The Totally Useless, Non-Scientific BBO Opinion Poll for Current Events

[kenberg]

Hey, I got an idea. Winston titled this thread

 

The Totally Useless, Non-Scientific BBO Opinion Poll for Current Events

 

I have an idea for a poll.

 

Poll Q1:

Is there anyone who has not made up his/her mind yet about Trump Versus Clinton?

 

Poll Q2:

What on Earth are you waiting for? A Burning Bush? (As in Biblical, not as in Jeb)

 

[PassedOut]

Yes. It is a man woman thing. Could you please? If the objection is to Hillary it must be a woman thing.

Heh heh. Thought I'd troll you back, since I see that's what you are up to. Gotcha!

:P

 

No doubt lawyers like to practice arguing seemingly impossible positions, and this thread was one-sided before you jumped in. I've been pretty sure that you've been trolling since you started using known hoaxes to buttress your points. But the clincher was when you used a book that you knew to be full of false statements to support the point that Hillary is a corrupt liar.

 

Fun while it lasted though!

:D

[billw55]

Look. I consider myself fair because not only do I see Hillary Clinton as a corrupt liar but I see Donald Trump as a pompous Showman who also lies. I also see both candidates as really really bad. Depressing even.

I agree on this much. But I don't accept the "least of two evils" dilemma the major parties have presented. I refuse to vote for either.

 

I admit I do think Clinton is the lesser evil. How one can think Trump is preferable baffles me. But I do believe that as a nation, we thrive on varying points of view. I try to see the other side. It's really hard with Trump.

 

And then the R voters. After 8 years of a D white house, and with the widely unliked Clinton as the presumed candidate, this election was really theirs for the taking. But instead ... this. No sympathy at all.

[kenrexford]

A curious observation from today. The conventional wisdom against Trump on Banning people from some areas or some philosophies from entering the country is that he is catching too many fish with too big of a net. He supposedly uses a big net for racist reasons. Hillary's Theory is there a smaller and smaller net to have a more precise Target. Maybe it is Isis but perhaps even just the specific leader of Isis.

 

It seems contradictory however with statements that come out anytime there is an attack. Now the actors are lone wolves. Acting not as a part of a group but as a person motivated by their own internal demons.

 

If the head of the spider does not control the legs then why are we going after the head of the spider? Why are we allowing the legs to come freely at us?

 

Using that logic we should probably actually ban all of the legs and ignore the head because the head is doing no harm.

 

The only real explanation comes through psychology. The idea must be that the head actually controls the legs what is not part of the legs. If we cut off the head then the legs will thrash about for a little while but then run out of energy.

 

But on that theory we should take out the head. Instead we are trying to talk the legs into ignoring the head.

[PassedOut]

The only real explanation comes through psychology. The idea must be that the head actually controls the legs what is not part of the legs. If we cut off the head then the legs will thrash about for a little while but then run out of energy.

 

But on that theory we should take out the head. Instead we are trying to talk the legs into ignoring the head.

Yes. With all the drones, surveillance technology, and targeting capabilities available to the US, it's truly baffling that Obama has not thought of that.

[cherdano]

My sources of information are plentiful. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC/CBS/NBC, Politico, Real Clear Politics (and various sources therein like NYT, Washington Post, etc.), Drudge, Breitbart. I try to read/watch both "sides" of debates. Best source is BBF super geniuses, of course.

If you think this is a balanced media diet presenting you "both sides", then that's part of the problem. I mean you may think that MSNBC balances out Fox News, but there is no equivalent to Joe Scarborough on Fox News, and Rachel Maddow is a lot more, ahem, "fact-based" then the opinionated Fox hosts.

Similarly, there is no equivalent to Drudge and Breitbart in your sources, and I am not even sure it exists. You could add slate or talkingpointsmemo, but while they are both openly biased, neither of them have the shameless disregard for facts, or incendiary framing of many Drudge or Breitbart stories.

 

By the way, does it bother you at all that Trump used a quarter million of dollars from his "charity" to settle personal legal disputes? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

[Winstonm]

Yes. With all the drones, surveillance technology, and targeting capabilities available to the US, it's truly baffling that Obama has not thought of that.

 

Seeing that Obama only got his law degree from Harvard, his missing this shouldn't be a surprise. :huh:

[y66]

Look. I consider myself fair because not only do I see Hillary Clinton as a corrupt liar but I see Donald Trump as a pompous Showman who also lies. I also see both candidates as really really bad. Depressing even.

 

But I'm not voting on who I like best. I'm voting on my best hope for Big Picture progress. I feel like I'm talking ideas.

Just because your ideas are often provocative and interesting does not mean the depth and breadth of their insanity is knowable.

[mike777]

As far as current events, yet another man of color has been shot and killed by the police here in Charlotte. The local community has reacted in anger to all of these men being killed by police. I note my wife has been stuck in her downtown(uptown) parking garage for 5 hours waiting for assistance to arrive from a tow truck which has been slowed by the anger. Still waiting as of this post.

 

I note we lost power, tv, etc here at home for a while for some unknown reason but that stuff seems to be coming back online.

[mike777]

update efforts to reach her have failed. They were nine minutes away per reports but had to turn back. Not sure what is happening now.

 

--------

 

 

update2...some good news....2 more tow trucks are said we hope to be on the way( but 2 hours away). Also it is a large parking garage and she is now with not one but 2 security guards...

 

She can hear the sirens and helicopters but that is all at this point.

 

-------------------

 

 

True story but you will not believe it.

 

Good news the tow truck showed up, it showed up at my home, not where my wife and her car is which is in uptown Charlotte...miles away... After 5 hours the tow truck showed up at the wrong place.

 

Per local news 60 police injured tonight and one more person killed.

---------------------

 

update3 the tow truck driver who came to the wrong address, my home said he would go uptown and pickup my wife and car.....now my wife just called with the news....they cannot make it.....sigh.

 

----

 

 

good news yet another tow truck driver on the way....bad news....he did not make it for some confusing reason.

[mike777]

fwiw I just got an "emergency phone call" where my wife is an executive, from Bank of America at midnight.

 

 

The government shooting and killing people of color effects us all in many ways.

 

 

I suppose the stats may just say only two people were killed...no big deal, not thousands or millions affected....only two.

 

 

this is the third riot I have been in. Chicago, LA, Charlotte.

[Zelandakh]

I'd rather have the one who's freaky in bed then the one who sleeps with other guys.

Why? Do you believe that being homosexual makes a person somehow mentally or morally inferior in some way? And what about transgender people - do you consider their choice freaky or some form of homosexuality?

[helene_t]

If the head of the spider does not control the legs then why are we going after the head of the spider? Why are we allowing the legs to come freely at us?

I don't know if anyone would be silly enough to make such a generalising statement about whether terrorists work alone, in small groups or as part of large organisations. In any case, I suppose everybody would agree that we should go after both top and the bottom of the terrorist hierarchy as well as after individual, un-organised terrorists.

 

The issue is just that the fact that someone is Muslim/black/male/Italian/Romani/someotheridentitythatisrumourdedtobestatisticallyassociatedwithcrime doesn't give us the rights to treat that person as a criminal. Whether he is assumed to be the spider's head or leg is moot since we shouldn't assume either. It is as simple as that. As a criminal defence lawyer I think you are familiar with that concept.

 

As for the practical impact of restricting Muslims travelling to the US, I am sure you are familiar with the statistics comparing the number of Americans killed by Muslim terrorists to the number killed by lawn-mowers, toddlers etc.

 

Look, here in Europe we have serious problems with certain immigrant populations because of our lack of ability to integrate immigrants into our society and maybe also for other reasons. Someone whose grandparents moved from Afghanistan to Denmark is still considered an Afghan. Someone who immigrated from Afghanistan to USA last year is considered an American. I suspect that is one of the major reasons why, economically, Europe sucks while America is great. Now I am sure that USA is a pathetic country in many ways but with respect to immigration it is a great country. So when it comes to immigration, maybe you should consider the slogan "Keep America Great".

[kenrexford]

Why? Do you believe that being homosexual makes a person somehow mentally or morally inferior in some way? And what about transgender people - do you consider their choice freaky or some form of homosexuality?

Um, "freaky in bed" means kinky, a great lover who is experimental. Not homosexual.

[Zelandakh]

Um, "freaky in bed" means kinky, a great lover who is experimental. Not homosexual.

I understand that Ken. And "the one who sleeps with other guys" sounds like a reference to homosexual men. If that is not the case then please explain yourself.

[PassedOut]

I understand that Ken. And "the one who sleeps with other guys" sounds like a reference to homosexual men. If that is not the case then please explain yourself.

I took Ken's statement as an oblique reference to reports that Trump's wife formerly worked as an escort, thereby avoiding the flak that a direct statement would elicit. FWIW, I've also heard of situations in which a married woman "sleeps with other guys."

[kenrexford]

I understand that Ken. And "the one who sleeps with other guys" sounds like a reference to homosexual men. If that is not the case then please explain yourself.

I happen to be a man, and I happen to be heterosexual. As such, my lover if cheating would tend to pick other men. Hence, in the example, the actors happen to be hetero. If I heppened to be gay, then my lover would also likely sleep with other men if cheating. If we add in bi, it gets more complicated. However, in no scenario would my example plausibly be contrued as a veiled slight on gay men. If any plausible bias was present, it would be a hetero-assuming, male-first-person-assuming terminology implied in the choice of masculine actors. A more neutral zee and person rather than men, perhaps. Sloppy man-centric hetero-centric phrasing. But, not remotely anti-gay-man.

 

BTW, my dpelling of zee rather than ze is because I desire for older English texts to be changed. As thee and thou, perhaps zee rather than ze?

[kenrexford]

I took Ken's statement as an oblique reference to reports that Trump's wife formerly worked as an escort, thereby avoiding the flak that a direct statement would elicit. FWIW, I've also heard of situations in which a married woman "sleeps with other guys."

 

wow is that a deep read. funny, but a deep read.

 

What I meant was that a presidential candi"date" is like picking a spouse, albeit for 4-8 years (very often the case in real marriages). both Hillary and Donald are ugly options. I expect Trump to be "freaky in bed," meaning that he will try exotic new things, some good some bad, but CHANGE. Not just laying back and letting Congress try to make me happy with the same ole same ole that no longer really gets me my jollies. Clinton, on the other hand, is most problematic because her focus seems to really be on getting others (Wall Street, donors, rich people in other countries, fellow Clintons) their jollies while pretending to still love me.

 

 

 

[cherdano]

Ken, I'd still be curious about your reaction to this story:

 

By the way, does it bother you at all that Trump used a quarter million of dollars from his "charity" to settle personal legal disputes? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

[billw55]

Ken, I'd still be curious about your reaction to this story:

Hmm, just the first part of the article mentions a couple cases where a personal penalty was waived in exchange for a donation to a charity. Perhaps a little unusual and maybe not fully honest, but sending money from a charitable foundation to actual charities doesn't seem like something to get riled up about.

 

They seem to be saying it is illegal, OK then it shouldn't happen, but still not super high on my list of grievances.

[kenrexford]

Ken, I'd still be curious about your reaction to this story:

 

 

 

Sorry. Yes, it bothers me. That does not sound like an appropriate way to handle a charitable organization. I have no idea what the tax implications are. But, count that as a negative strike against Trump for me, regardless of what the tax concerns are.

 

Now, more generally, each candidate has some nice points about them and some negatives. You found one that I see as a definite negative about Trump. There are many other negatives about Donald Trump for me.

 

 

 

[kenrexford]

To Zel, I thought you might like this:

 

Jew eat?

 

Compressed phrase that means "Did you eat?" often heard as "Jew eat?" by particularly sensitive and/or peculiarly paranoid people of the Jewish persuasion, especially when asked by a goy (non-Jew). "Jew eat?" syndrome was first exposed to mass culture by Woody Allen in his Oscar-winning film "Annie Hall" (1977). Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) to his calm friend Rob (Tony Roberts):

 

"You know, I was having lunch with some guys from NBC, so I said, 'Did you eat yet or what?' And Tom Christie said, 'No, JEW?' Not 'Did you?'...JEW eat? JEW? You get it? JEW eat?"

 

-- Woody Allen, screenplay for "Annie Hall"

 

 

 

[PassedOut]

wow is that a deep read. funny, but a deep read.

Ah, I guess I was thrown off because just before that you were discussing spouses, and just after that you mentioned Heidi Cruz. Thought maybe you'd heard something on the grapevine about Ted's wife, in contrast with Donald's...

:P

[Winstonm]

wow is that a deep read. funny, but a deep read.

 

What I meant was that a presidential candi"date" is like picking a spouse, albeit for 4-8 years (very often the case in real marriages). both Hillary and Donald are ugly options. I expect Trump to be "freaky in bed," meaning that he will try exotic new things, some good some bad, but CHANGE. Not just laying back and letting Congress try to make me happy with the same ole same ole that no longer really gets me my jollies. Clinton, on the other hand, is most problematic because her focus seems to really be on getting others (Wall Street, donors, rich people in other countries, fellow Clintons) their jollies while pretending to still love me.

 

Exactly the thinking that allows a con man to practice his art - Oh, yes we've got trouble. Right here in River City.

[Trinidad]

wow is that a deep read. funny, but a deep read.

 

What I meant was that a presidential candi"date" is like picking a spouse, albeit for 4-8 years (very often the case in real marriages). both Hillary and Donald are ugly options. I expect Trump to be "freaky in bed," meaning that he will try exotic new things, some good some bad, but CHANGE. Not just laying back and letting Congress try to make me happy with the same ole same ole that no longer really gets me my jollies. Clinton, on the other hand, is most problematic because her focus seems to really be on getting others (Wall Street, donors, rich people in other countries, fellow Clintons) their jollies while pretending to still love me.

Ken, we are talking about government here, not about who is the most fun on a reality TV show.

 

Rik