Poll: Majority of Republicans believe Trump is President right now

[Tenshot13]

DeSantis 2024

[Dolphster]

With a straight face, can you say the same about Hillary? Most of the right including me can't

Of course I can't.  Hillary was (and most likely still is) an asshole.  If she was the president (shudder) I would give her the appropriate respect that her position dictates, but only because as I mentioned earlier, I believe in "salute the position, not the person".    Interestingly enough, she lost to Trump for pretty much the same reason that Trump lost to Biden.  She was thoroughly unlikable and unlike most politicians, she isn't even capable of faking being likable. 

[Spider-Dan]

Random whackjobs on twitter? I could be wrong, but I don't recall anyone here saying they thought Trump was still POTUS.

First off, I never said "random whackjobs."  There are lots of random non-whackjobs on Twitter (and elsewhere).
Second, I didn't claim anyone here thought Trump was the president right now; I cited a poll that indicated 53% of Republicans believe that to be the case.

I mean, if you want, I can play that game too and say Over half of adults ages 18-30 saw Trump's presidency as illegitimate.

If you want to criticize adults ages 18-30, be my guest.
The poll I cited indicated the beliefs of Republicans, so that's who I'm going to criticize.

I'm waiting for you to proclaim Sunstroke, Rep. John Lewis, and over half of all adults aged 18-30 in the US as random conspiracy nutjobs.

Let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples, here.

The poll I cited did not ask Republicans if Joe Biden is "not my President."  (Because if it did, that number would be astronomically higher than 53%.)  The poll asked who the true President of the United States is right now.  If you have evidence that Sunstroke, John Lewis, or someone else said in mid-2017 that Hillary Clinton is the true President of the United States right now, I encourage you to cite it.  Otherwise, your comparison is invalid.

You're going back 8 years to quote me out of context on a topic that has nothing to do with the current topic, LMFAO.

This is not the first time you have complained about me citing a statement that is too old, which is a bizarre objection to make.  (And your citation of a favorable poll is extremely relevant to a discussion of the legitimacy of polling sample sizes.)

You can cite any statement I have ever made and I will either stand behind it, admit I was wrong and disavow it, or say I have changed my mind.  But what I WON'T do is object that I said it too long ago.  That's an extremely dumb excuse.

I know being a conservative requires one to ignore and/or discard history, but you're not supposed to be this blatant about it.

[ArtieChokePhin]

DeSantis 2024

I third that.

[pondwater]

First off, I never said "random whackjobs."  There are lots of random non-whackjobs on Twitter (and elsewhere).
Second, I didn't claim anyone here thought Trump was the president right now; I cited a poll that indicated 53% of Republicans believe that to be the case.
If you want to criticize adults ages 18-30, be my guest.
The poll I cited indicated the beliefs of Republicans, so that's who I'm going to criticize.
Let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples, here.

The poll I cited did not ask Republicans if Joe Biden is "not my President."  (Because if it did, that number would be astronomically higher than 53%.)  The poll asked who the true President of the United States is right now.  If you have evidence that Sunstroke, John Lewis, or someone else said in mid-2017 that Hillary Clinton is the true President of the United States right now, I encourage you to cite it.  Otherwise, your comparison is invalid.
This is not the first time you have complained about me citing a statement that is too old, which is a bizarre objection to make.  (And your citation of a favorable poll is extremely relevant to a discussion of the legitimacy of polling sample sizes.)

Ummm, ok. Lets try this a different way.

Do you believe that 53% of all Republicans in the country believe that Trump is the sitting POTUS?

You can cite any statement I have ever made and I will either stand behind it, admit I was wrong and disavow it, or say I have changed my mind.  But what I WON'T do is object that I said it too long ago.  That's an extremely dumb excuse.

I know being a conservative requires one to ignore and/or discard history, but you're not supposed to be this blatant about it.

So do you stand behind this quote, admit you are wrong, or changed your mind?

Placing an unnecessary burden on the ability to exercise your rights (for example: your right to vote, as mentioned in several cited amendments) is itself unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.

You may place an extra burden on the ability to exercise a right if that burden is judged to be necessary, but given that the rate of charged (again, not convicted, merely charged) cases of in-person voter fraud is significantly less than 0.00001%, requiring photo ID to vote does not meet the bar of a necessary burden.

[Spider-Dan]

Do you believe that 53% of all Republicans in the country believe that Trump is the sitting POTUS?

Sounds reasonable to me.  And if we're talking about Republicans that vote (i.e. those that pay attention and care about politics), I think the number is probably even higher.

So do you stand behind this quote, admit you are wrong, or changed your mind?

I absolutely stand behind that quote.

Placing an unnecessary burden on the ability to exercise your rights is indeed unconstitutional, and while SCOTUS has ruled that voter ID is not an unnecessary burden, I think that case was wrongly decided (which is not to say that it's not a legally binding outcome).  Casey Anthony was found Not Guilty, blah blah... the judicial system isn't perfect.

Now, your turn:

Do you think polling is valid without polling literally every person of the indicated class, or not?

[pondwater]

Sounds reasonable to me.  And if we're talking about Republicans that vote (i.e. those that pay attention and care about politics), I think the number is probably even higher.

You're just talking out your ass again, you have no proof of that claim.

I absolutely stand behind that quote.

Placing an unnecessary burden on the ability to exercise your rights is indeed unconstitutional, and while SCOTUS has ruled that voter ID is not an unnecessary burden, I think that case was wrongly decided (which is not to say that it's not a legally binding outcome).  Casey Anthony was found Not Guilty, blah blah... the judicial system isn't perfect.

And then we have this here. If you can go back 8 years. I can go back 10 years. Straight from the horse's mouth.

If the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, the Constitution says that they are right. If you disagree, you are wrong. That's literally the way it works.

So which is it? According that post if you disagree with the SCOTUS, you are wrong. You disagree with SCOTUS voter ID ruling as constitutional, therefore by your own standards you are wrong.

Otherwise, if you still stand by your opinion on voter ID and claim that you are not wrong. Then your post from 10 years ago is wrong. Either way one of you two post are wrong since they contradict each other.

Now I'll ask again. Are you wrong Spider?

Now, your turn:

Do you think polling is valid without polling literally every person of the indicated class, or not?

A poll only valid if it's accurate. I dispute the accuracy of that poll.

[pondwater]

I third that.

I fourth that

[Spider-Dan]

You're just talking out your ass again, you have no proof of that claim.

You asked me what I believe.
We are looking at a poll that says 53% of Republicans believe Trump is president right now, but you reject it with no proof to the contrary.

So which is it? According that post if you disagree with the SCOTUS, you are wrong. You disagree with SCOTUS voter ID ruling as constitutional, therefore by your own standards you are wrong.

To clarify this point: voter ID has been judged to be a necessary barrier and is therefore currently constitutional.  This is why, in my post from last week, I separated "unnecessary burdens are unconstitutional" and "voter ID is an unnecessary burden" instead of just saying "voter ID is unconstitutional"; if SCOTUS rules that it's not an unnecessary burden, then it's constitutional.  I was arguing what the interpretation of law should be, not what the interpretation of law currently is, as obviously voter ID laws currently exist on the books and have for many years.

We could play the same game with assault weapon bans, which are currently constitutional as per SCOTUS.

A poll only valid if it's accurate. I dispute the accuracy of that poll.

Why... because it didn't poll literally every Republican in America?
Because that was your original objection.

[pondwater]

You asked me what I believe.
We are looking at a poll that says 53% of Republicans believe Trump is president right now, but you reject it with no proof to the contrary.

The onus is on you to prove the claim, not me to provide proof to the contrary. Furthermore, the only actual proof would be to accurately identify the specific percentage you are claiming out of 1) All Republicans or 2) a small sample of Republicans. Those are two different things.
 

To clarify this point: voter ID has been judged to be a necessary barrier and is therefore currently constitutional.  This is why, in my post from last week, I separated "unnecessary burdens are unconstitutional" and "voter ID is an unnecessary burden" instead of just saying "voter ID is unconstitutional"; if SCOTUS rules that it's not an unnecessary burden, then it's constitutional.  I was arguing what the interpretation of law should be, not what the interpretation of law currently is, as obviously voter ID laws currently exist on the books and have for many years.

What kind of silly used car salesman double talk shit is that?

If you're arguing what the interpretation of the law should be, you're saying that you think that the current interpretation is wrong. Therefore you disagree with the current SCOTUS interpretation of the law. And according to you, when it comes SCOTUS rullings, "If you disagree, you are wrong"

Therefore Spider, by your own definition, you are wrong.

We could play the same game with assault weapon bans, which are currently constitutional as per SCOTUS.

I'm not familiar with that ruling. I didn't think they've taken up a case regarding "Assault Weapons". Please provide link

Why... because it didn't poll literally every Republican in America?
Because that was your original objection.

Are you implying that every poll is accurate and correct and that you agree with them?

[Spider-Dan]

The onus is on you to prove the claim, not me to provide proof to the contrary.

Didn't seem to be the case when you claimed that 53% poll was inaccurate!

If you're arguing what the interpretation of the law should be, you're saying that you think that the current interpretation is wrong. Therefore you disagree with the current SCOTUS interpretation of the law. And according to you, when it comes SCOTUS rullings, "If you disagree, you are wrong"

You have half of the quote.  I said that if SCOTUS says something is constitutional and you disagree, you are wrong.  I agree that voter ID laws have been ruled as constitutional, but SCOTUS has ruled that they are not an unnecessary burden, which I think is wrong.

Again, this was specifically why I separated "unnecessary burdens are unconstitutional" and "voter ID is an unnecessary burden" instead of just saying "voter ID is unconstitutional."  The difference matters.

I'm not familiar with that ruling. I didn't think they've taken up a case regarding "Assault Weapons". Please provide link

US vs. Miller (1939), in upholding the National Firearms Act, stated that only firearms with "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" were protected by the 2nd Amendment, while DC vs. Heller (2008) stated, "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."

If you can forbid the carrying of firearms (including assault weapons) in "sensitive places," and you may impose conditions on the commercial sale of arms, that sounds to me like the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall very much be infringed.

Are you implying that every poll is accurate and correct and that you agree with them?

As you like to say, don't answer a question with a question.
Why did you claim the 53% poll was "inaccurate"?  You originally claimed it was because they didn't poll every Republican.

[pondwater]

Didn't seem to be the case when you claimed that 53% poll was inaccurate!

The poll is inaccurate regarding your claims . The poll may be accurate regarding a small sample of Republicans. However, you need to provide proof that your claim  applies to all Republicans.

The polls about the 2016 election were much more extensive and basically said that it was almost impossible for Trump to win. Obviously, the polls were wrong? Polls are only valid if they eventually prove to be true. Otherwise they are wrong, just like you are most of the time. I'll be waiting for your proof that a majority of all Republicans believe that Trump is sitting POTUS.

You have half of the quote.  I said that if SCOTUS says something is constitutional and you disagree, you are wrong.  I agree that voter ID laws have been ruled as constitutional, but SCOTUS has ruled that they are not an unnecessary burden, which I think is wrong.

According to you, the burden and constitutional part are tied at the hip. Therefore, since you believe that "voter ID is an unnecessary burden" and "unnecessary burdens are unconstitutional". You're saying that voter ID is unconstitutional. You can't have it both ways.

Again, this was specifically why I separated "unnecessary burdens are unconstitutional" and "voter ID is an unnecessary burden" instead of just saying "voter ID is unconstitutional."  The difference matters.

There is no difference, you just play childish word games and talk stupid shit out of both sides of your mouth. If voter ID = unnecessary burden and unnecessary burden = unconstitutional. Then common sense would tell you that voter ID is unconstitutional. Your high estrogen levels and lack of character and integrity just won't let you admit you're wrong according to the standards you judge other people by.

US vs. Miller (1939), in upholding the National Firearms Act, stated that only firearms with "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" were protected by the 2nd Amendment, while DC vs. Heller (2008) stated, "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."

If you can forbid the carrying of firearms (including assault weapons) in "sensitive places," and you may impose conditions on the commercial sale of arms, that sounds to me like the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall very much be infringed.

You're wrong again, none of that is relevant. The SCOTUS has never taken up "assault weapon" bans. I'm glad you cited the Heller case though. The Supreme Court clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The The Heller test is straightforward: Is the firearm commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes? Sorry, but the answer is yes for "assault weapons"/semi automatic rifles. I highlighted the relevant parts below for you to better comprehend.

Courts differ on whether assault weapons bans are constitutional. That's because the Supreme Court has never actually heard a case testing their constitutionality.

The main guidance for lower courts comes from District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark 2008 decision permitting private citizens to keep handguns in the home. The Heller test is straightforward: Is the firearm commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes?

"If the lower courts were following Heller directly ... that would be the end of the case," said David Kopel, a constitutional law professor at Denver University Sturm College of Law, and adjunct scholar at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.

The judge was trying to demonstrate how ordinary the AR-15 is because when a weapon is in common use, it's protected by the Second Amendment, said Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston who is also an adjunct scholar at Cato.

"I think the case for protecting the AR-15 is greater than the case for protecting the handgun," Blackman said. "The Second Amendment has a couple touchstones: One is self-defense. The other one is protection from the government itself. This is the weapon."

As you like to say, don't answer a question with a question.
Why did you claim the 53% poll was "inaccurate"?  You originally claimed it was because they didn't poll every Republican.

Because you can't attribute answers of a small random group to everyone. Your claim is different from what the poll actually proves.

[Tenshot13]

I don't know if it's been mentioned but:

For this survey, a sample of 2,007 adults age 18+ from the continental U.S., Alaska,
and Hawaii was interviewed online in English. The sample includes 909 Democrats, 754 Republicans,
and 196 Independents.

So this survey of 2,007 people is supposed to be the sample for a population of 133 million registered voters.  I'm not so sure the sample size is large enough to truly represent what the study is claiming.

[pondwater]

I don't know if it's been mentioned but:

For this survey, a sample of 2,007 adults age 18+ from the continental U.S., Alaska,
and Hawaii was interviewed online in English. The sample includes 909 Democrats, 754 Republicans,
and 196 Independents.

So this survey of 2,007 people is supposed to be the sample for a population of 133 million registered voters.  I'm not so sure the sample size is large enough to truly represent what the study is claiming.

I read all that. And actually, wouldn't the sample size only be 754 since they were only claiming "Republicans believe Trump is President right now"? So Spider is claiming that the opinion of 754 people represent all Republicans. Just more extremist liberal propaganda and ridiculous claims from a self proclaimed "radical leftist". The radicals are the ones who cause most of the problems in the world trying to force their nonsense down other peoples throats.

I personally consider myself a radical leftist (and I imagine Fau considers himself one as well), so I'm quite aware that my "ridiculous claims" do not represent mainstream liberalism. 

[Spider-Dan]

The poll is inaccurate regarding your claims . The poll may be accurate regarding a small sample of Republicans. However, you need to provide proof that your claim  applies to all Republicans.

Again, you didn't seem to have that problem when you cited a poll that said that Obamacare disapproval was spiking.  In fact, the number of respondents to the poll you cited was 1,006: barely half of the 2,007 respondents in the poll I cited in the OP.  But you didn't care about the number of respondents then, because you agreed with the poll's conclusions!

The polls about the 2016 election were much more extensive and basically said that it was almost impossible for Trump to win. Obviously, the polls were wrong?

I love how every time conservatives tell this story, Trump's 2016 odds get worse.  Everyone said he had zero chance to win!  The day of the election, 538 gave Trump a 28.6% chance of winning, which is "almost impossible" if you're really bad at math.

Furthermore, the 2020 polls that said that Trump was going to lose were... right.  Same with the 2012 polls that said Romney was going to lose.  

If voter ID = unnecessary burden and unnecessary burden = unconstitutional. Then common sense would tell you that voter ID is unconstitutional.

I think we both are quite aware that voter ID laws exist and are currently in place.  But unconstitutional laws are illegal and not in place.  So either you believe that I was claiming that voter ID laws don't exist because they're unconstitutional, or I was making some other argument.  I've tried to explain what that other argument is, but apparently you reject that idea.  Fine.

But let's talk about what I'm NOT doing: I'm NOT saying, "This quote is from too many years ago, therefore it shouldn't count."
Which is what you like to do.

The Heller test is straightforward: Is the firearm commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes? Sorry, but the answer is yes for "assault weapons"/semi automatic rifles. I highlighted the relevant parts below for you to better comprehend.

As I mentioned: Heller specifically says that the government may restrict the carrying of firearms in "sensitive" areas and regulate their commerce.  That doesn't sound like "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" to me.

On a side note, anyone who claims that the 2nd Amendment is intended to facilitate protection from the government is a nutjob.  There is no basis in law for that claim, and anyone who tries to exercise that "right" will be arrested and/or killed.  That's neo-confederate wishful thinking and nothing more.