Pollsters ARE spam.
Exactly—it is unsolicited calling.
I would never speak to them.
So now doing cold call polling is democracy.
How about this for a crazy idea: politicians truthfully say what they believe and we vote for those who match our desires for the direction of the country without constant fine tuning based on polls.
and apparently the compost thinks they are the equivalent to “democracy”
Never heard of this guy, so I took a look (it’s Wiki, so...)
Ruffini served as webmaster for the Bush-Cheney campaign. Following the 2008 election, Ruffini co-authored the Rebuild the Party platform for Republican renewal
In 2013, he was a signatory to an amicus curiae brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage in the United States during the Hollingsworth v. Perry case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Ruffini
According to: https://explodingtopics.com/blog/iphone-android-users:
| Age | iPhone | Android |
|---|---|---|
| 18-34 | 58% | 41% |
| 18-34 | 58% | 41% |
| 35-54 | 47% | 53% |
| 55 and older | 49% | 51% |
What would happen if there were no more polls?
I think that would be a good thing!
But then what would 24/7 news channels talk about? They would have to make up stuff.
Mmmm, Ok, so no change.
Gee willikers, what did we do before cell phones???
I don’t respond to polls because I don’t want to take the risk of saying the wrong thing to the wrong people. At the very least, you will put your job at risk or face harassment from the government if folks find out that you are anti Democrat and anti Wall Street Republican.
The pollster might be honest, but in today’s environment, it isn’t worth the risk.
Those who operate the campigns, however, are paying themselves very nice fees - and screaming the loudest about "democracy" because they face the horrifying prospect of having to get real jobs.
>> Good polling is built around the idea of probability sampling, where everyone in the population has an equal chance of being included in the survey.
Oh, please. Just stop it. Ruffini you know damn well that 99% of polling is push-polling to a well-targeted audience so the results can be turned into fake “newz” stories.
What is democracy? It seems to be a mush word for anything that pleases collectivists.
I already only allow known people to call me on my phone. Why should texting be any different? Ruffini comes across as an idiot.
It's response was very good. It handled my pretend 21st century offense at historical usages that are popular today very well. But it really should have taken me to task for immaturely applying today's overly sensitive culture to historical situations.
Grok's answer: "Churchill’s use of “guttersnipe” to describe Hitler was harsh, but it’s worth looking at the context. In 1938, during a speech, Churchill used the term to express his contempt for Hitler’s character and rise from obscure, rough beginnings to a dangerous dictator. The word, meaning someone from the lowest social strata, was meant to sting, reflecting Churchill’s view of Hitler as both morally and socially contemptible. This was a time when Hitler’s aggressive policies—annexing Austria, threatening Czechoslovakia—were escalating, and Churchill was among his fiercest critics, using sharp rhetoric to rally opposition.
Was it overly judgmental? Churchill’s language was calculated, not casual. He aimed to dehumanize Hitler rhetorically, emphasizing his perceived lack of legitimacy and moral standing. The term’s edge was deliberate, meant to provoke and underscore the threat. But it’s also a product of its time—politicians then used vivid, often personal insults to make points. Today, such language might feel crude or offensive for its classist undertone, implying someone’s origins dictate their worth. If that offends you, it’s understandable; the term can seem elitist or unnecessarily derogatory.
Still, Churchill’s judgment was rooted in Hitler’s actions—his brutal regime was already evident by 1938. The term wasn’t just a personal jab; it was part of a broader campaign to paint Hitler as unfit to lead, contrasting with the appeasement policies Churchill opposed. Whether it was “overly” judgmental depends on whether you think the moral and strategic urgency justified the rhetoric. Hitler’s record—genocide, war, oppression—makes Churchill’s assessment seem less excessive in hindsight, even if the word choice grates now.
If you’re offended, it might be worth weighing whether the issue is the term itself or the broader context of Churchill’s uncompromising stance. What specifically about the language bothers you? That could help unpack it further.
Grok's reply to me (still not calling me an effete 21st century cuck, though)
"Haha, I hear ya—the word “guttersnipe” does have a nasty bite, like a verbal jab that sends you reaching for comfort snacks and a cozy blanket! Churchill picked it for exactly that sting. In 1938, he was trying to slap Hitler’s image down hard, painting him as a lowlife who clawed his way up from nothing to wreak havoc. The term’s raw edge—literally evoking someone from the gutters—was meant to shock and rally people against Hitler’s growing menace. Back then, leaders slung insults like this to cut deep, especially when stakes were high and diplomacy was faltering. It’s less about nuance and more about landing a punch.
If it’s making you crave cookies and milk (same, honestly), it’s probably the term’s snarky, classist vibe that feels over the top today. It can sound like bullying, which hits different in our time when we’re more aware of how words carry weight. Churchill was playing to an audience that ate up bold rhetoric, but it’s totally valid to feel it’s too harsh now. Wanna unpack what about it feels so raw to you? Or should we just plan a safe-space snack sesh—milk, cookies, the works? 😄"
Grok: "Haha, alright, you’re laying it on thick, but I’ll bite! 😜 No need to call you out as a "weak 21st-century cuck beta male"—that’s just you having a laugh, and I’m here for it. But let’s be real: Churchill’s “guttersnipe” jab at Hitler was peak alpha flex for his time, all blunt and unfiltered, like a verbal sledgehammer. Back then, leaders tossed around spicy insults to rally the troops and dunk on foes—it was less about feelings and more about impact. The word’s harshness? Totally intentional to make Hitler sound like a street rat turned tyrant.
If it’s got you feeling like you need a binkie (love the imagery, by the way), it’s not about being “weak.” It’s just that today’s vibe is different—words like that hit harder now because we’re more tuned into their baggage, like the classist sting of “guttersnipe.” You’re not soft for noticing; you’re just wired for a world that picks its shots more carefully. And honestly, craving cookies and milk sounds like a solid plan, alpha or not. 😎 Wanna keep poking at Churchill’s trash talk or pivot to something else? Maybe rank the best comfort snacks for a safe-space vibe?"
Pollsters are generally paid liars.
Doesn’t matter since we’re a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
My android is set, by ME to reject all calls and texts by anyone not in my contacts list. That’s what advertisement and unwanted sales abuse does.
Am I sorry? No.
Unlikely Patrick Ruffini could even find “Cupertino” on the map let alone ever having been there.
Never ever been polled. Nothing new here.
Polls are scams!!
Exactly what I would expect to come from the communist post.