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

[kenberg]

i was bad. I know I was bad. I did not watch it last night. Did I actually miss anything?

 

 

The big news item appears to be that DT said that he was always opposed to going into Iraq and Lauer did not contest this with quotes from 2003. Ok, but if this is the biggest event of the evening I will quit beating myself up for my lackadaisical failure to watch. Oh, and Clinton acknowledged that using a private server was an error. And she didn't smile. Was there anything else? Did anyone bring up, for example, the ongoing stuff in Aleppo? This was supposed to be about Commander-In-Chief issues, right?

 

I didn't see it so I have to go easy on my criticism.

 

Fwiw, I was instead reading The Girl on the Train. I very much recommend it.Upon reflection, I will change this to saying that I liked it a lot. Many people don't, and I can understand why.

[Winstonm]

....The Public Policy Polling survey showed 59 percent of those who said they viewed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee favorably think Obama was not born in the United States....

 

According to Wikipedia, a bit more than 14 million people voted for Trump in the primaries, rounding to 14 million for simplicity. That means - if these are the same people polled by Public Policy Polling - that there are 8,260,000 people in the United States so stupid they must be reminded to breath.

 

This bodes well for health industry job growth as it expands the available opportunities for breathing coaches outside of childbirth. ;)

[PassedOut]

According to Wikipedia, a bit more than 14 million people voted for Trump in the primaries, rounding to 14 million for simplicity. That means - if these are the same people polled by Public Policy Polling - that there are 8,260,000 people in the United States so stupid they must be reminded to breath.

 

This bodes well for health industry job growth as it expands the available opportunities for breathing coaches outside of childbirth. ;)

I'm sure that Trump supporters frown on such statements as being politically incorrect.

[olegru]

Hi Winston.

I checked NBC debacle. Well ... My apologies. If year ago somebody told me I would vote for Clinton, I would call him crazy.

[kenberg]

As has been mentioned, Clinton has a long list of plans on her website. For Combating terrorism and keeping our homeland safe, she has, for example

 

"Pursuing a diplomatic strategy aimed at resolving Syria's civil war and Iraq's sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias—both of which have contributed to the rise of ISIS."

 

Ah yes, pursuing diplomatic strategy. Why didn't I think of that? All those opposed to diplomatic strategy please speak up.

But that's it?

 

Voting always involves a leap of faith. This year the leap is a total plunge that would make Evel Knievel proud. Go Hillary.

[PassedOut]

As has been mentioned, Clinton has a long list of plans on her website. For Combating terrorism and keeping our homeland safe, she has, for example

 

"Pursuing a diplomatic strategy aimed at resolving Syria's civil war and Iraq's sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias—both of which have contributed to the rise of ISIS."

 

Ah yes, pursuing diplomatic strategy. Why didn't I think of that? All those opposed to diplomatic strategy please speak up.

But that's it?

I took that statement to exclude alternative strategies that have been proposed, such as extensive carpet-bombing, killing the families of terrorists, torturing terrorists, stealing oil, and so on. I don't expect a detailed list of diplomatic tactics any more than I'd expect a detailed list of military tactics.

[Winstonm]

I'm sure that Trump supporters frown on such statements as being politically incorrect.

 

In my work career in the Bible belt hotbed of Tulsa, Oklahoma, I have spent a lot of time in homes of those whose lives revolved around the television broadcasts of Fox News, Pastor John Hagee, et al, and in listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio.

 

I doubt these people take time out to frown (or think) about anything except what Bill, Sean, Rush, and Hagee tell them to frown about. :blink:

[Winstonm]

Hi Winston.

I checked NBC debacle. Well ... My apologies. If year ago somebody told me I would vote for Clinton, I would call him crazy.

 

No hard feelings. FWIW, I was a fuuly committed Republican revolutionist in 1994, baclomg Gingrich, et al. I like to think I am now a better person for the changes in my thinking and beliefs that allowed me to investigate the validity of my own thinking and beliefs and abandon them. At least, I hope I am an improved version.

 

I no longer consider myself either Republican or Democrat but a humanist. I do not think there is a magical being guiding our courses; human problems must be dealt with by humans trying to help each other. That is hard enough.

 

Btw, I can understand someone not voting for Hillary Clinton; but I still cannot fathom support of Trump unless by one who is emotionally unbalanced, either permanently or temporarily. There can be no other answer.

[Winstonm]

Donald Trump seems to think the election is nothing more than a race for tv ratings.

[blackshoe]

heh. If so, is he wrong? B-)

[PassedOut]

heh. If so, is he wrong? B-)

What's your take on that?

[kenrexford]

As has been mentioned, Clinton has a long list of plans on her website. For Combating terrorism and keeping our homeland safe, she has, for example

 

"Pursuing a diplomatic strategy aimed at resolving Syria's civil war and Iraq's sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias—both of which have contributed to the rise of ISIS."

 

Ah yes, pursuing diplomatic strategy. Why didn't I think of that? All those opposed to diplomatic strategy please speak up.

But that's it?

 

Voting always involves a leap of faith. This year the leap is a total plunge that would make Evel Knievel proud. Go Hillary.

I could give a translation to that that makes her position looks stupid. If I understand your policy then her plan is to get everybody together and discuss things. That's not exactly a plan. You can't exactly talk your way out of a conflict in the Muslim world that has about a thousand year head start on you. Moreover it is actually arguably the diplomacy and the Brilliance that came out of that that actually was the cause of the rise of Isis.

 

The battles in the Middle East and frankly in the Muslim world are not like the battles of the Cold War. Mutually assured destruction is not cause for them to stop fighting. Mutually assured destruction would mean that Allah is winning. The only way to have some semblance of a cooling down of conflicts is the have one side in charge in their area.

 

The Diplomatic solution of getting a bunch of people to sneak around weapons to this side or the other seems to have not worked very well.

 

Of course we could try some other things for other problems. Similar might be a group hug to stop urban violence. Postcards on YouTube to stop terrorism. We could have lots of councils and groups and studies you get a lot accomplished. Will be quite impressive.

[shyams]

You can't exactly talk your way out of a conflict in the Muslim world that has about a thousand year head start on you.

I thought they have a 600 year lag on the Christian world. I wonder how Christian orthodoxy shaped the world 600-800 years ago.

 

The battles in the Middle East and frankly in the Muslim world are not like the battles of the Cold War. Mutually assured destruction is not cause for them to stop fighting. Mutually assured destruction would mean that Allah is winning. The only way to have some semblance of a cooling down of conflicts is the have one side in charge in their area.

This is a gross misinterpretation of what most Muslims (even those in the Middle East) aspire to in life.

Many years ago, Sting had a single called "Russians" {album: Dream of the Blue Turtles}. The song refrain probably applies to any human conflict.

[mike777]

As far as the population aging, news flash the population has been aging for decades and decades, perhaps hundreds of years.....

 

 

Not sure how any of this negates the fact the many jobs are simply not coming back. Robots take more, humans take more and more machine parts. All of this evidence seems to support my thesis rather than negate it, NOT prove it, just evidence towards it.

 

 

A thesis that suggests we look forward to a future where most humans do not work full time o outside the home, a future where government allocate more and more assets to how will humans fill their day rather than a government focused on creating jobs, more jobs and more jobs outside the home.. A jobs focus which for at least me has been my number one voting priority for all of my life.

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

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

 

 

As far as the Muslim Jihad issue from what I understand out of 1.6 billion muslims 80-90% are against radical jihad or are neutral. that leaves only 150 to 300 million or so in moral support of radical jihad. The vast majority are against or neutral. The vast majority are against or neutral in attacking the Vatican, in fact attacks against the Vatican State or the Catholic POpe have been few to none.

 

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

 

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

 

 

I go back to the American Revolution. Roughly 1/3 were for revolution, roughly 1/3 were for the British, roughly 1/3 were neutral.

[kenrexford]

I thought they have a 600 year lag on the Christian world. I wonder how Christian orthodoxy shaped the world 600-800 years ago.

 

 

This is a gross misinterpretation of what most Muslims (even those in the Middle East) aspire to in life.

Many years ago, Sting had a single called "Russians" {album: Dream of the Blue Turtles}. The song refrain probably applies to any human conflict.

Who cares what the polls say? The real concern is what happens. We could have a vote and see the anti jihadists win in a landslide, but would that have any impact at all on the ground? This is exactly the sort of nonsense study that is utterly pointless.

 

For that matter I cannot imagine a more obvious example of the Bradley effect than a poll of people in the Middle East. It's sort of like some of my clients. Have you ever been in trouble? No. Have you ever been convicted of a crime? No. When was the last time that you were in prison? 2009. Makes no sense. But the translation. Do you support Jihad? No.

[helene_t]

Ken, aren't you concerned about Trump's business ethics? You've probably read about all the investors, Trump University students, banks, suppliers etc. who have lost money dealing with him. Even some of his policiy advicers in his current campaign have quit after Trump failed to pay them.

[billw55]

Ken, aren't you concerned about Trump's business ethics? You've probably read about all the investors, Trump University students, banks, suppliers etc. who have lost money dealing with him. Even some of his policiy advicers in his current campaign have quit after Trump failed to pay them.

What baffles me is that people are still wiling to deal with him, despite the long trail of losses and frauds.

 

 

 

 

 

[blackshoe]

What's your take on that?

That he's not wrong. If that's his position.

[Winstonm]

Who cares what the polls say? The real concern is what happens. We could have a vote and see the anti jihadists win in a landslide, but would that have any impact at all on the ground? This is exactly the sort of nonsense study that is utterly pointless.

 

For that matter I cannot imagine a more obvious example of the Bradley effect than a poll of people in the Middle East. It's sort of like some of my clients. Have you ever been in trouble? No. Have you ever been convicted of a crime? No. When was the last time that you were in prison? 2009. Makes no sense. But the translation. Do you support Jihad? No.

 

I think this and your previous post expose more about your support of Trump than anything else you have written. It appears you have considerable concern about jihadist terror.

 

That concern would fit perfectly the profile of authoritarian voter who looks for someone who talks tough about taking action against threats and providing safety.

 

Perhaps, Ken you might want to ask yourself if your concern is justified cognitively or is it simply an emotive response? And while you're at it you might want to ask yourself if the Obama "talk about it" response to halt Iran's nuclear plans has worked out better or worse than Bush's "ground troops and war" response to Iraq and Afghanistan?

[billw55]

And while you're at it you might want to ask yourself if the Obama "talk about it" response to halt Iran's nuclear plans has worked out better or worse than Bush's "ground troops and war" response to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Sometimes diplomacy is a better choice. Perhaps usually. But when you compare Obama's response to Iran with Bush's response to Afghanistan, there is a very large difference there which I think you can grasp.

 

 

[Winstonm]

Sometimes diplomacy is a better choice. Perhaps usually. But when you compare Obama's response to Iran with Bush's response to Afghanistan, there is a very large difference there which I think you can grasp.

 

The main difference I saw was that President Obama withstood tremendous pressure for military action against Iran, including a lobbying visit from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress. I concede, though, that the pressures of the first 1-2 years after the attack on 9-11 were of a different magnitude.

 

I have never been one to say negotiating with Isis or similar terrorist organizations should be our goal or even our focus - what I have said all along is that a strictly military solution is not possible. The best choice IMO is for quasi-military policing type action and special forces actions and drone strikes against precise targets with a political goal of helping the middle east to find a solution to their problems, which affect us all.

[kenrexford]

See you guys are missing the whole point. There are not two options. You assume that one option is all-out military intervention AKA bush and that the other option appears to be sneaky diplomacy. The only difference between those two is that each tries to change the regime one directly and one indirectly. The realpolitik idea does not seem to be either. The other option is to keep power where it is. Restraint it perhaps but keep it where it is. Saddam Hussein had to be pushed back when he broke the Border. Anything else in Trump's words destabilized.

 

Iraq when bad when we creative vacuum and then abandoned it. The solution perhaps was not to creative vacuum and then fill it either.

 

Libya went bad when we created a vacuum.

 

Syria is bad when we are trying to create a vacuum where Assad stands.

 

Isis is a unique problem. The solution taking out Isis is not complete unless the vacuum is refilled. The solution to refill the vacuum Maybe 2 coordinate with Russia to ensure some degree of mutually non beneficial stalemate which is probably the original borders.

 

The problem with creating vacuums is that it creates a hotbed for terrorism.

 

It is in this way in my opinion the Trump has a lot in common with Paul. This is why I did not like neoconservative meddling. Democratic behind the scenes puppet mastering is the same thing.

 

I find it humorous that people debating these issues are stuck not thinking through what people are actually advocating but instead fighting old battles. You hear that Hillary voted for the war and that she messed up Libya but counter that Trump will somehow or another do what Bush did. Did you not hear Trump belittling bush?

 

International relations is a big picture parallel to internal affairs. The Republicans want to throw everything at Big Business. The Democrats pretend to like the little guy well getting the endorsements of big business. And you don't find this perplexing? There are not two options. The two options are not to build up the business and hope that things trickle-down or to build up the business and tax the business to pay the little guy who can't find a job. The alternative is that actually build up the little guy.

 

When you stop thinking of the world in the old regime are two sides of the same coin you start to realize that a completely different coin might make some sense.

[kenberg]

See you guys are missing the whole point. There are not two options. You assume that one option is all-out military intervention AKA bush and that the other option appears to be sneaky diplomacy. The only difference between those two is that each tries to change the regime one directly and one indirectly. The realpolitik idea does not seem to be either. The other option is to keep power where it is. Restraint it perhaps but keep it where it is. Saddam Hussein had to be pushed back when he broke the Border. Anything else in Trump's words destabilized.

 

Iraq when bad when we creative vacuum and then abandoned it. The solution perhaps was not to creative vacuum and then fill it either.

 

Libya went bad when we created a vacuum.

 

Syria is bad when we are trying to create a vacuum where Assad stands.

 

Isis is a unique problem. The solution taking out Isis is not complete unless the vacuum is refilled. The solution to refill the vacuum Maybe 2 coordinate with Russia to ensure some degree of mutually non beneficial stalemate which is probably the original borders.

 

The problem with creating vacuums is that it creates a hotbed for terrorism.

 

It is in this way in my opinion the Trump has a lot in common with Paul. This is why I did not like neoconservative meddling. Democratic behind the scenes puppet mastering is the same thing.

 

I find it humorous that people debating these issues are stuck not thinking through what people are actually advocating but instead fighting old battles. You hear that Hillary voted for the war and that she messed up Libya but counter that Trump will somehow or another do what Bush did. Did you not hear Trump belittling bush?

 

International relations is a big picture parallel to internal affairs. The Republicans want to throw everything at Big Business. The Democrats pretend to like the little guy well getting the endorsements of big business. And you don't find this perplexing? There are not two options. The two options are not to build up the business and hope that things trickle-down or to build up the business and tax the business to pay the little guy who can't find a job. The alternative is that actually build up the little guy.

 

When you stop thinking of the world in the old regime are two sides of the same coin you start to realize that a completely different coin might make some sense.

 

I try to say as clearly as possible what I believe. When someone begins a port by telling me what I am assuming and that I am missing the point, also known as not agreeing with the poster, I get a good deal less interested in reading what comes next.

 

Anyway, I agree that there is a lot of room between sending Kerry to yet another meeting on the one hand, and all out war on the other.

More later.

[billw55]

I find it humorous that people debating these issues are stuck not thinking through what people are actually advocating but instead fighting old battles. You hear that Hillary voted for the war and that she messed up Libya but counter that Trump will somehow or another do what Bush did. Did you not hear Trump belittling bush?

You seem to still believe that the things Trump says mean anything at all. Haven't you been listening?

[Al_U_Card]

I have never been one to say negotiating with Isis or similar terrorist organizations should be our goal or even our focus - what I have said all along is that a strictly military solution is not possible. The best choice IMO is for quasi-military policing type action and special forces actions and drone strikes against precise targets with a political goal of helping the middle east to find a solution to their problems, which affect us all.

Since the Balfour declaration, the West has been "interfering" with this part of the world. Put the shoe on the other foot and we all would be militating for some kind of action to stop others meddling in our affairs, be it "only" drone strikes to kill our prominent activists....

Since Iran and the Mosadeque overthrow by the CIA, US and British intervention has raised several generations of agitated and anxious who are willing to do what they must to free their people from this perceived and real yoke of oppression.

The Anglo-American empire may well last a bit longer but military presence/force is a prerequisite. (How many US bases are in the region?) Allowing Saudi Arabia to aid and abet in return for tolerating their Wahibist leanings only worsens the situation.

Getting out while you can is the only way to eventually (at least one generation) free yourselves and the world from this predictable reaction. The region has been self-destructing (re-creating?) since pre-biblical times and sitting in the middle of hornet's nests, constantly hitting them with a stick, is a sure way of getting stung, repeatedly.