincing. If that was actually put forth by the Trump camp, Jesus. It's like he's running for Senior Class President, not POTUS.

LordMortis wrote:

hepcat wrote:I'm surprised that he hasn't pulled a Jack Palance on stage.

Jack Palance from Buck Rogers?

Is it sad that this is what I remember him most for?

hepcat wrote:Good luck with that. If you get anywhere, let me know. I want to play the lottery that day.

Rip wrote:
Only if you think pay for play is malfeasance. If it is what you expect from rich and powerful politicians, then I guess not.

Wilhelm wrote:But what I'm looking for is where that money gets back into Mr. or Mrs. Clinton's pockets. Do they draw from that organization and bill expenses to it? Do they use it as a bank account? Are they paying themselves from the Foundation's coffers? Unless that can be shown, trying to frame it as speaking engagement fees (the pay) in order to get participation and influence (the play) falls flat.

Wilhelm wrote:

Rip wrote:
Only if you think pay for play is malfeasance. If it is what you expect from rich and powerful politicians, then I guess not.

Thanks for the link (which I can't actually quote because the forum software feels it is too spammy). My take-away is that a charitable group wanted Mr. Clinton to speak at an event and were rebuffed. But after some "discussions" the charitable group donated half a million dollars to the Clinton Foundation and immediately thereafter Mr. Clinton green-lighted the speaking engagement.

Unseemly? Perhaps. But what I'm looking for is where that money gets back into Mr. or Mrs. Clinton's pockets. Do they draw from that organization and bill expenses to it? Do they use it as a bank account? Are they paying themselves from the Foundation's coffers? Unless that can be shown, trying to frame it as speaking engagement fees (the pay) in order to get participation and influence (the play) falls flat.

The case outlined by Forbes failed to mention on thing: that charitable group did not have to give money to anybody. They could have simply thanked the Clintons for their consideration and went with a different speaker. Obviously they decided that Mr. Clinton's presence was so critical to their cause as to be indispensable, so they made a business decision and coughed up the money. To a non-profit organization.

Zarathud wrote:So guilt by association? And resentment that the Clintons are powerful? And political -- being a former President and current Secretary of State?

That's rather pathetic evidence for such bold charges. And many of those donors I assume are good people.

Where was this OUTRAGE when Speaker Hastert was caught actually paying off (in money and political positions) the young boys he molested?

August 12, 2016

Dear Cecil:

Why do so many Americans dislike Hillary Clinton? It seems to predate her time as secretary of state or even as senator. Does it have something to do with her husband’s two terms in the White House?

— Jonathan Pearce

Cecil replies:

In 1964 Barry Goldwater quipped about nuking the Kremlin men’s room and equated Medicare with giving old folks free resort vacations, cigarettes, and beer. Just before Lyndon Johnson strolled to victory that November, Gallup found that 46 percent of Americans viewed his Republican opponent unfavorably, with 26 percent of respondents into the “highly unfavorable” camp. For five decades, Goldwater has been the most unpopular major-party presidential candidate ever, a record that some deemed unbreakable.

Well, they used to think nobody would ever hit 62 home runs in a season either. By Gallup’s latest reckoning, back in June, exactly half the American public views Hillary Clinton unfavorably, 33 percent highly so. But Hillary Clinton and mass unpopularity are old pals. The first major attempt to suss out the source of the antipathy, Henry Louis Gates’s “Hating Hillary,” appeared in the New Yorker in 1996 — meaning this idea is now old enough to vote.

The thing is, though, Clinton’s popularity numbers have never stayed put. She wrapped up her secretary of state gig in 2013 with a 64 percent favorability rating, and even that wasn’t peak Hillary — in 1998, at the kickoff of Bill’s impeachment, 67 percent of Americans were on her side. Now, we’re a polarized people. A third of Americans will always approve of Hillary Clinton, while another third forever will be ready to holler “Lock her up!” But what’s with that middle that can’t make up its mind?

Clinton’s spin on her fluctuating favorability is that she’s a wooden campaigner whose numbers dip during the election cycle, but a hard worker who forges her way back into our hearts with her sturdy competence. As she said at the Democratic convention of her career in public service, "The service part has always come easier to me than the public part." Fine, she’s no natural politician. But a charisma deficit alone isn’t enough to turn half a nation against you.

What about ethical concerns? Knowing full well the scrutiny they’re under, the Clintons have often seemed oddly unworried about appearing too chummy with big donors to their campaigns and charitable work, and a fog of impropriety clings to Hillary even when specific claims are disproven. Certainly no presidential candidate has faced so much congressional scrutiny immediately prior to an election: Republican-controlled committees have been hammering away at Clinton for three years now, first on Benghazi, then on her usage of email. And that kind of shelling from the opposition is nothing new — in the '90s, Bill and Hillary Clinton were accused of everything from real-estate shenanigans to outright murder.

Hillary might have chosen a less dramatic-sounding phrase to describe the well-financed network of conservative operatives who had coordinated their messages against the Clintons than her much-ridiculed “vast right-wing conspiracy.” But their detractors — whether politicians, news commentators, or your relatives on Facebook — have shared a singleness of purpose that’s unquestionable even if you believe its cause is righteous. And it’s come from both sides: mainstream liberals like the New York Times’ Howell Raines and Maureen Dowd were dogged critics of the Clintons’ ethical lapses, real or perceived.

And yet Bill Clinton has emerged from the battles of the past unscathed: as recently as 2014 his favorability polled at 64 percent. Meanwhile Hillary suffers the scorn of a reinvigorated left that’s retroactively critical of her support for her husband's policies — adopted in the aftermath of the Reagan years, when Democrats were stumbling over each other in their efforts not to appear too liberal. How did Hillary get stuck holding the bag?

Let’s not dance around the obvious: Hillary Clinton is a woman. Surely it’s a double standard that allows Bill to seem like a charming rapscallion who just cuts a few corners while Hillary is cast as a shady crime boss. Back in the ’90s, as the first working woman to serve as first lady, Clinton initially took a lead role in healthcare policymaking but hit massive turbulence from D.C. traditionalists who thought she’d misread her job description. Such paleo-anti-feminist rancor — and an accompanying rap as presumptuous and pushy — is something that more recently prominent female politicians, like Elizabeth Warren, have largely been spared.

None of this is to make excuses for her — politics is a tough game, and a better operator might have handled things more deftly. As that 1996 New Yorker piece suggests, Hillary’s always just rubbed plenty of people the wrong way. Then again, “Why doesn't anyone like you?” is a hell of a question for even the savviest politician to field continuously for 25 years.

However, friends, we live in wondrous times, and in 2016 Hillary’s not even our least popular presidential candidate. Gallup again: 59 percent of Americans don’t like Donald Trump, including 42 percent who can’t stand him. Fortunately, nobody's writing in to wonder why — I’d never get it all in a single column.

— Cecil Adams

GreenGoo wrote:FBI have handed over their notes on email gate to congress at their behest.

This should be interesting. Right in the middle of an election. I assume the committee to review these notes will be bipartisan?

“The fact that Secretary Clinton received emails containing ‘(C)’ portion markings is not clear evidence of knowledge or intent. As the Director has testified, the FBI’s investigation uncovered three instances of emails portioned marked with ‘(C),’ a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the Confidential level. In each of these instances, the Secretary did not originate the information; instead, the emails were forwarded to her by staff members, with the portion-marked information located within the email chains and without header and footer markings indicating the presence of classified information. Moreover, only one of those emails was determined by the State Department to contain classified information. There has been no determination by the State Department as to whether these three emails were classified at the time they were sent.”

ImLawBoy wrote:I don't need a full medical workup on candidates, but I don't think it's unreasonable to have some sort of statement from a candidate's doctor that a candidate has no current medical conditions that would materially and negatively impact the candidate's ability to serve as president. Whether it's something like cancer or early onset dementia or whatever, it's reasonable and fair for the public to know about it.

Recently, Bardack released a statement to address the conspiracy theories around apparent falsified medical records with her name on them saying that Clinton has dysphasia.

"These documents are false, were not written by me and are not based on any medical facts," Bardack said. "To reiterate what I said in my previous statement, Secretary Clinton is in excellent health and fit to serve as President of the United States."

gbasden wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:I don't need a full medical workup on candidates, but I don't think it's unreasonable to have some sort of statement from a candidate's doctor that a candidate has no current medical conditions that would materially and negatively impact the candidate's ability to serve as president. Whether it's something like cancer or early onset dementia or whatever, it's reasonable and fair for the public to know about it.

Apparently her doctor has released multiple such statements.

Recently, Bardack released a statement to address the conspiracy theories around apparent falsified medical records with her name on them saying that Clinton has dysphasia.

"These documents are false, were not written by me and are not based on any medical facts," Bardack said. "To reiterate what I said in my previous statement, Secretary Clinton is in excellent health and fit to serve as President of the United States."

tjg_marantz wrote:Says who?

Max Peck wrote:He didn't really provide a lot of fresh insight, but I will give Cecil Adams (as if that's his real name) credit for tackling the Clinton question for his Straight Dope column last week.

Seriously — why do so many people dislike Hillary Clinton?

August 12, 2016

Dear Cecil:

Why do so many Americans dislike Hillary Clinton? It seems to predate her time as secretary of state or even as senator. Does it have something to do with her husband’s two terms in the White House?

— Jonathan Pearce

Cecil replies:

In 1964 Barry Goldwater quipped about nuking the Kremlin men’s room and equated Medicare with giving old folks free resort vacations, cigarettes, and beer. Just before Lyndon Johnson strolled to victory that November, Gallup found that 46 percent of Americans viewed his Republican opponent unfavorably, with 26 percent of respondents into the “highly unfavorable” camp. For five decades, Goldwater has been the most unpopular major-party presidential candidate ever, a record that some deemed unbreakable.

Well, they used to think nobody would ever hit 62 home runs in a season either. By Gallup’s latest reckoning, back in June, exactly half the American public views Hillary Clinton unfavorably, 33 percent highly so. But Hillary Clinton and mass unpopularity are old pals. The first major attempt to suss out the source of the antipathy, Henry Louis Gates’s “Hating Hillary,” appeared in the New Yorker in 1996 — meaning this idea is now old enough to vote.

The thing is, though, Clinton’s popularity numbers have never stayed put. She wrapped up her secretary of state gig in 2013 with a 64 percent favorability rating, and even that wasn’t peak Hillary — in 1998, at the kickoff of Bill’s impeachment, 67 percent of Americans were on her side. Now, we’re a polarized people. A third of Americans will always approve of Hillary Clinton, while another third forever will be ready to holler “Lock her up!” But what’s with that middle that can’t make up its mind?

Clinton’s spin on her fluctuating favorability is that she’s a wooden campaigner whose numbers dip during the election cycle, but a hard worker who forges her way back into our hearts with her sturdy competence. As she said at the Democratic convention of her career in public service, "The service part has always come easier to me than the public part." Fine, she’s no natural politician. But a charisma deficit alone isn’t enough to turn half a nation against you.

What about ethical concerns? Knowing full well the scrutiny they’re under, the Clintons have often seemed oddly unworried about appearing too chummy with big donors to their campaigns and charitable work, and a fog of impropriety clings to Hillary even when specific claims are disproven. Certainly no presidential candidate has faced so much congressional scrutiny immediately prior to an election: Republican-controlled committees have been hammering away at Clinton for three years now, first on Benghazi, then on her usage of email. And that kind of shelling from the opposition is nothing new — in the '90s, Bill and Hillary Clinton were accused of everything from real-estate shenanigans to outright murder.

Hillary might have chosen a less dramatic-sounding phrase to describe the well-financed network of conservative operatives who had coordinated their messages against the Clintons than her much-ridiculed “vast right-wing conspiracy.” But their detractors — whether politicians, news commentators, or your relatives on Facebook — have shared a singleness of purpose that’s unquestionable even if you believe its cause is righteous. And it’s come from both sides: mainstream liberals like the New York Times’ Howell Raines and Maureen Dowd were dogged critics of the Clintons’ ethical lapses, real or perceived.

And yet Bill Clinton has emerged from the battles of the past unscathed: as recently as 2014 his favorability polled at 64 percent. Meanwhile Hillary suffers the scorn of a reinvigorated left that’s retroactively critical of her support for her husband's policies — adopted in the aftermath of the Reagan years, when Democrats were stumbling over each other in their efforts not to appear too liberal. How did Hillary get stuck holding the bag?

Let’s not dance around the obvious: Hillary Clinton is a woman. Surely it’s a double standard that allows Bill to seem like a charming rapscallion who just cuts a few corners while Hillary is cast as a shady crime boss. Back in the ’90s, as the first working woman to serve as first lady, Clinton initially took a lead role in healthcare policymaking but hit massive turbulence from D.C. traditionalists who thought she’d misread her job description. Such paleo-anti-feminist rancor — and an accompanying rap as presumptuous and pushy — is something that more recently prominent female politicians, like Elizabeth Warren, have largely been spared.

None of this is to make excuses for her — politics is a tough game, and a better operator might have handled things more deftly. As that 1996 New Yorker piece suggests, Hillary’s always just rubbed plenty of people the wrong way. Then again, “Why doesn't anyone like you?” is a hell of a question for even the savviest politician to field continuously for 25 years.

However, friends, we live in wondrous times, and in 2016 Hillary’s not even our least popular presidential candidate. Gallup again: 59 percent of Americans don’t like Donald Trump, including 42 percent who can’t stand him. Fortunately, nobody's writing in to wonder why — I’d never get it all in a single column.

— Cecil Adams

OTOH, if he's lucky Ted Cruz might get to answer that same question for a quarter decade.

malchior wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:Says who?

Wow that guy is certainly a suitable replacement for Nigel Farage on the cover of Punchable Face magazine. I've come to notice that even his tv surrogates are bonkers crazy. I guess they just flock to him - his derp signal is yuge!

Max Peck wrote:

malchior wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:Says who?

Wow that guy is certainly a suitable replacement for Nigel Farage on the cover of Punchable Face magazine. I've come to notice that even his tv surrogates are bonkers crazy. I guess they just flock to him - his derp signal is yuge!

I believe that's Michael Cohen. He's been Trump's attack dog special counsel since 2007 or so, from what I've read, so it's no surprise that he's on the same page as Trump. As one article put it, he is to Trump as Tom Hagen was to Vito Corleone.

tjg_marantz wrote:Says who?

hepcat wrote:Saul has a modicum of charisma though. Cohen just comes across as a thug.

tgb wrote:His first was Roy Cohen (sayyy, I wonder if Cohen is his son), don't forget.

Max Peck wrote:

tgb wrote:His first was Roy Cohen (sayyy, I wonder if Cohen is his son), don't forget.

You're thinking of Roy Cohn, the illustrious Commie-hunting McCarthyite.

tgb wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

tgb wrote:His first was Roy Cohen (sayyy, I wonder if Cohen is his son), don't forget.

You're thinking of Roy Cohn, the illustrious Commie-hunting McCarthyite.

Didn't know about the different spelling.

hepcat wrote:Saul has a modicum of charisma though. Cohen just comes across as a thug.

Grifman wrote:

hepcat wrote:Saul has a modicum of charisma though. Cohen just comes across as a thug.

I've seen him in two interviews on CNN,,including the last one, and in each he has been extremely combative, assertive, and obtuse. He really does make me think of a mafia lawyer.

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.