What Americans Think about Politics

[bluesmoke]

Alternatively, politicians might stay relatively quiet on an issue because the majority already holds a strong opinion that clashes with their own—or with that of their core supporters, they may not have their own opinion … politicians, you know.

You'll never get people to agree with you until you tell them what it is you are doing and can do for them. Silence is stupid.

 

[Doug64]

You'll never get people to agree with you until you tell them what it is you are doing and can do for them. Silence is stupid.

If you are a politician seeking to advance a cause or do what you honestly believe is best, you’re right. If all you care about is the paycheck, silence is golden until you figure out what your voters want to hear.

 

[Doug64]

And here’s the latest on what American Adults think of taxes! I don’t think the results are going to surprise anyone....

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 62% of American Adults believe they pay more than their fair share of taxes. That’s up from 51% last year, and exceeds the previous high of 59% in 2020. Just 21% disagree and don’t think they pay more than their fair share. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure. Belief that the rich aren’t paying their fair share of taxes is widespread. Forty-five percent (45%) of Americans believe those who make twice as much as they do aren’t paying twice as much in taxes. Only 31% believe those who earn twice as much are paying at least twice as much taxes as they do, including nine percent (9%) who think they’re paying more than twice as much. Twenty-four percent (24%) say they’re not sure.

Still, as much as Americans grumble, they’re still paying:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 53% of American Adults say they have already filed their income taxes, up from 44% earlier this month. Another 31% now expect to file by the April 15 deadline, while seven percent (7%) are planning to get an extension and nine percent (9%) are not sure. Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans now anticipate getting a refund, up from 39% earlier this month. Twenty-one percent (21%) say they will owe the government money, while 23% expect to pretty much break even. Fourteen percent (14%) are not sure.

 

[Doug64]

Today's poll looks at what Likely Voters think of Republican senators' questioning of Judge Jackson, and as usual it's the Democrats vs. Republicans and Independents:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Republican senators questioned Judge Jackson the way most recent nominees to the Supreme Court have been questioned. However, 37% think Republican senators were disrespectful in their questioning of Jackson, while 12% are not sure. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democratic voters believe GOP senators were disrespectful to Jackson, while majorities of both Republicans (73%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (55%) think Jackson was questioned the way most recent nominees to the Supreme Court have been questioned. More voters are concerned about accusations that Jackson has been lenient toward child pornography defendants than are concerned about her inability to define “woman” during last week’s hearings. Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters are concerned about how Jackson has treated child pornography cases, including 48% who are Very Concerned. Thirty-two percent (32%) are not concerned about Jackson’s lenient treatment of child pornography cases, including 20% who are Not At All Concerned. During an exchange with Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn, Jackson said she could not define what a woman is because she is “not a biologist.” Sixty percent (60%) of voters are concerned about the way Jackson answered that question, including 43% who are Very Concerned.Thirty-seven percent (37%) aren’t concerned about Jackson’s refusal to define what a woman is, including 25% who are Not At All Concerned.

 

[Doug64]

So just what did US Likely Voters think of Biden's call for regime change in Russia, and the prompt walk-back by administration* officials?

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 70% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with Biden that Putin "cannot remain in power," including 49% who Strongly Agree. Twenty-four percent (24%) disagree with Biden's impromptu call for regime change in Moscow, including 13% who Strongly Disagree. After Biden's unscripted remark during a Saturday speech in Warsaw, Poland, administration officials hastened to say the president didn't mean to announce a "regime change" policy toward Russia. Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters think that clarification was necessary, but 37% think the "walk back" of Biden's comment was not necessary, while another 17% aren't sure. The confusion appears to have increased voters' belief that Biden isn't actually in charge at the White House. Only 32% think Biden is really doing the job of President, while 61% believe others are making decisions for Biden behind the scenes. Last August, 39% thought Biden was in charge, while 51% believed others were making decisions for him behind the scenes.

And a bit of news that surprises me, it seems American Adults are becoming more accepting of lawyers over the past five years. I'd be interested in finding out why.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 40% of American Adults believe there are too many lawyers in America, down from 54% in 2017. Sixteen percent (16%) think there are not enough lawyers in the country, up from 10% five years ago, while 23% say there are about the right amount of lawyers, virtually unchanged from previous surveys. Another 22% are not sure. Thirty-four percent (34%) believe it’s too easy to file a lawsuit in the United States, down from 49% in 2017. Sixteen percent (16%) think it’s too hard to file a lawsuit, while 29% say the level of difficulty is about right. Another 20% are not sure. Fifty-four percent (54%) believe frivolous lawsuits are driving up the cost of health care, insurance and other products and services, down from 67% in 2017. Eighteen percent (18%) don’t think lawsuits are driving up costs, while 27% are not sure.

 

[bluesmoke]

Most people curious about politics will rely on just a couple of news sources mainly due to what their lives are urging them to do like work, spouse, kids, and recreational activities. Even if people had more time to spend following politics, they (in general) won't take the time to visit different news channels like PBS, ABC, CBS, FoxNew (just certain shows), and subscribe to the NY Times and Wall St Journal. That takes money and time. My wife and I have the luxury of being able to do that.
I will never understand how people can be so adamant about a political news topic while only getting their opinions from a half-hour nightly news show that will never give you the full story on anything.

I get a mix of all you listed and much more, down to local levels of stories that have gone national, most through research at no cost than my internet payments for the "free" www. I find, IMO, much of opposing debate lacking in facts that would mean they were lackadaisical in their research, or ignored what they learned that they must have stumbled over to know better.

 

[bluesmoke]

I can't disagree with any of that, and from the poll I posted neither can most Americans, at least as nonimmigrants--actual immigrants, not so much. It's always easier to expound on the need to limit the number of refugees, when those refugees don't have faces and stories showing up on your evening news. Especially when they clearly are refugees, not economic migrants trying to make a better claim for legal status.

Refugees must take a diff route than migrants. Refugees are supposed to be limited to a time in the US by when the reason for their plight is no longer, as determined by the US govt. Migrants route is to stay here forever, if accepted by the US govt, though they can obviously leave by their own choice at any time. Still, refugees can switch to the immigrant route. The US doesn't get many refugees compared to migrants.

 

[jaypatriot]

I get a mix of all you listed and much more, down to local levels of stories that have gone national, most through research at no cost than my internet payments for the "free" www. I find, IMO, much of opposing debate lacking in facts that would mean they were lackadaisical in their research, or ignored what they learned that they must have stumbled over to know better.

To me, your way is the ONLY way to make good judgments about what is true and what is not 'true'. Rudy Giuliani was right about one thing he said: "The truth is not the truth". You can't believe everything you read and everything you hear.
Critical thinking skills are in short supply in this country.

 

[Doug64]

So, Monday's Right/Wrong Track:

Thirty percent (30%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey for the week ending March 31, 2022. This week’s finding is down two points from a week ago. Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters believe the nation is headed down the wrong track, up two points from a week ago. A year ago at this time, 38% said the United States was heading in the right direction, while 56% said it was on the wrong track.

And I don't think Kamala Harris is going to be president any time soon. (Unless the administration exercises the 25th Amendment, that is.)

A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports finds that 40% of Likely U.S. voters have a favorable impression of Harris, including 18% who have a Very Favorable opinion of the vice president. That’s virtually unchanged from December, when 39% had a favorable opinion of Harris. Fifty-seven percent (56%) of voters now view the vice president unfavorably, including 47% who have a Very Unfavorable impression of her. Most voters still don’t view Harris as ready to take over as president if needed. Forty-two percent (42%) believe Harris is qualified to assume the responsibilities of the president, including 24% who think she is Very Qualified. Fifty-four percent (54%) don’t believe Harris is qualified for the job of president, including 45% who say she’s Not At All Qualified. Forty-three percent (43%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely Biden will leave office and be replaced by Harris before the 2024 election, including 20% who think it’s Very Likely. That’s down from the 49% in December who thought Biden wouldn’t complete his first term as president. Forty-four percent (44%) of voters now don’t think it’s likely Biden will be replaced by Harris before the 2024 election, including 22% who say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 13% are not sure.

 

[Nickyjo]

Refugees must take a diff route than migrants. Refugees are supposed to be limited to a time in the US by when the reason for their plight is no longer, as determined by the US govt. Migrants route is to stay here forever, if accepted by the US govt, though they can obviously leave by their own choice at any time. Still, refugees can switch to the immigrant route. The US doesn't get many refugees compared to migrants.

Maybe this will clear things up a bit. In common parlance, "refugees" are those who come to the US from overseas after a rigorous examination and checks, usually coming from camps in third countries to which they have migrated. The US normally sets a number of refugees it will "import" in each fiscal year, designating various nationalities and numbers. These numbers have not to my knowledge included people from this hemisphere. "Asylum seekers" are those who either at a port of entry, at a border, or within the US legally or illegally request protection from the US. If they meet the definition of a refugee, that is, someone outside of their country who doesn't wish to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group, they may be granted discretionary protection of asylum or if determined to be in more serious danger, mandatory but temporary protection of "withholding of deportation." Both designations, refugee and asylee have a path to permanent residence or citizenship in the US. Someone granted just withholding does not.

There are other designations I could go into if people wish to hear. I worked on these issues for 20+ years, ended my work 20+ years ago, which presumably qualifies me to NOT know what I am talking about as things may have changed.

The controlling legislation and treaties are 1- the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, ratification of which incorporates the 2- Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 3- the Convention Against Torture, all ratified by the US, and 4- the US Refugee Act of 1980, which incorporated the above definition of a refugee into US law. Prior to 1980, the US defined a refugee as someone from a communist/communist-dominated country or from some places in the Middle East.

Bluesmoke is correct in that potentially, the number of migrants approaching or crossing and seeking asylum may be more than the number of refugees admitted from overseas, particularly under Trump, as he offered to bring here the lowest number in history--and also suggested doing away with the asylum process altogether. But the total of all granted protection may be roughly the same each year.

As my father would say, "clear as mud and twice as juicy."

 

[mrjurrs]

Democrats are terrible at messaging.

It's the main reason I'm not registered as one.

When you don't want one side because they don't give you exactly what you want, the other side will likely give you 90% of what you don't want imo.

 

[Doug64]

Here's the latest biweekly Immigration Index:

The Rasmussen Reports Immigration Index for the week of March 27-31, 2022 decreased to 91.4, down more than four points from 96.0 two weeks earlier. The Immigration Index has been under the baseline in every survey since Election Day last year, and reached a record low of 82.3 in late March 2021. The index is now more than 14 points below where it was in late October 2020, indicating voters are looking for tighter immigration control from President Joe Biden’s administration.

We can probably expect a major drop once the Biden administration* throws open the doors even more than they already have, maybe even set a new record low.

And Disney's foray into woke politics isn't doing it any favors. Note this poll is of American Adults, not the usual Likely Voters:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 28% of American Adults believe the emphasis on “inclusion” and “diversity” by companies like Disney is making children’s entertainment better. Forty-five percent (45%) think the push for “inclusion” is making kids’ entertainment worse, while 18% say it makes no difference. Another 10% are not sure. In a company-wide zoom call last week, Karey Burke, president of Disney’s General Entertainment Content, said Disney has "many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories." (The acronym stands for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual.”) Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans support having more lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender characters in entertainment for children, including 23% who Strongly Support it. Forty-seven (47%) are opposed to including more LGBTQ characters in chiildren’s entertainment, including 34% who Strongly Oppose it. Another 11% are not sure. A plurality of Americans now view the Disney entertainment company unfavorably. While 42% have a favorable impression of Disney, including 16% whose view is Very Favorable, 47% have an unfavorable impression of the company, including 27% who have a Very Unfavorable impression of Disney.

 

[Doug64]

So what do Likely Voters think of the economy since Biden became president and who do they blame?

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 62% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the economy has gotten worse since Biden became president, which is more than three times the 19% who think the economy has gotten better under Biden. Another 16% say the economy has stayed about the same. Not surprisingly, 87% of Republican think the economy has gotten worse since Biden took office. However, among Democratic voters, only 35% say the economy has gotten better under Biden while the same percentage believe it’s gotten worse and 28% think the economy is about the same. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 67% believe the economy has gotten worse since Biden became president, 15% think it’s gotten better and 13% say the economy has stayed about the same. Asked who deserves the most blame for current problems with the American economy, 39% of Likely Voters think it’s Biden while another 22% blame Democrats in Congress. Twenty-eight percent (28%) believe Republicans in Congress are most to blame for America’s economic problems, while another 11% are not sure.

 

[Nickyjo]

Here's the latest biweekly Immigration Index:



We can probably expect a major drop once the Biden administration* throws open the doors even more than they already have, maybe even set a new record low.

And Disney's foray into woke politics isn't doing it any favors. Note this poll is of American Adults, not the usual Likely Voters:

Why do you use a phrase like “throws open the doors”? As I understand it, Biden is trying to comply with law and treaty. What is wrong with that? Trump scorned both. What was right with that?

 

[Doug64]

Why do you use a phrase like “throws open the doors”? As I understand it, Biden is trying to comply with law and treaty. What is wrong with that? Trump scorned both. What was right with that?

Except that Biden has not been "trying to comply with law and treaty," his administration* has been doing everything they can to avoid "trying to comply with law and treaty." As evidenced by the massive drop in arrests and deportations, and the reinstitution of "catch and release" (which is a clear violation of the law, BTW). And the Democrats can expect voters to remember come November, especially (but not only) in the border states.

 

[Nickyjo]

Except that Biden has not been "trying to comply with law and treaty," his administration* has been doing everything they can to avoid "trying to comply with law and treaty." As evidenced by the massive drop in arrests and deportations, and the reinstitution of "catch and release" (which is a clear violation of the law, BTW). And the Democrats can expect voters to remember come November, especially (but not only) in the border states.

The laws and treaties in question govern how the US and other nations who ratified them are supposed to treat refugees and asylum seekers. There are three treaties and there is the Refugee Act of 1980. How would you suggest he get around them? The law guarantees the right to apply for asylum; treaties prohibit returning refugees to danger. And catch and release is not against the law. The President has great discretion with respect to immigration. Reagan used it, the Bushes used it, Carter used it, and Biden can use it.

 

[Doug64]

The laws and treaties in question govern how the US and other nations who ratified them are supposed to treat refugees and asylum seekers. There are three treaties and there is the Refugee Act of 1980. How would you suggest he get around them? The law guarantees the right to apply for asylum; treaties prohibit returning refugees to danger. And catch and release is not against the law. The President has great discretion with respect to immigration. Reagan used it, the Bushes used it, Carter used it, and Biden can use it.

According to US law (8 U.S. Code Section 1225), when an illegal migrant is apprehended and deemed inadmissable by an immigration officer, they are to be removed without further hearing or review unless the migrant indicates an intention to apply for asylum. If the migrant does so, they are to be interviewed by an asylum officer. "If the officer determines at the time of the interview that an alien has a credible fear of persecution (within the meaning of clause (v)), the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum." (emphasis added) Note the "shall," not "may"--it is not discretionary. According to the law duly passed by Congress, anyone seeking asylum is to be detained until such time as their status is determined. Yes, multiple presidents have ignored the law when they instituted or continued the practice of "catch and release." But it has not been legal since Congress passed that law.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The law's opponents have taken to calling it the "don't say gay" law, while its supporters have labeled it the "anti-grooming" law.

The main objection to all of it is due to the fact that Republicans in state after state have shown their hand.
The Don't Say Gay bill in and of itself isn't the issue because ONE bill like this is not the ultimate goal of these people, as can be inferred from
their overall big picture, as recently voiced by Republicans like Marjorie Taylor-Greene.



And yes, a stunning majority of Republicans ❤ MTG very much and think she's the best, because she's been invited to write a FEDERAL
"Don't Say Gay" bill.

Republicans don't intend to stop there.

 

[Nickyjo]

According to US law (8 U.S. Code Section 1225), when an illegal migrant is apprehended and deemed inadmissable by an immigration officer, they are to be removed without further hearing or review unless the migrant indicates an intention to apply for asylum. If the migrant does so, they are to be interviewed by an asylum officer. "If the officer determines at the time of the interview that an alien has a credible fear of persecution (within the meaning of clause (v)), the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum." (emphasis added) Note the "shall," not "may"--it is not discretionary. According to the law duly passed by Congress, anyone seeking asylum is to be detained until such time as their status is determined. Yes, multiple presidents have ignored the law when they instituted or continued the practice of "catch and release." But it has not been legal since Congress passed that law.

Boloney. As you said, the President and certain INS personnel acting on his behalf can parole whomever he wants, release them if he so chooses. When I worked in the field, my efforts and appeals got people released, as did those of others. The law wisely allows great discretion. And international standards suggest that asylum seekers should not normally be detained.

 

[HangLow]

To me, your way is the ONLY way to make good judgments about what is true and what is not 'true'. Rudy Giuliani was right about one thing he said: "The truth is not the truth". You can't believe everything you read and everything you hear.
Critical thinking skills are in short supply in this country.

​

 

[Doug64]

Boloney. As you said, the President and certain INS personnel acting on his behalf can parole whomever he wants, release them if he so chooses.

True, there are no real limits on the president's parole power. But it has nothing to do with "catch and release" because first, they aren't being paroled, and second, deportation isn't a punishment, any more than requiring a thief to return property they stole is punishment.

When I worked in the field, my efforts and appeals got people released, as did those of others. The law wisely allows great discretion. And international standards suggest that asylum seekers should not normally be detained.

I quoted the law that stated that "alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum," please quote the law that overrides that. And "international standards" are irrelevant when they contradict US laws and constitutions.

 

[Nickyjo]

True, there are no real limits on the president's parole power. But it has nothing to do with "catch and release" because first, they aren't being paroled, and second, deportation isn't a punishment, any more than requiring a thief to return property they stole is punishment.


I quoted the law that stated that "alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum," please quote the law that overrides that. And "international standards" are irrelevant when they contradict US laws and constitutions.

International standards are those in play due to US ratification of treaties, which become US law, just as much of US law as “shall be detained.” There may be no law that overrides that phrase. But decency and common sense suggest that is counter productive to the goals of protecting refugees. The laws in this area have never been one thing or another in any real sense. I advocated for release of asylum seekers and never had that law quoted to me by US officials, such was their sense that detention was discretionary. Your comment about deportation not being a punishment — as if migrants were thieves — is telling. If a person is returned to their deaths or injury, that is certainly a punishment.

 

[Hamish Howl]

For years on another site, I've been posting a weekly recap of the Rasmussen polls

Interest in thread just went to zero.

 

[Doug64]

International standards are those in play due to US ratification of treaties, which become US law, just as much of US law as “shall be detained.” There may be no law that overrides that phrase. But decency and common sense suggest that is counter productive to the goals of protecting refugees. The laws in this area have never been one thing or another in any real sense. I advocated for release of asylum seekers and never had that law quoted to me by US officials, such was their sense that detention was discretionary. Your comment about deportation not being a punishment — as if migrants were thieves — is telling. If a person is returned to their deaths or injury, that is certainly a punishment.

While the Constitution isn’t exactly clear on how properly ratified treaties rank in comparison to Federal law, as I understand it the courts have been treating them as being on an equal level. That would mean that whether a treaty or a Federal law governs depends on which was the latest to be put into effect. Since I don’t know when our current immigration law was passed or which properly ratified treaties you are referring to, I can’t say which should govern.

And I’m not surprised that this law hasn’t been quoted to you by any US officials, it’s been over a generation since it was properly enforced. Funny thing about courts, they can’t actually rule on illegal acts carried out by the government unless someone actually takes the government to court for that particular act.

As for deportation not being a punishment, either an asylum officer has determined that no such threat of injury or death credibly exists, or that the person requesting asylum doesn’t fall into any of the categories that the law grants asylum to. Refusal to allow someone to exercise a right that the law doesn’t grant (in this case residence in the US) is not punishment.

Interest in thread just went to zero.

Your loss.

 

[Nickyjo]

While the Constitution isn’t exactly clear on how properly ratified treaties rank in comparison to Federal law, as I understand it the courts have been treating them as being on an equal level. That would mean that whether a treaty or a Federal law governs depends on which was the latest to be put into effect. Since I don’t know when our current immigration law was passed or which properly ratified treaties you are referring to, I can’t say which should govern.

And I’m not surprised that this law hasn’t been quoted to you by any US officials, it’s been over a generation since it was properly enforced. Funny thing about courts, they can’t actually rule on illegal acts carried out by the government unless someone actually takes the government to court for that particular act.

As for deportation not being a punishment, either an asylum officer has determined that no such threat of injury or death credibly exists, or that the person requesting asylum doesn’t fall into any of the categories that the law grants asylum to. Refusal to allow someone to exercise a right that the law doesn’t grant (in this case residence in the US) is not punishment.


Your loss.

The law is the Refugee Act of 1980. The three ratified treaties are the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and the Convention Against Torture. The US ratified the Protocol, essentially an update of the Convention, in 1968. I believe the Convention Against Torture was ratified in 1988.