1y ago

CNN Poll: Percentage of Republicans who think Biden's 2020 win was illegitimate ticks back up near 70%

edition.cnn.com CNN Poll: Percentage of Republicans who think Biden's 2020 win was illegitimate ticks back up near 70% | CNN Politics

The share of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who believe that President Joe Biden’s 2020 election win was not legitimate has ticked back up, according to a new CNN poll fielded throughout July. All told, 69% of Republicans and Republican-leaners say Biden’s win was not legitimate, up from 63% earlier this year and through last fall, even as there is no evidence of election fraud that would have altered the outcome of the contest.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

417 comments

There is exactly one party in the US that gerrymanders.
You're showing how little you know about politics in the US then. Both do, and both constantly debate about which gerrymandered maps they should use.
There is one party that pushes heavily on voter suppression of non white voters.
The republican party pushed for personhood of black people for 200 years. Democrats fought against ending slavery.
There is exactly one party that shreds child labor laws.
My friend lived with his brother and single mother, he was 14 and needed to work to make sure the bills for himself, his mother and brother could be paid. This isn't the case of every single fight against child labor laws, but it's not as objective as you'd think. Are you going to tell my friend that it should be illegal for him to work to help his family out?
There is exactly one party that strives to strip basic human rights from marginalized groups.
What rights are you talking about?
One party that seems to attract Nazis.
And one side that attracts communists. Nazi's tend to be traditional authoritarians, of course they're gonna be on the right. Communism has killed 100x as many people as Nazism. You singling out one authoritarian group just shows your bias.
None of the above is being hyperbolic
I'll let you read my responses then you can see how these are exactly hyperbolic and your bias is so prevalent you believe that your values are objective.
- The republican party pushed for personhood of black people for 200 years. Democrats fought against ending slavery.
  What is the current Republican attitude towards minorities?
  Abraham Lincoln (R), whupped the Confederacy so badly that it ceased to exist. That's a very good thing.
  The United States of America whupped Nazi ass so badly that Hitler had to shoot himself in the head. That was a very good thing.
  Why does the current Republican party love the Confederacy, and feel very comfortable with a Nazi infestation?
  
  What is the current Republican attitude towards minorities?
  That we shouldn't care about race that much, we should be color blind and not prefer any race to another, but rather the content of their character. The current democratic attitude towards minorities is that there's a hierarchy of good and bad races. Unfortunately, I'm part of the bad minorities so I get penalties in basic things, like job interviews, and college applications.
  Why does the current Republican party love the Confederacy, and feel very comfortable with a Nazi infestation?
  To some, confederacy now is more about a state having the right to enact policies as it sees fit, as opposed to having a huge bloated federal government. I'm pretty much as north as you can get, I'm not waving a confederate flag, but if someone asks if states should have rights to enact policies their voters want, I'm gonna say yes.
  I can't speak for all republicans, nor most, but every single individual I know that has voted for a republican does not like Nazi's. We aren't comfortable sharing any sort of label with racists. Do you have any satistics on how republicans 'feel comfortable' with Nazi's?
  
  I think that you're in a bind, because you know what you stand for, and your party is currently infested with MAGA style personalities, who are under the influence of the Russians. I don't think that you like that very much, as you've pointed out your disdain for Trump.
  I don't have any particular fondness for Joseph McCarthy, but if he was alive today, he'd go absolutely apeshit over how badly compromised the GOP has become. He would make heads roll, and probably remove a lot of prominent figures that you're probably embarrassed to have representing your party.
  We aren't comfortable sharing any sort of label with racists. Do you have any satistics on how republicans 'feel comfortable' with Nazi's?
  "The Jews will not replace us! The Jews will not replace us!" I bet you a cup of coffee that at least one of the tiki torch has a predelection for nazism. You know what the republican president's comments were.
  I did a Google search of "Jan 6 nazi", which was enlightening. I'd suggest taking a look, and then reflecting on Republican rhetoric about that day.
  Stephen Miller had an appointed position.
  
  You described what you thought of the Republican party, I responded to every single one of your accusations, and after that you haven't been able to back up your list of the evils republicans commit.
  If you'd like to respectfully continue the discussion, I don't see why you wouldn't try to back up what you stated.
  
  I think that you're missing the broader point, which is that the GOP has a severe optics problem, and are doubling down on everything that makes them look bad. At this instant in time, the Democrats are benefitting tremendously from the Contrast effect.
  What's problematic about our discussion, is that I'm not overly invested in this conversation, and nothing that constitutes a "win" for you addresses the above. Deep down where it counts, I am completely convinced that you will remain a proud conservative, and that I will never move you an eyelash width off of your exact position. That remains true regardless of the quality of my response so take that for what you will.
  If I was in charge of repairing the GOP brand, I would do two things, in rapid succession. It wouldn't fix things instantly, but it would put every voting demographic back into play within one or two voting cycles, tops. First, throw Trump under the bus, and blame him for everything possible that can be thrown at him. Like physics defying pivot. Second, table a bill to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which was repealed in 1987. Trump takes the fall, the Republicans propose legislation that forces bipartisanship, and the loudest polarizing voices get cut off at the nuts, and the stuff that you wish would just go away from the party would just melt. Back to the table, actual debate, meaningful legislation, and a chance for the young, real grassroots candidates rise and shine. I'm not sure if either party would have the guts to pull off the Fairness Doctrine thing, but it would have to be the Republicans to propose it to force the win.
- I was appreciative of the earnest discourse until the southern strategy was ignored and you showed your own bias.
  Also, even though it does happen on both sides, gerrymandering by the right is more prolific and undermines the balance of power.
  The Senate already has disproportionate representation against the will of the populace because of rural states like the Dakotas, etc. (and, furthermore, it controls judiciary appointments).
  Then gerrymandering creates an unearned advantage in the house, and thus the electoral College, which puts all three branches in favor of conservatives.
  This is what people mean when they criticize the "both sides" argument. Yes, both side are capable of the same evil, but our system does not reflect that potential equally.
  
  I was appreciative of the earnest discourse until the southern strategy was ignored and you showed your own bias.
  Ahhh yes, please tell me more about how everything in history democrats have done were actually just republicans, because the parties switched or something.
  Also, even though it does happen on both sides
  So you lied your last comment?
  The Senate already has disproportionate representation against the will of the populace because of rural states like the Dakotas, etc
  Was it you that mentioned you aren't american? That makes sense why you would misunderstand it, the purpose of the senate is to have equal representation across ALL states. That was the agreement to create the union between the states. Senate is a fixed 2 seats, congress is based on population. Your misunderstanding of the three branches of government only shows your ignorance, it doesn't show a fault of the system
  Then gerrymandering creates an unearned advantage in the house, and thus the electoral College, which puts all three branches in favor of conservatives.
  How? It's a level playing field, just because you don't understand senate vs the house doesn't mean it's unfair. You should read up about the system of government.
  Yes, both side are capable of the same evil, but our system does not reflect that potential equally.
  Meaning that you just dislike one side and you think that they're evil? I'm sorry half the country thinks differently than you, but once again, that's not an inherent flaw of the system, it's actually a sign of a working system. That almost every election, we have close voting in congress and the presidency. It would be concerning if every election republicans got the trinity in the government or liberals did.
  
  Can't tell if you're intentionally misunderstanding history or just never understood it.
  I only made one comment, but it makes sense that you can't follow along with a timeline.
  I know the purpose of the Senate. But It's purpose doesn't change the fact that there are representatives there whose constituency consists of more cows than people, by design. And they vote on the judiciary for the whole country including the Supreme Court.
  Gerrymandering is a problem because it removes a level playing field. When combined with the other issues we've been discussing, and the modern times we live in, it becomes a much bigger problem.
  I'm sorry you're so ignorant about your own government, obviously it's working perfectly for you.
  It's less than half the country that "thinks differently", that's the point.
  
  I know the purpose of the Senate.
  You clearly don't.
  But It’s purpose doesn’t change the fact that there are representatives there whose constituency consists of more cows than people, by design.
  Yeah, almost like every single state gets....2 senators...ya know, what all the states agreed to when the country was formed.
  And they vote on the judiciary for the whole country including the Supreme Court.
  Yeah, almost like the agreement the states made to create the country was designed like this. If you want to change the rules, theres constitutional amendments.
  Gerrymandering is a problem because it removes a level playing field.
  Agreed, you haven't offered a solution.
  I’m sorry you’re so ignorant about your own government, obviously it’s working perfectly for you.
  It's funny that I explained everything very plainly to you, and you tell me I'm wrong, but can't tell me 1 thing in my comment that was wrong
  It’s less than half the country that “thinks differently”, that’s the point.
  And our country was designed to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority, that's the point.
  
  You are not a serious person. The minority is running the country.
  
  You are not a serious person. The minority is running the country.
  The minority is preventing majority tyranny. States can pass what laws they want, why can't you be fine with california doing what they want in their state, why do you need people in wyoming to abide by what california wants? That's the tyranny of the majority that our founding fathers recognized that you're too ignorant to realize.

417 comments