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.
You must log in or register to comment.
“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
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.
Bring back shame for these fucking cretins.
FYI bc it’s not common knowledge, the word cretin has ableist connotations
Appreciate the attempt to look out for such things, but that might be a dive too deep into etymology vs. usage.
Should we stop saying “idiot,” and “moron”?
Yes some people say so.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/cretin https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cretin
While often used to refer to someone with deformities physical or mental, the words origin is essentially a reminder that even the disabled are still human
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.
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.
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…
Yeah, it’s only half of the people that actually vote, which turns out to be about 30% overall because 40% of us can’t be bothered to vote at all.
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.
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.
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
Dictionaries differ.
I think that’s the most simple version of cult.
Anyone that worshops anything can be called a cult of that thing.
In common usage especially in American English I think the word connotes an unorthodox form of worshipping, and so by that definition it’s a small group, otherwise it would just be the orthodoxy.
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.
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.
Ethnic cleansing usually doesn’t mean “move across town”. That’s a dilution of a heinous act.
Dilution
Thanks–mobile spell checker didn’t catch that one.
Trump’s mother and two of his three wives (who birthed four children) are immigrants
European immigrants. They’re keeping their eye on the ball - racial purity.
You guys didn’t used to count people with names like Ivana or Melania as ‘white’
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.
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.
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.
But they’re white immigrants so that makes them okay.
… breathes sigh of relief.
he gets it. become a felon in a country. emigrate
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.
- They assume ALL brown people are immigrants AND illegal
- That second part is just more cult shit in the alt right cult barrel
“Poisoning the blood” is one of the most overtly Nazi phrases I’ve ever heard.
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
That’s because republicans are fascist swine.
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.
Something something peace for our time.
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.
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?
No, because the addendum implicit in the dog whistle is that it’s only NONWHITE immigrants who are “poisoning the blood”.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah but that’s thinking too far ahead for Republican voters. The leopards would never eat their face.
Doesn’t apply to him. Because reasons. And stupidity.
Do they know he is married to an immigrant?
She’s also white. Republicans don’t care about white immigrants.
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.
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.”
Given that kind of false dichotomy, i wouldn’t have been surprised at /any/ result
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.
Sounds about white.
Most people joined the Nazi party because it got them a job. Fascism lures people in with economic false promises.
Oh whew I didn’t catch that. Thanks for pointing that out.
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.
Turns out beating the “BIDEN WEAK BIDEN WEAK” drum has had results. Our corporate masters must be so pleased.
And those that didn’t say they agree just don’t want to agree with out out loud.
As an immigrant to the US, I gotta say, I don’t find this rhetoric very appealing. Quite repulsive, actually.
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.
I haven’t heard the full quote, only the phrase. Can someone share what he said in longer context?
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.
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!
