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

[Cyberyeti]

For *****s sake Ken, compare Clinton's record for telling the truth with ANY other candidate running for the presidency in 2016.

She scores much much better in any of the usual sources that fact check the candidates.

 

The fact that you say say that a pathological liar like Trump is more honest shows that you are completely deranged...

 

Yeah, but some of her lies are very obvious, and she didn't exactly give a fulsome apology when caught out (the landing in Kosovo or wherever it was)

[kenberg]

You don't see the irony in your analysis? Hillary Clinton has been slammed repeatedly for all sorts of lies and Corruption. The only person I've seen the lie more obviously and more frequently for no particular reason at times is a drug addict. Pushed up against the corner she says Trump is a birther nut case.

 

Now I fully agree that Trump has a history of being a birther nutcase. I also think however that getting sucked up into birther nutcase Theory is less problematic than the things that are tripping up Clinton. However you feel about it the result is the same as what you were claiming. Hillary's defense 2 repeatedly lying under oath and to her own followers and two decades of corruption is the throw out but the prosecutor is a goofball. True no one disputes that. But you are a crooked liar.

 

"Now I fully agree that Trump has a history of being a birther nutcase." A good place t leave it.

 

What I said was barely an analysis. It amounted to a rejection of Trump's technique. I said

If we go with analogies, I was recently on a jury. I imagine a guy on trial for various things and the defense is "Let me tell you what X did in 2008".

 

Trump is an absolute master at this game. Sometimes what he says is true, even a total BS artist says something true on occasion. But the truth doesn't matter to him, he is after the distraction. And since the truth doesn't matter to him there is no reason for me get caught up in his distraction.

 

The way to avoid being played for a sucker at the slot machines is to not play slot machines. The way to avoid being scammed by Trump's distraction games is to refuse to play. I will not be looking up what HC did or did not say in 2008 any more than I will be sticking a buck into a lot machine.

 

The technique is clear. Trump wants to abandon his long held birtherism. But he wants to divert attention while doing it. He is successful. You bring up Obama's book. People look at Clinton's remarks, or her non-remarks, or her aide's remarks, from 8 years ago. Soon everyone is focused on something other than Trump giving up birtherism. So I repeat: The only way out of this game is to not play. Trump has perfected the technique of getting people running in circles chasing phantoms he puts up while he sits back and laughs at the suckers. No thanks.

 

In case you haven't noticed, I absolutely cannot stand the guy. This goes beyond policy. I expect politicians to rat me like something of a sucker, but Trump goes beyond all bounds on this.

There is no good reason for you to have read all of my posts, even I sometimes forget what I wrote, but it's not like I am a big Clinton fan either. It's a matter of degree. Trump is repulsive. Just sayin'.

[kenrexford]

For *****s sake Ken, compare Clinton's record for telling the truth with ANY other candidate running for the presidency in 2016.

She scores much much better in any of the usual sources that fact check the candidates.

 

The fact that you say say that a pathological liar like Trump is more honest shows that you are completely deranged...

Yes, she scores very well with her fan club. Do you really base your assessment on what others say rather than wjat you actually see and hear yourself?

[billw55]

The technique is clear. Trump wants to abandon his long held birtherism. But he wants to divert attention while doing it. He is successful. You bring up Obama's book. People look at Clinton's remarks, or her non-remarks, or her aide's remarks, from 8 years ago. Soon everyone is focused on something other than Trump giving up birtherism. So I repeat: The only way out of this game is to not play. Trump has perfected the technique of getting people running in circles chasing phantoms he puts up while he sits back and laughs at the suckers. No thanks.

I agree with your general point here. But in the blue bit, you fell for his schtick just a little. The fact that he said those things does not mean that he wants to abandon birtherism. Nor does it mean that he wants to maintain it, or that he ever believed it, or that he won't say something different next month, or that he will admit he ever said it, or confirm it, or ... you get the idea. Nothing he says means anything at all except that he felt like saying it at that particular moment. Attempting to analyze Trump speak is a waste of time.

[billw55]

Yes, she scores very well with her fan club.

Aha, the old "anyone who disagrees in on the conspiracy" gambit. Ergo any source that scores Clinton higher than Trump is, ipso facto, a biased Clinton supporter. By dint of clever logic, there can indeed be no such source. Well done sir.

[hrothgar]

Yes, she scores very well with her fan club. Do you really base your assessment on what others say rather than wiat you actually see and hear yourself?

 

I would hardly call the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the like members of Hillary Clinton's fan clubs.

These are the United State's newspapers of record and they are unequivocal about the multiple lies that Trump makes.

 

If you want to talk about what I see and hear myself or have been able to confirm to my satisfaction

 

1. I know that Donald Trump regularly retweets memes from the most vile parts of the alt right. I know that that his new "campaign CEO" is a virulent anti Semite. I know that his son makes jokes about "gas chambers". I know that he and his father implemented housing rental policies that were blatantly discriminatory. I know that he spent years promoting the birther nonsense.

 

2. I know that Donald Trump said that he would order the the US Navy to fire upon Iranian military vessels if they continued to make rude gestures. I know that he stated that we should have stayed in the Middle East to seize the oil. I know that Trump is on record on the Hoard Stern show saying that we should invade Iraq and has repeated lied about this fact. I know that he is repeatedly asking questions about when it is permissible to use nuclear weapons.

 

3. I know that Trump is in favor of restoring the use of torture. I know that he favors war crimes such as deliberately killing family members of terrorists.

 

4. I know that Trump's foundation has been fined for making illegal campaign contributions. I know that Trump has not contributed to this foundation since 2008.

 

5. I know that Trump created "Trump University" in an attempt to scam some of the most vulnerable members of our society out of their hard earned dollars.

 

6. I know that Trump refused to disclose any of his financial information.

 

...

[kenrexford]

NYT and WP are not neutral. Please. Still avoids the question. Do you hear Hillary lie or see her corruption? A multi count indictment of Trump says nothing about Clinton.

[kenrexford]

Aha, the old "anyone who disagrees in on the conspiracy" gambit. Ergo any source that scores Clinton higher than Trump is, ipso facto, a biased Clinton supporter. By dint of clever logic, there can indeed be no such source. Well done sir.

Why do you need a source? Analysis and spin from anyone pales in comparison to facts and personal assessment of the same.

[billw55]

Why do you need a source? Analysis and spin from anyone pales in comparison to facts and personal assessment of the same.

I need sources because that is where facts come from. At least, if you have reliable sources, which is what we were discussing. Admittedly, over the years it has become more difficult to find such sources. Or at least, so I suppose.

 

 

 

 

 

[PassedOut]

NYT and WP are not neutral. Please. Still avoids the question. Do you hear Hillary lie or see her corruption? A multi count indictment of Trump says nothing about Clinton.

Speaking for myself, I haven't seen any of Hillary's "corruption." Not sure if I've seen any of her lies, but might have. Trump, on the other hand, very many of both lies and corruption...

 

So far as I can see, the NYT is as neutral as you can actually find.

[Cyberyeti]

Speaking for myself, I haven't seen any of Hillary's "corruption." Not sure if I've seen any of her lies, but might have. Trump, on the other hand, very many of both lies and corruption...

 

So far as I can see, the NYT is as neutral as you can actually find.

 

You can't surely have missed this one:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html

[PassedOut]

You can't surely have missed this one:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html

No, I didn't, and those statements might indeed have been lies. And if she actually remembered incorrectly, her staff did her a disservice by not pointing out her error the first time it came up.

 

She's very guarded, for sure, and very reticent to acknowledge anything that might cast her in an unfavorable light. Politicians tend that way in general, but she seems to take that further than many. On the other hand, Trump's lies and corruption are way beyond anything we've seen in modern US politics.

[The_Badger]

Given that this seems to be the current thread in the Clinton/Trump saga, what if any views have the commentators have about the alleged terrorist atrocities in the USA recently?

 

Do you believe that it might, for example, push more voters into casting their vote for Trump?

 

In the UK, we had a Labour MP murdered weeks before Brexit by a man with mental health problems but with extreme right wing views. Many in this country believed that this might turn the vote. It didn't. But the polls started reflecting this murder and at one point there was a definite sea change of opinion.

 

If further terrorist action happens before November the 8th, do you think Trump will play the race/religious card once again? Or has what has happened in Manhattan, New Jersey and Minnesota recently be enough to change public opinion, and Trump is already on a roll?

[shyams]

A worrisome point about Western media (incl. those in the US) is their morbid fascination with all things labelled "terrorism".

 

Right at this moment, CNBC (a channel perennially focused on business impacts) is pretty much giving a running commentary on the tri-state area bombing fiasco. Why would they do that? Is there nothing economic/financial happening in the US today?

 

My point is that the US media (indirectly) contributes to the fear component of "terrorism". It seems what happened in NY/NJ was the act of a fringe lunatic with warped ideology. There were zero fatalities and zero serious injuries. Yet, the #1 business channel of the US is focused only on that event. I find it perplexing.

 

Mind you, CNBC is not a typical TV news channel -- this is a network notorious for asking their expert panel questions like "So what is the likely impact of the Japan earthquake on the stock markets?". Or another expert saying "The human toll here looks to be much worse than the economic toll and we can be grateful for that". They are a cold, heartless channel and even they tend to focus on some fringe acts of so-called terrorism as if it's the only thing that matters.

[hrothgar]

NYT and WP are not neutral. Please. Still avoids the question. Do you hear Hillary lie or see her corruption? A multi count indictment of Trump says nothing about Clinton.

 

I grade things on a curve.

 

I don't not believe that Clinton is significantly less honest than other major office holders (and have reason to believe that she is more so)

I believe that Trump is a pathological liar.

 

You claim that the NYT an the WP are not neutral.

 

What are your sources of information?

[kenrexford]

I grade things on a curve.

 

I don't not believe that Clinton is significantly less honest than other major office holders (and have reason to believe that she is more so)

I believe that Trump is a pathological liar.

 

You claim that the NYT an the WP are not neutral.

 

What are your sources of information?

 

My major source for information on whether Hillary Clinton lies is Hillary Clinton directly. Her statements on the emails were actual perjury. Her statements on Benghazi, false. Her statements about her health, false. Her statements about her husband's affairs, cattle futures, travel office firings, ducking from sniper cover, etc., all false. I don't need a "fact checker" or an editorial board to tell me whether her statements in her own words are or are not true.

 

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.

 

 

 

[kenrexford]

Speaking for myself, I haven't seen any of Hillary's "corruption." Not sure if I've seen any of her lies, but might have. Trump, on the other hand, very many of both lies and corruption...

 

So far as I can see, the NYT is as neutral as you can actually find.

 

If you have not seen any of Hillary's lies, and have no idea about any corruption on her part, you must be living in a bubble, which might explain why you think the NYT is neutral. Try Googling "things Hillary has lied about" and you will get quite a few examples of lies. Some are quite funny. For corruption, you could go all in and watch Clinton Cash (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM), or just try reading things Stein and Sanders have pointed out about Hillary Clinton. Surely Stein and Sanders are not exactly right-wingers.

[kenberg]

I grade things on a curve.

 

I don't [edited from don't not] believe that Clinton is significantly less honest than other major office holders (and have reason to believe that she is more so)

I believe that Trump is a pathological liar.

 

You claim that the NYT an the WP are not neutral.

 

What are your sources of information?

 

I subscribe to the Washington Post and I read a fair portion of it daily. I would not claim that they are neutral. They don't make things up (yes, I know someone did a few years back and got fired for it), but they are not neutral.

 

Or perhaps it depends on what "neutral" means. Surely they select the stories they cover. They have a viewpoint. But if HC, metaphorically speaking, farts then they report it.

 

It's largely impossible to report news without some sort of underlying viewpoint showing through, and I think it does with the Post. They think DT is a lying jerk. So do I. And I didn't need the Post to tell me this.

 

Anyway, I agree with "I don't believe that Clinton is significantly less honest than other major office holders" and I might even agree with the addendum " and have reason to believe that she is more so". Mostly I think that she can do a reasonable job and perhaps turn out to be quite good. You never really know until the person gets the job, but I have some sort of hope with her. DT would be both an embarrassment and a disaster. I don't want a president who, if he gets ticked off, will call a foreign leader an ugly pig or talk about her bleeding from wherever. We have to draw a line somewhere.

 

I have heard that the Donald Trump we see is not the real Donald Trump. Perhaps. the real one might well be worse.

[billw55]

My major source for information on whether Hillary Clinton lies is Hillary Clinton directly. Her statements on the emails were actual perjury. Her statements on Benghazi, false. Her statements about her health, false. Her statements about her husband's affairs, cattle futures, travel office firings, ducking from sniper cover, etc., all false. I don't need a "fact checker" or an editorial board to tell me whether her statements in her own words are or are not true.

 

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.

No disagreement that Clinton has her fair share of lies. Was someone denying that? I didn't read every post closely.

 

The point is that Trump consistently disregards the truth entirely. He seems to not care at all what the actual truth is, and may not even know what it is. He just makes up random stuff that suits him whenever he opens his mouth off prompter.

 

The whole situation just rankles me, both parties stubbornly nominating their worst candidate. Our system isn't working very well.

 

 

[PassedOut]

If you have not seen any of Hillary's lies, and have no idea about any corruption on her part, you must be living in a bubble, which might explain why you think the NYT is neutral. Try Googling "things Hillary has lied about" and you will get quite a few examples of lies. Some are quite funny. For corruption, you could go all in and watch Clinton Cash (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM), or just try reading things Stein and Sanders have pointed out about Hillary Clinton. Surely Stein and Sanders are not exactly right-wingers.

I did find this: The 7 Wildest Lies From Hillary Clinton

 

Let me say up front that I don't consider false statements to be "lies" unless the person knows the statements are false. I have unwittingly made false statements myself. Along with lies, there are mistakes, misstatements, and unreliable memories. Nevertheless, if this is a list of her wildest "lies" over all of the years in her public life, the criticism of her as a "liar" is sheer nonsense.

 

I do know that she has made false statements, and that she has no doubt lied. She's human. (Although I can't ever remember having done so, it's even possible that I've lied sometime in the long-distant past to avoid looking stupid.)

 

I haven't found anything that smacks of "corruption" though, but did find that Bernie Sanders does not believe Hillary to be corrupt. He did object to her high-paid speeches during the primary, but it's quite a leap to portray that as corruption. Jill Stein disagrees with the decision not to prosecute Hillary over the email server. I think that keeping the private email server was very poor decision, but have no reason to second-guess James Comey and the people working with him.

 

I did find some information on your reference to Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash: Clinton Cash: errors dog Bill and Hillary exposé – but is there any 'there' there?

 

If his aim were to show that Hillary Clinton was swayed in her decision-making while US secretary of state by money flowing to the Clintons from foreign governments and elites, then he has failed – by his own admission – to have found the key evidence that proves it.

“We cannot ultimately know what goes on in their minds and ultimately prove the links between the money they took in and the benefits that subsequently accrued to themselves, their friends, and their associates,” Schweizer writes in the book’s conclusion.

 

In an interview with the sympathetic Fox News (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Harper, the publisher of Clinton Cash) it was put to Schweizer that he hadn’t “nailed” his thesis. “It’s hard for any author to nail it – one of the strategies of the Clinton camp is to set a bar for me as an author that is impossible to meet,” he replied.

 

Then there have been the errors. The most cringe-inducing involves a passage in the book in which Schweizer draws from a press release from TD Bank in which the Canadian financial institution supposedly announced its divestment from the contentious Keystone XL oil pipeline. The author suggests TD Bank tried to persuade the US government to back the pipeline using Bill Clinton as a conduit – an attempt that eventually failed when Obama kicked the decision down the road until after the 2012 presidential election, leading to TD Bank’s decision to divest.

 

Yet the press release was revealed to be a fake the same week it was circulated.

 

Similarly, Schweizer attempts in the chapter on the Haiti earthquake, Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Style, to link three lucrative speeches given by Bill Clinton in Ireland for a total of $600,000 to the awarding of a major contract in Haiti to Digicel, the telecoms company owned by Irish magnate Dennis O’Brien who had arranged Clinton’s appearances.

 

But as Buzzfeed pointed out, Bill Clinton was not paid on those occasions.

 

Perhaps the most seriously misleading element of the book involves the purchase by the Russian State Atomic Nuclear Agency (Rosatom) of a Canadian company, Uranium One, that had a large stake in US uranium output. Schweizer claims that a “central role” in the decision of the US government to approve the purchase was played by Hillary Clinton at the State Department at the same time as large donations were being made to the Clinton Foundation by individuals directly involved in the deal.

 

Yet in this case, as Time has shown, the State Department was only one of nine members of the inter-agency committee that made the final call, and even then there is no evidence that Clinton herself ever took part in the discussions.

If all the false statements in this book constitute "lies," isn't the author also completely untrustworthy? Why the double standard? Is it a man/woman thing?

[billw55]

Let me say up front that I don't consider false statements to be "lies" unless the person knows the statements are false.

In that case Trump may be lying much less often than you think.

[Vampyr]

Speaking for myself, I haven't seen any of Hillary's "corruption." Not sure if I've seen any of her lies, but might have. Trump, on the other hand, very many of both lies and corruption...

 

So far as I can see, the NYT is as neutral as you can actually find.

 

I think that Hilary's good points, for example her commitment to public service ever since law school, outweigh her faults by a long way. But I don't think it can be denied that the NYT is an extremely politically liberal newspaper.

[PassedOut]

Let me say up front that I don't consider false statements to be "lies" unless the person knows the statements are false.

In that case Trump may be lying much less often than you think.

Probably. Because Trump says whatever comes into his head, he might contradict himself a few hours later without realizing it.

 

But some of his business lies are well-documented, such as the videos he made saying that he personally chose the instructors at Trump University. And some of his lies are prepared, not off-the-cuff remarks: for example Trump's assertion that Hillary Clinton started the birther hoax and his statements that he had always opposed the invasion of Iraq.

 

TRUMP: A TRUE STORY

 

It was a mid-December morning in 2007 — the start of an interrogation unlike anything else in the public record of Trump’s life.

 

Trump had brought it on himself. He had sued a reporter, accusing him of being reckless and dishonest in a book that raised questions about Trump’s net worth. The reporter’s attorneys turned the tables and brought Trump in for a deposition.

 

For two straight days, they asked Trump question after question that touched on the same theme: Trump’s honesty.

 

The lawyers confronted the mogul with his past statements — and with his company’s internal documents, which often showed those statements had been incorrect or invented. The lawyers were relentless. Trump, the bigger-than-life mogul, was vulnerable — cornered, out-prepared and under oath.

 

Thirty times, they caught him.

 

Trump had misstated sales at his condo buildings. Inflated the price of membership at one of his golf clubs. Overstated the depth of his past debts and the number of his employees.

 

That deposition — 170 transcribed pages — offers extraordinary insights into Trump’s relationship with the truth. Trump’s falsehoods were unstrategic — needless, highly specific, easy to disprove. When caught, Trump sometimes blamed others for the error or explained that the untrue thing really was true, in his mind, because he saw the situation more positively than others did.

 

“Have you ever lied in public statements about your properties?” the lawyer asked.

 

“I try and be truthful,” Trump said. “I’m no different from a politician running for office. You always want to put the best foot forward.”

[kenrexford]

Yes. It is a man woman thing. Could you please? If the objection is to Hillary it must be a woman thing. If the objection is to Obama it must be a black thing. Trying to figure out why I think Ted Cruz was a nightmare. I must hate Christians. I think I must hate Jeb Bush because I hate Southerners.

 

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. This entire thread has been a microcosm of typical politics. We started out with an interesting discussion at least to me of globalism terrorism economics and the like. Out of apparent frustration with that the conversation has broken down into seeing who tells the most lies what type of lies that they tell who covers those lies what lies they tell when covering those lies and now getting into racism sexism and the like.

 

Ultimately truth be told I could care less about either one of their nonsense bluster or corruption. I merely find it funny the people with an ugly spouse like to point out how ugly other people's spouses are. I'd rather have the one who's freaky in bed then the one who sleeps with other guys.

[kenrexford]

Oh and that was a metaphor not a slam on Cruz's wife.