Do you approve of Hillary?

Question

NY Times: "...Mrs. Clinton has gone from a 69 percent approval rating and one of the most popular public figures in the country when she left the State Department in 2013 to having one of the highest disapproval ratings of any likely presidential nominee of a major party."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-campaign-trust.html

Even the NY Times isn't ignoring the State Department report.

Answer 1

She's adequate. 

Comments

Bravely spoken.

Hope springs eternal from a party-liners heart?

Answer 2

100%   

Comments

Figures.

Answer 3

Yes, I do.  What is so strange however is that the two most likely nominees this year are Trump and Hillary and they are historically the two most disapproved American political nominees.  These two are very polarizing.  Kind of interesting to me that that's a possibility.

PS>  I don't  like NYTimes because once they covered a story about an 11 yr old girl who was gangraped by 20 men and focused on how late she was out and what she wore.  I have also seen different shady articles out by them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us/09assault.html?_r=0

Comments

The Hillary nomination is less surprising than Trump's for several reasons. The Democrats' rank and file usually line up behind whom their Establishment tells them to (and the superdelegates make doubly sure that happens), and the Democrats really didn't have anyone else, once Biden stepped aside. I thought at first that Sanders was in the debates only to make Hillary more palatable to the lunatic left wing of the party (he treated her with kid gloves in the first few debates), but then he got tougher on her when he unexpectedly (probably even to himself) gave her a run for her money, and exposed her weakness as a candidate.

The Republicans, on the other hand, had 16 candidates besides Trump, most of whom would have been acceptable to their Establishment, had they gotten enough traction.

The NY Times article I linked about Hillary is surprising because they can usually be counted on to toe the Democrats' Establishment line. I think the broader purpose of the Times article you linked was to show how awful life is among the trailer park rednecks in a Republican state. Had something similar happened in the inner-city projects of New York or Chicago, you can be sure the story would have gotten 6 lines on page 57, assuming it was reported at all.

---

You can't justify what was written in the link I posted.  Don't even try.  This is just another "blame the victim" ordeal.  If NY times really wanted to paint the sad little picture like you say they would have made a more clear point to do so.  They even ended the page about how the event supposedly "iss tearing the community apart" as if that's the real issue.

Don't try supporting your source just to validate something you said earlier.

---

"This is just another "blame the victim" ordeal. If NY times really wanted to paint the sad little picture like you say they would have made a more clear point to do so."

So the NY Times' "real" purpose in publishing that article was just to blame the victim, in your opinion? It would make no sense for a liberal paper like the Times to do that.

I think my interpretation that the Times' broader motive was to deride "life among the Texas rednecks" makes a whole lot more sense. Practically every sentence in the article supports my view, and even the part about where the girl went, the clothes she wore, etc., were quotes from the neighbors, so as far as the Times article is concerned, it was the redneck neighbors who were blaming the victim, not the Times.

---

I agree with you : TheOtherTink.

Answer 4

I can't say as I care much for her and don't trust her to run the country.

Trump ? No comment but maybe change is what we need !