sorry kick, if there's a word for making a point by sarcastically refuting an even more hyperbolic version of the same point, i don't know it.

Tongue-in-cheek, dearest. You blink, you'll miss it. ;)

umm... both?

oh come on, trump hasn't been a russian asset since the 1980's.

Are you kidding here or have I just herein covered the long-coveted straw man fallacy space on my BINGO card?

Straw Man Fallacy

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person or persons' argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion they've created as if it is really the claim the other(s) are making.

But of course, you obviously know this... so you're kidding (?) or rather than that or a straw man fallacy, perhaps you've simply confused me and/or MtnCaddy with Yuri Shvets, a former major in the KGB, who actually has made that claim regarding Trump. It wasn't exactly top secret and was quite well known during the late 80s that the Russian government requested a meeting with Donald Trump.

I'm talking about building a large luxury hotel, across the street from the Kremlin, in partnership with the Soviet government. They have asked me to go to Moscow in July.

~ Donald Trump, Trump: The Art of the Deal, 1987

It was not long after Trump's invitation at the behest of the Soviet government and the Trump's trip to Moscow in July 1987 when he shortly thereafter published his infamous multiple full-page ads in September 1987 replete with Russian talking points including Trump's criticism of America's foreign policy and (gasp) America's former and current leadership of Saint Ronald of Reagan (genuflect). The full ad can be seen here.

Mere coincidence? The former Russian KGB major says "no":

Trump’s invitation to Moscow in 1987 was billed as a preliminary scouting trip for a hotel, but according to Shvets, was actually initiated by a high-level KGB official, General Ivan Gromakov. These sorts of trips were usually arranged for ‘deep development,’ recruitment, or for a meeting with the KGB handlers, even if the potential asset was unaware of it.

Before Trump’s first trip to Moscow, he met with Natalia Dubinina, who worked at the United Nations library in a vital position usually reserved as a cover for KGB operatives.

In 1987, according to Shvets, the KGB circulated an internal cable hailing the successful execution of an active measure by a newly cultivated American asset who took out full page ads in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe promoting policies promoted by the KGB. The ads had been taken out by Donald Trump, who, Shvets said, would become a “special unofficial contact” for the KGB, that is, an intelligence asset whose role has been compared to that of the late industrialist, Armand Hammer. A number of America’s highest national security officials have said they believe Trump is a Russian asset, but neither the Mueller Report nor the numerous congressional investigations throughout Trump’s presidency pursued that vital question.

~ Craig Unger, American Kompromat , 2021

Anyone who thinks that Trump never got a break from the media is ignoring that Trump has been playing the New York douchebag character for decades in the media. He campaigned and then governed as a NYDB. So why did Trump ever deserve a break from the media?

Exactly. The Douchebag's name is John Barron. He's a con and grifter from way back:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2018/04/20/lead-marquardt-john-barron-donald-trump-forbes-dnt.cnn

You do know that it was a Republican oppo research outfit that first commissioned Steele to find Trump dirt, right?

Yes, sir, Stucki has definitely been informed of the facts regarding the Washington Free Beacon and the origins of the dossier, etc. and that Mueller, Comey and FBI company don't remotely meet the definition of Democrats (and far from it), but his initials do not fail in the least to suit him perfectly: Can't Remember Shit.

Tune in next week when Stucki declares 1/6/21 was an unarmed and unharmful peaceful protest. Spoiler alert: There were several insurrectionists who were absolutely armed, and anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant of the facts or is a lying fool... or both. Hint: Those insurrectionists in combat gear marching up the steps in single file in matching outfits and those carrying the matching megaphones weren't exactly there to peacefully protest... far from it.

That was for Stucki. Of course, I know you know this. :)

Oh yes, now I actually DO remember at least one of "those other things", like for instance Russiagate.

Yes, of course, we know you do; your response falls in the infinitely predictable category for troll types.

You by any chance been following that particular thing the last 2 - 2 yrs? If so, did you manage to get Glen Greenwald's or Matt Taibbi's take on it (two of your own guys), or maybe the "Rising" crew, or Saagar Enjetti, or Krystal Ball's ultimate analysis on it?

"Two of your own guys"... *laughs* Incorrect. Glenn Greenwald is a narcissist hypocrite owned by big tech... he's also a lawyer and not remotely an ethical journalist. Glenn can currently be located in his Rupert Murdoch right wing nut Tucker Carlson phase... whatever gets him noticed and monetized is where he fixates and bloviates... where he moves with ease and attempts to be all things to all types because (very much like Donald Trump) he's a grifter/drifter with no discernable core values other than his love of fame and money. The remainder of them aren't worth wasting my time explaining to you... any way the wind blows, just to be succinct about it.

Of course not, I'm betting you dropped it like the proverbial Idaho hot potato when the truth came out, right?

Thanks for that redundant exercise in confirming you still haven't read the facts contained in the Mueller and Senate reports. It's no doubt too late in your life to suggest you educate yourself regarding the myriad of things you seem to believe you know but for which you fail miserably in practice and print, but it's never too late to instruct you to avoid gambling with your demonstrably lousy intellect... you'd "lose your shirt" along with your mind that's demonstrably long since been effaced and erased. :)

Democrats couldn't make this stuff up so don't blame them.

Not sure what you mean. I consider Trump a moronic world-class asshole, not to mention, an abhorrent human being.

That doesn't legitimize the whole Dem attempt to discredit him with lies and false accusations, Steele dossier, etc.

The dip-shit does plenty to discredit himself, without the Dems fabricating falsehoods about him.

Perhaps a major blow to any remaining notions of polling infallibility. But the polling industry is far too valuable to every entity (political, business, whatever) in America that cares about people's opinions to be in any real danger.

Exactly. The decisions of our lives are carried out in a finite amount of space and time, the majority of people are infinitely impressionable and highly predictable, and opinion polling is a valuable science. Algorithms... cha ching.

Missed ya, Gurl. I always enjoy your eviscerations of Delusional Don.

You mean the Russiagate where Trump wouldn't let anyone testify and was cited for ten different indictable instances of misconduct? The one where Bob Mueller said, "If we could exonerate Trump, we would do so?"

Oh yes, now I actually DO remember at least one of "those other things", like for instance Russiagate.

You by any chance been following that particular thing the last 2 - 2 yrs? If so, did you manage to get Glen Greenwald's or Matt Taibbi's take on it (two of your own guys), or maybe the "Rising" crew, or Saagar Enjetti, or Krystal Ball's ultimate analysis on it?

Of course not, I'm betting you dropped it like the proverbial Idaho hot potato when the truth came out, right?

Perhaps a major blow to any remaining notions of polling infallibility. But the polling industry is far too valuable to every entity (political, business, whatever) in America that cares about people's opinions to be in any real danger.

Thank you for the tune on 7/11... lyrics incorporating Einstein's special relativity in a song written by an astrophysics dropout who became a rock star but eventually did earn his PhD in astrophysics approximately three decades later: Dr. Brian May.

I also liked the tune on 7/18, but it's getting kind of repetitious (just kidding) since you already played it around Labor Day 2020, but who remembers details like that? I do. Which reminds me you've played Dancing in the Streets more than a person can count on one hand... but I love that one myself too! :)

Also, I hope you don't think I did not notice the Queen tunes you played on September 12 and how you played one of them twice in a span of 3 comments. Are you testing to see who's paying attention?

Lastly, I definitely enjoyed:

Leonard Cohen: Tower of Song

https://itunes.apple.com/ca/movie/leonard-cohen-tower-of-song/id1343544766

Not on YouTube (to date, so far)... but definitely on iTunes. So awesome.

I am never not here. :)

One reason polls in recent elections have not been accurate is some citizens are not paying as much attention to the polls.

Not paying attention to polling makes it somehow inaccurate!? You really seem to have no idea whatsoever how utterly asinine your constant BS appears to people with functioning critical reasoning skills.

The majority of the polls are designed to manipulate public opinion, not find out what it is.

Incorrect. In fact, the majority is internal polling that goes unpublished, and I can assure you that people pay attention to it.

Bernie and Trump inspired many citizens to ignore polls and vote based on what they thought they were getting.

You should divest yourself of the ridiculous notion that you understand the thoughts of voting citizens when you demonstrably and quite obviously have very little clue whatsoever in the "what people think" department.

Many also began to not pay as much attention to the media so that articles like the one above are not fooling as many people as they used to.

Then by your own definition, you've spent years and years wasting your time stalking this author to shill for your failed attempt at political activism. No, seriously. Isn't it you who has repetitively shit on the reputation of the author that you believe has a responsibility and whom you expect to bring your message to the public? If you knew how voters actually do think, then you'd be infinitely aware how ignorant it would be to repetitively do that.

Why on Earth would anyone believe anything positive that the author might have to say about you and your political claptrap when you've disparaged near every word he's written herein?

They won't. That reeking stench you keep smelling is coming from your end because it's you who have spent multiple years defecating in the lake in which you're trolling for fish. You are the living embodiment of the ignorant moron who's pissing on his own message... by pissing on the messenger.

How effing stupid is that? <--- Rhetorical question.

Also, nothing in your piss-ant puny political contribution purity test changes the fact that politicians' salaries are paid 100% by taxpayers, and there is absolutely and unequivocally no politician who is paid less than $200 by taxpayers... regardless the amount of political contributions he/she accepts from taxpayers, they're accepting thousands and thousands of dollars in salary from same taxpayers. So by your pathetic definition, they're already bought and paid for by "Big Money" taxpayers.

So to recap: You've repeatedly taken aim and shot your chosen messenger, you shortsighted effing benighted imbecile.

but what the hell, if it were to be done away with, what would you guys have to talk about between elections?

All the other subjects on the blog you've been reading for multiple years that has nothing whatsoever to do with polling. If you have any more totally asinine queries, fire away. Also, don't listen to those who claim there is no such thing as a stupid question. :)

We just need to realize that we need to listen to Don Qui, he is a political visionary.