Poll: Majority of Republicans believe Trump is President right now

[Spider-Dan]

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.

In all the political discussions that have taken place on this forum, and all the polling that has been cited, I can't remember another time when someone said, "I don't know if this poll had enough respondents for my liking."

I mean, if you honestly believe that 2000 people is not enough for a viable poll, then fine... but this is a weird time to unearth that objection.  The timing makes it seem like a way to avoid a conclusion one finds distasteful.

[Dolphster]

God damn, will you and Pondwater just get a room already.  lol

[Tenshot13]

In all the political discussions that have taken place on this forum, and all the polling that has been cited, I can't remember another time when someone said, "I don't know if this poll had enough respondents for my liking."

I mean, if you honestly believe that 2000 people is not enough for a viable poll, then fine... but this is a weird time to unearth that objection.  The timing makes it seem like a way to avoid a conclusion one finds distasteful.

I think most polls are bullshit anyway.

[pondwater]

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!

I posted that poll to highlight the fact that the Democrats MAY have problems in the next elections. I never said that everyone disapproved of Obamacare. Which is what you're doing with this poll.

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.

All of which proves that polls aren't consistently reliable in their conclusions. Might as well flip a coin. Also, only 754 of the people in your poll were Republicans. The opinions of the rest of the respondents don't apply. And I'm bad at math, Jesus Christ, fucking hilarious.....

[pondwater]

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.

Quit playing word games, you're making yourself look silly. We can fix this real easy with 2 simple yes or no questions:

Do you think that voter ID is a burden?
Do you disagree with SCOTUS decision on voter ID?

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.

Please quote me where I ever said that? You're wrong again. I was highlighting the fact about how a desperate insecure self proclaimed "radical leftist" spends his time scrolling through 8 years of someone's posts to avoid being wrong. That's sad.

[Spider-Dan]

Do you think that voter ID is a burden?
Do you disagree with SCOTUS decision on voter ID?

1) Yes.
2) Whether it's a burden?  Yes.
Whether it's constitutional?  No, because SCOTUS is the arbiter of what is constitutional.

Please quote me where I ever said that? You're wrong again. I was highlighting the fact about how a desperate insecure self proclaimed "radical leftist" spends his time scrolling through 8 years of someone's posts to avoid being wrong.

So you were pointing out that you don't how search functions work, and you think I have to scroll through 8 years of posts (which would take a long time!) to find a previous quote.  That clarifies things!

I also find it pretty hilarious that you're accusing me of being desperately insecure... while citing posts from a discussion that you Totally Didn't Participate In under one of your multiple prior accounts that were banned.  No, that was someone else.

I posted that poll to highlight the fact that the Democrats MAY have problems in the next elections. I never said that everyone disapproved of Obamacare. Which is what you're doing with this poll.

I never used the word "everyone," or even "all Republicans."  It might be implied... but no less so then when you implied Democrats might have a problem among all voters in the upcoming election, based on a poll of 1,006 people.

All of which proves that polls aren't consistently reliable in their conclusions. Might as well flip a coin.

This would have been useful insight when you were citing polls about Obamacare disapproval!

Also, only 754 of the people in your poll were Republicans. The opinions of the rest of the respondents don't apply. And I'm bad at math, Jesus Christ, fucking hilarious.....

And of those 754 Republicans, 53% said that Trump is the true President of the United States right now.

Please tell me that you are not trying to claim that 1006 people give you a totally valid result worth citing as evidence, while 754 people give you a meaningless result that must be ignored.

[pondwater]

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.

We're talking about "assault weapons". NOT carrying of firearms in "sensitive" areas and regulating their commerce. Your post is invalid.

On a side note, anyone who claims that the 2nd Amendment is intended to facilitate protection from the government is a nutjob.

Nutjob? He's a constitutional law professor. And who the hell are you? Oh yeah, you're a self proclaimed "radical leftist".

 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.

Yeah, who would need protection from a government? Maybe ask the all citizens killed by Germany, Cambodia, Russia, Armenia, and other countless governments around the world. More people have been killed in the 20th century by their own governments than by all in the wars combined within the same time frame.

Also, isn't that what happened when we split from England? How many were killed and/or arrested in that war? But yet we're still here in the greatest country in the world afforded the right to sit here and argue about it on the internet due to those "nutjobs".

[Spider-Dan]

We're talking about "assault weapons". NOT carrying of firearms in "sensitive" areas and regulating their commerce. Your post is invalid.

"Assault weapons" are still firearms, and therefore subject to all the infringements I listed.

Nutjob? He's a constitutional law professor. And who the hell are you? Oh yeah, you're a self proclaimed "radical leftist".

I'm sure there were many well-educated Confederates.  They were still nutjobs.

Yeah, who would need protection from a government? Maybe ask the all citizens killed by Germany, Cambodia, Russia, Armenia, and other countless governments around the world.

No government - including ours - includes a legal provision explicitly intended to facilitate insurrection.  That's ridiculous.

Let's see if any of the people who tried to overthrow the government on 1/6 can successfully invoke the 2nd Amendment in arguing that the founding fathers gave them the right to depose tyrants.

Also, isn't that what happened when we split from England? How many were killed and/or arrested in that war? But yet we're still here in the greatest country in the world afforded the right to sit here and argue about it on the internet due to those "nutjobs".

I'm surprised that I have to tell you this, but the American Revolution was illegal under British law.  Now, that doesn't matter if you win, but it certainly does matter if you lose... as the Confederates found out.  They tried using the same appeal to 1776 that you are, but since they lost their war, it didn't work out for them.

[Phishfan]

I think most polls are bullshit anyway.

I'm a fan of the stripper pole.

[pondwater]

1) Yes.
2) Whether it's a burden?  Yes.
Whether it's constitutional?  No, because SCOTUS is the arbiter of what is constitutional.

Ok, you think it's a burden? Well, according to your earlier post. If something is a burden it --------->is itself unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. Those are your words, own them.

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.

I don't even think you even believe half the silly shit you say. You just want your participation trophy 🙄🙄🤔🤔🤣🤣

So you were pointing out that you don't how search functions work, and you think I have to scroll through 8 years of posts (which would take a long time!) to find a previous quote.  That clarifies things!

I also find it pretty hilarious that you're accusing me of being desperately insecure... while citing posts from a discussion that you Totally Didn't Participate In under one of your multiple prior accounts that were banned.  No, that was someone else.[/i]

INVALID NONSENSE!

I never used the word "everyone," or even "all Republicans."  It might be implied... but no less so then when you implied Democrats might have a problem among all voters in the upcoming election, based on a poll of 1,006 people.

The Democrats did have a problem in the election. In hindsight, I was right.

This would have been useful insight when you were citing polls about Obamacare disapproval!

My poll backed up my claim. Let me know when your poll provides conclusive evidence of your claim that over half of all Republicans in the country believe that Trump is the sitting POTUS?

And of those 754 Republicans, 53% said that Trump is the true President of the United States right now.

Please tell me that you are not trying to claim that 1006 people give you a totally valid result worth citing as evidence, while 754 people give you a meaningless result that must be ignored.

Again, my opinion was proven correct. I suggested that some politicians might have a hard time in the elections. You're categorizing millions of citizens over the opinion of 400 people. Or maybe it's just because you disagree with their politics?

[Spider-Dan]

I think most polls are bullshit anyway.

Just to show I'm not picking on pondwater: you did cite a poll on Reagan's presidential ranking, and another poll on Obama's approval rating.

[Phishfan]

Let's be honest here Pond, if you think you can compare what would happen during an insurrection now with the Revolutionary War you are mistaken. Just ask the people involved in Ruby Ridge and Waco how much chance they stood. This is coming from someone who used to think they had a shot too. The federal government is even taking it easy in those instances.

[Spider-Dan]

The Democrats did have a problem in the election. In hindsight, I was right.
[...]
My poll backed up my claim.

Sorry, not even close.

The poll was about Obamacare disapproval, NOT Democratic election prospects.  (The equivalent would be if I said, "53% of Republicans think Trump is the current president, therefore I think Democrats will do well in 2022.")

You may have noticed that in the time since that poll was taken, Republicans gained control of all three branches... and failed to repeal Obamacare, which is still the law of the land today.

So objectively, according to results, your cited poll was wrong (by your standards).

[pondwater]

"Assault weapons" are still firearms, and therefore subject to all the infringements I listed.

Does that mean you think that requiring ID to buy a firearm is a burden? Are you concerned about all those poor minorities who don't have access to get ID to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. Minorities are disproportionately affected. I'll be waiting for your support in favor of a reversal in that law.
 

I'm sure there were many well-educated Confederates.  They were still nutjobs.

A self proclaimed "radical" calling other people "nutjobs". Fucking classic, you can't make this shit up LMFAO....

No government - including ours - includes a legal provision explicitly intended to facilitate insurrection.  That's ridiculous.

You're right, that's ridiculous. So you're proposing that (hypothetically) the citizens of an evil government like one of the ones I mentioned earlier, should just get in line to the gas chamber or firing squad?

Let's see if any of the people who tried to overthrow the government on 1/6 can successfully invoke the 2nd Amendment in arguing that the founding fathers gave them the right to depose tyrants.

Dramatic much?

I'm surprised that I have to tell you this, but the American Revolution was illegal under British law.  Now, that doesn't matter if you win, but it certainly does matter if you lose... as the Confederates found out.  They tried using the same appeal to 1776 that you are, but since they lost their war, it didn't work out for them.

Well, I would assume that the goal isn't to lose.

[Tenshot13]

Just to show I'm not picking on pondwater: you did cite a poll on Reagan's presidential ranking, and another poll on Obama's approval rating.

In the first post I literally said "to stir the pot."  Also people's opinions can change greatly since 2014 and 2016.  Gravedigging doesn't change my stance, I think polls are bullshit even the one's from my own posts 5 and 7 years ago.