this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
438 points (97.6% liked)

politics

24800 readers
2351 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As Donald Trump dominates the GOP nomination race and some of his inflammatory comments find favor with the party faithful, CBS News measured how the public feels about his "poisoning the blood" language. A striking number of voters agree with this description of immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally, and among Republicans, associating the remarks with Trump himself makes them even likelier to agree.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 164 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

"Most Republicans are literal fucking fascists."

I wish I could say I was surprised.

and among Republicans, associating the remarks with Trump himself makes them even likelier to agree.

But it's not a cult. /s

[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Those people were always there but in a small enough number that they were themselves ashamed to admit it.

What trump did is he united all those people together into a larger group.

It is crazy, but before he won primaries in 2016, the GOP was actually opening to accept LGBT, and they believed they would lose without expanding their base. trump show that they didn't have to.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Bring back shame for these fucking cretins.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I mean, hasn't it grown way beyond the definition of a cult by being like...half of the US? It's fucked up, sure - but aren't cults by definition generally "small"?

This is millions of people. I'm not excusing it, it's fucked. But I feel like "cult" only serves to place it in a light of "oh this is only a few crazy people"...nah...this is HALF of the USA. You should be gearing up to fight your neighbors if this shit lands. It's not some silly little group like the word 'cult' implies.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 years ago

I mean, one describes Mussolini as having a cult of personality, but that was still most of 1930s Italy following him. I think cult is still appropriate.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's not half of the US population. It's around 30% of eligible voters (as of 2022). That's still a huge number of people (74 million), but it's a lot less than half..

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone saying it's a cult is implying it's a small group. I'm not sure that's a fundamental feature of a cult to begin with.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Oxford Dictionary lists the definition of "Cult" as

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

And that's what I was taught it meant as well.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Really? This is the first result from the Oxford Dictionary:

A particular form or system of religious worship or veneration, esp. as expressed in ceremony or ritual directed towards a specified figure

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=cult

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Or just not thinking of the implications. "Dilluting the blood" can given multiple interpretations, almost all of which are racist, but some more racist than others.

A suburban dad who lives across the street from some black neighbors may not think they should be enslaved or killed off, but does wish they would live somewhere else. He might interpret the phrase in that context. Then his daughter might start dating their son, and now he starts ranting at dinner.

He votes for Trump, but Trump is being pushed other people who very much do want to enslave or kill black people.

Even at its height, fascism never had a majority. It barely cobbled together a reasonable sized plurality. If it were just people who supported their policies as stated with few reservations, they wouldn't even have that. Slippery statements like these are there to attract the adjacent right wingers to support actions they never would otherwise.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

A suburban dad who lives across the street from some black neighbors may not think they should be enslaved or killed off, but does wish they would live somewhere else. He might interpret the phrase in that context.

That's still fascism, man. Ethnic cleansing is core to fascism.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 105 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Trump’s mother and two of his three wives (who birthed four children) are immigrants

[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 years ago (1 children)

European immigrants. They're keeping their eye on the ball - racial purity.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 years ago (2 children)

You guys didn't used to count people with names like Ivana or Melania as 'white'

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is why Critical Race Theory needs to be taught in schools. Think of how far from fascism we would be if we all learned in primary school how "white" excluded the Irish, Italian, Jewish, etc. until it was useful to include them against people of color.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

CRT gets pretty dense from what I've seen of it. I definitely think dismantling the concept of race itself and teaching the humanities more seriously are definitely must-haves - I just think that CRT in primary school might a bit early. In the US at least.

Edited to provide alittle more clarity.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

Nazi race theory changed multiple times throughout the war depending on which way the wind was blowing. It's a feature, not a bug.

Right now white supremacy is a somewhat disparate ideology, so they can't be too picky about who is and isn't white. That comes after they seize power and make headway in driving out or killing off the targeted opposition.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But they're white immigrants so that makes them okay.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 49 points 2 years ago

A striking number of voters agree with this description of immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally, and among Republicans, associating the remarks with Trump himself makes them even likelier to agree.

  1. They assume ALL brown people are immigrants AND illegal
  2. That second part is just more cult shit in the alt right cult barrel
[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"Poisoning the blood" is one of the most overtly Nazi phrases I've ever heard.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 years ago

Might as well be the 14 words. Either way it means the same thing, if you call yourself a GOP Republican you are an enemy of the constitution and a traitor to its values. You may not believe that but the GOP leaders clearly do and if there are 9 people and a vocal white supremacist Nazi are a table you have 10 Nazis at a table

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 years ago

That’s because republicans are fascist swine.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The problems didn't start with and will not end with trump. The republican party has been terrible for a long time now. Democrats insist that there are still decent republicans and that we can still work with them, but this is a fantasy akin to claiming there are good nazis and that they can be worked with in any reasonable capacity.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago

During the rise of nazis in Germany, there were quite a few Americans who sympathized with the nazis, and there was even an American nazi party at one point.

WW2 just told them they needed to be quiet and stealthy. They didn't really go anywhere, and their influence over the GOP has only grown.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I don't buy into any of that racist and nationalistic garbage, but isn't he then saying his own kids are less because of who he, Trump, chose as their mothers?

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, because the addendum implicit in the dog whistle is that it's only NONWHITE immigrants who are "poisoning the blood".

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Don't forget the second addendum: once they take care of the non-white problem, they'll start making the definition of "white" more and more strict to keep the hate machine running.

Looking at you Catholics, Italians, Irish, Polish, and anyone else who isn't a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Those divisions already exist. Back in 2007 I met a guy who belonged to some Christian sect and he didn't consider Catholics to be Christian, which blew my mind since Catholics were there first. Even back in the 60s Kennedy broke the mold of those who said the US would never have a Catholic president.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

Because they existed a long, long time ago. As the straight white conservative male hegemony has lost power, the number of people they're allowed to hate has shifted accordingly. Now they're okay with any kind of Catholicism, any shade of white, and you can be a woman as long as you're okay with being sexually assaulted. If they ever managed to regain their stronghold majority in politics, there's no doubt in my mind they'd start turning on themselves as the old divisions started to come through.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

Doesn't apply to him. Because reasons. And stupidity.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do they know he is married to an immigrant?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago

She's also white. Republicans don't care about white immigrants.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Honestly, out of the poll the thing that surprises me the most is that 71% of all participants think Trump will beat Biden if he's nominated. That's a huge margin.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Note that this question (#13) was only asking "likely Republican primary voters."

To me, the most disturbing stat was #19, the 50-50 split among all likely voters between valuing "a strong economy" versus "a functioning democracy."

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Given that kind of false dichotomy, i wouldn't have been surprised at /any/ result

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

Yeah, talk about a loaded, dishonest question. When you're willing to poison the well that much, you can come to any conclusion you like.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

Sounds about white.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

Most people joined the Nazi party because it got them a job. Fascism lures people in with economic false promises.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago

Funny how they think Trump has the best chance and the Haley has the worst chance, when the survey itself shows that the opposite is true.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

And those that didn't say they agree just don't want to agree with out out loud.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago

All they have are threats and put downs because they lack ideas. Not that that matters, because they are a significant, dangerous lot that festers.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago

As an immigrant to the US, I gotta say, I don't find this rhetoric very appealing. Quite repulsive, actually.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I haven't heard the full quote, only the phrase. Can someone share what he said in longer context?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

https://youtu.be/v283kLQbe1M?t=46

Starts at the time stamp, about 40 seconds in. You just have to listen for about a minute to get the context of "poisoning our blood" use.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


As Donald Trump dominates the GOP nomination race and some of his inflammatory comments find favor with the party faithful, CBS News measured how the public feels about his "poisoning the blood" language.

Since we randomly assigned respondents to see one version of the question or the other, we can examine whether attribution to Trump changes agreement.

As the above chart illustrates, Republican voters become 10 percentage points more likely to agree with the statement when they are explicitly told it came from Trump.

MAGA and Trump voters are also likelier than other Republicans to agree at baseline — without any attribution.

The takeaway is that the right wing of the party is inclined to agree to begin with, and that Trump making such statements likely increases their acceptance.

This CBS News/YouGov survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,870 U.S. adult residents interviewed between January 10-12, 2024, including 786 likely Republican primary voters.


The original article contains 335 words, the summary contains 156 words. Saved 53%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›