September 26, 2025
Americans have Given More than Required
Timothy Birdnow
Polls; I've long argued they are full of balogna, or something even less pleasant. This one certainly does nothing to shore up my confidence in them.
This particular trash document was a WaPo/Ispos poll which claims Trump is under water on overall popularity, but also on immigration. Now that last is odd, and is the main subject of the article linked above.
Here is what the article says:
And yet Trump won handily in the last election despite being a convicted felon (well, not technically since sentence was never imposed) and that was in no small measure because of rage against the Biden Administration over opening the U.S. wide to the inthrust of aliens. Like a harlot welcoming any man and giving birth to his bastard spawn (who grow up to be serial killers like Charles Manson). The election was the real poll.
But the media is forever running polls because the wording and who is polled can impact what they say, and polls are designed as a tool for bandwagoning. It's pscyhological warfare 1010. Advertisers use that trick all the time, telling you how big they are and how many people want to be part of that. Polls are used in precisely that same way, to make people want to join the "majority side". But they are all lies and we know they are because the last election had Harris winning and she lost. In fact, the last few Republican victories had the Democrats winning and they lost, and that is because the polls were slanted to bandwagon the public.
The Washington Post is one of the most leftist news outlets in the country and this is exactly the result they would want if the actual numbers are reversed and the public supports Trump and the job he's doing with immigration.
Oh, there ARE a lot of Conservatives unhappy with the job he's doing, but that's because he's not moving fast enough. No doubt they were added to the mix to give the impression people hate kicking out illegals.
You will notice the poll didn't ask WHY people were unhappy with Trump's performance.
The article goes on to explain the dichotomy:
No, it's not tough at all. It's easy. It's one of the easiest things in the world; we have laws in place, laws passed BY CONGRESS to deal with the problem. In a democratic republic such as ours that makes it a no-brainer; the laws trump our gooey goood hearts. If it really bothers us enough we can make Congress amend the laws, either temporarily or permanently. Until then one must follow the law. That is why we say we have the "rule of law" and it is one of the most important concepts in the Western World. Laws, not men, rule the land. Men make or change the laws but men cannot and must not abridge the laws or ignore them (as they have been doing with illiegal invaders) based on the say-so of an executive or a bureaucrat or even a whimsical poll by WaPo/Ipsos.
That is why America is not a democracy and never was intended to be such. Democracies blow with whatever wind happens to gust at a particular moment. The Founders understood the dangers of immediate passions and so put in place a very conservative (small c) system full of checks and balances to make any change to the system difficult. It had to be a pressing need to make amending the law worth doing. And the law, and not men, was supposed to rule.
So it's not a difficult issue at all. You obey the law and work to amend it if you don't like it. You don't just ignore it.
Democrats always just ignore laws they do not like because they believe in a radical kind of democracy where whatever flighty whim the public gets is implemented. That's how you wind up with things like tampons in boys rooms.
But it's worse than the public whim; the Founders had read their Greek phiolsophers and read their Platon and Aristotle. They knew that democracy inevitably led to a tyrannny as the public would be led by one man or one well-organized group in time, just to avoid chaos. The word demogogue comes from the Greek and has at it's root the same word that gives us democracy. It means to work people up, to twist their thinking and minds with words and thus stampede them - cattle like - in the direction the wannabe tyrant wishes them to go. In the end you wind up with an oligarchy, or a despotate.
For decades the media and their political allies in the Democratic and not so Democratic (aka RINO Republican) parties wanted open borders. They seek to replace the old stock of Americans who were independent and who wanted a say in how they were governed, and ffound a new America, a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, socialist loving entity.
But multi-ethnic and multi-cultural do not work and never did; just look at the Balkans. America's genius was we took many ethnicities and cultures and blended them together under the supra-culture of America itself. People came here and adopted our ways. They learned English. They learned our economic system. They adopted our clothing, or idioms, our pride in our history and culture. Their children were Americans even if they were not. But the new idea is instead off a melting pot, instead of e pluribus unum, we should be a salad, with undigestible bits of debris from every culture and race and tradition all existing side by side with nothing connecting them but geography. Out of one many would be their motto (E uno pluribi? Don't know Latin).
This is how we create world government; break any loyalty to nations or ethnicities or tradition or culture in favor of this multi-cultural hodgepodge and transfer loyalty to a united Earth. It's the same scam every wannabe world conqueror has tried. Alexander the Great tried it with Pan-Hellenism, imposing Greek culture on his conquests in Egypt, in Mesopotamia, in Persia. The Romans tried it to a lesser degree. The British tried it in their own colonial empire and now Britain has largely been conquered by that very empire they built. I could go on but the point is made; this is an old, old dream going all the way back to the Biblical Nimrod and his Tower of Babel. And it's never worked because we are not herd animals and someone always tries to grab an unfair advantage.
The Communists tried it in the old Warsaw Pact and failed.
Humanity is never going to be like Star Trek, with a unified Earth and a growing, peaceful Federation of planets. Inevitably those planets would turn on each-other. (In Star Trek we learn the Vulcans and Andorians - those blue guys with slug antennae - hated each-other and were in a cold war with each-other. Just joining the Federation would do nothing to prevent the war, in fact it would probably make the war happen all the sooner as the two parties would no longer worry about total annihilation.)
At any rate I believe this poll is pure gaslighting. Anyone with half a brain knows that securing the border is a huge benefit to all of America. Weepy sentimentality aside, Americans have given more than was ever required of them by God or decency.
Polls; I've long argued they are full of balogna, or something even less pleasant. This one certainly does nothing to shore up my confidence in them.
This particular trash document was a WaPo/Ispos poll which claims Trump is under water on overall popularity, but also on immigration. Now that last is odd, and is the main subject of the article linked above.
Here is what the article says:
Opinions are more mixed when it comes to Trump’s handling of immigration.
According to the WaPo/Ipsos poll, 47 percent of registered voters approve of the job that Trump is doing with respect to that subject, compared to 52 percent who disapprove — a five-point difference in the red for the incumbent.
That narrows to a two-point differential among men (48 percent approve vs. 52 percent disapprove), though Trump’s handling of immigration is wildly popular with Republican adults, 88 percent of whom approve and just 11 percent of whom disapprove.
Among Independents, just 34 percent approve of the president’s handling of immigration, while 64 percent disapprove — a 30-point hole that rises to 81 points among Democrats (9 percent approval vs. 90 percent disapproval).
How Many Immigrants Should Have Been Deported?
WaPo and Ipsos next asked an unusual question: "Thinking about immigrants who were deported by the Trump administration this year, in your opinion, how many of them should have been deported?”
In response, half — 50 percent — of registered voters said "nearly all” (30 percent) or "most” (20 percent) of the aliens deported under Trump should have been removed, whereas 47 percent said that "less than half” (24 percent) or "hardly any” (23 percent) of them should have required to go.
It’s not entirely clear from the question generally or from those negative responses whether: (1) a large minority of Americans think DHS is deporting aliens in violation of law; (2) many in the public appreciate the stringent requirements DHS must legally satisfy to physically deport any given alien from the United States; and/or (3) a bunch of Americans don’t think anyone here illegally should be forced to leave.
Regardless, a slight majority plainly thinks the Trump administration is doing what the law requires in removing aliens from the United States.
Which Party Would Do a Better Job Handling Immigration?
Which brings me to "question 25c” in the WaPo/Ipsos poll: "Which political party do you trust to do a better job handling immigration?”
In response, a solid plurality of registered voters, 46 percent, put more faith in the GOP to handle immigration, while just 29 percent trusted Democrats, a 17-point gap in favor of the current majority party in the House and Senate.
Nearly a quarter, 24 percent, of registered voters didn’t trust either party.
According to the WaPo/Ipsos poll, 47 percent of registered voters approve of the job that Trump is doing with respect to that subject, compared to 52 percent who disapprove — a five-point difference in the red for the incumbent.
That narrows to a two-point differential among men (48 percent approve vs. 52 percent disapprove), though Trump’s handling of immigration is wildly popular with Republican adults, 88 percent of whom approve and just 11 percent of whom disapprove.
Among Independents, just 34 percent approve of the president’s handling of immigration, while 64 percent disapprove — a 30-point hole that rises to 81 points among Democrats (9 percent approval vs. 90 percent disapproval).
How Many Immigrants Should Have Been Deported?
WaPo and Ipsos next asked an unusual question: "Thinking about immigrants who were deported by the Trump administration this year, in your opinion, how many of them should have been deported?”
In response, half — 50 percent — of registered voters said "nearly all” (30 percent) or "most” (20 percent) of the aliens deported under Trump should have been removed, whereas 47 percent said that "less than half” (24 percent) or "hardly any” (23 percent) of them should have required to go.
It’s not entirely clear from the question generally or from those negative responses whether: (1) a large minority of Americans think DHS is deporting aliens in violation of law; (2) many in the public appreciate the stringent requirements DHS must legally satisfy to physically deport any given alien from the United States; and/or (3) a bunch of Americans don’t think anyone here illegally should be forced to leave.
Regardless, a slight majority plainly thinks the Trump administration is doing what the law requires in removing aliens from the United States.
Which Party Would Do a Better Job Handling Immigration?
Which brings me to "question 25c” in the WaPo/Ipsos poll: "Which political party do you trust to do a better job handling immigration?”
In response, a solid plurality of registered voters, 46 percent, put more faith in the GOP to handle immigration, while just 29 percent trusted Democrats, a 17-point gap in favor of the current majority party in the House and Senate.
Nearly a quarter, 24 percent, of registered voters didn’t trust either party.
And yet Trump won handily in the last election despite being a convicted felon (well, not technically since sentence was never imposed) and that was in no small measure because of rage against the Biden Administration over opening the U.S. wide to the inthrust of aliens. Like a harlot welcoming any man and giving birth to his bastard spawn (who grow up to be serial killers like Charles Manson). The election was the real poll.
But the media is forever running polls because the wording and who is polled can impact what they say, and polls are designed as a tool for bandwagoning. It's pscyhological warfare 1010. Advertisers use that trick all the time, telling you how big they are and how many people want to be part of that. Polls are used in precisely that same way, to make people want to join the "majority side". But they are all lies and we know they are because the last election had Harris winning and she lost. In fact, the last few Republican victories had the Democrats winning and they lost, and that is because the polls were slanted to bandwagon the public.
The Washington Post is one of the most leftist news outlets in the country and this is exactly the result they would want if the actual numbers are reversed and the public supports Trump and the job he's doing with immigration.
Oh, there ARE a lot of Conservatives unhappy with the job he's doing, but that's because he's not moving fast enough. No doubt they were added to the mix to give the impression people hate kicking out illegals.
You will notice the poll didn't ask WHY people were unhappy with Trump's performance.
The article goes on to explain the dichotomy:
During a September 2021 interview with ABC’s "Good Morning America”, former President Obama likely spoke for most Americans when he explained:
Immigration is tough. It always has been because, on the one hand, I think we are naturally a people that wants to help others. And we see tragedy and hardship and families that are desperately trying to get here so that their kids are safe, and they're in some cases fleeing violence or catastrophe. ... At the same time, we're a nation state. We have borders. The idea that we can just have open borders is something that ... as a practical matter, is unsustainable.
Immigration is tough. It always has been because, on the one hand, I think we are naturally a people that wants to help others. And we see tragedy and hardship and families that are desperately trying to get here so that their kids are safe, and they're in some cases fleeing violence or catastrophe. ... At the same time, we're a nation state. We have borders. The idea that we can just have open borders is something that ... as a practical matter, is unsustainable.
No, it's not tough at all. It's easy. It's one of the easiest things in the world; we have laws in place, laws passed BY CONGRESS to deal with the problem. In a democratic republic such as ours that makes it a no-brainer; the laws trump our gooey goood hearts. If it really bothers us enough we can make Congress amend the laws, either temporarily or permanently. Until then one must follow the law. That is why we say we have the "rule of law" and it is one of the most important concepts in the Western World. Laws, not men, rule the land. Men make or change the laws but men cannot and must not abridge the laws or ignore them (as they have been doing with illiegal invaders) based on the say-so of an executive or a bureaucrat or even a whimsical poll by WaPo/Ipsos.
That is why America is not a democracy and never was intended to be such. Democracies blow with whatever wind happens to gust at a particular moment. The Founders understood the dangers of immediate passions and so put in place a very conservative (small c) system full of checks and balances to make any change to the system difficult. It had to be a pressing need to make amending the law worth doing. And the law, and not men, was supposed to rule.
So it's not a difficult issue at all. You obey the law and work to amend it if you don't like it. You don't just ignore it.
Democrats always just ignore laws they do not like because they believe in a radical kind of democracy where whatever flighty whim the public gets is implemented. That's how you wind up with things like tampons in boys rooms.
But it's worse than the public whim; the Founders had read their Greek phiolsophers and read their Platon and Aristotle. They knew that democracy inevitably led to a tyrannny as the public would be led by one man or one well-organized group in time, just to avoid chaos. The word demogogue comes from the Greek and has at it's root the same word that gives us democracy. It means to work people up, to twist their thinking and minds with words and thus stampede them - cattle like - in the direction the wannabe tyrant wishes them to go. In the end you wind up with an oligarchy, or a despotate.
For decades the media and their political allies in the Democratic and not so Democratic (aka RINO Republican) parties wanted open borders. They seek to replace the old stock of Americans who were independent and who wanted a say in how they were governed, and ffound a new America, a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, socialist loving entity.
But multi-ethnic and multi-cultural do not work and never did; just look at the Balkans. America's genius was we took many ethnicities and cultures and blended them together under the supra-culture of America itself. People came here and adopted our ways. They learned English. They learned our economic system. They adopted our clothing, or idioms, our pride in our history and culture. Their children were Americans even if they were not. But the new idea is instead off a melting pot, instead of e pluribus unum, we should be a salad, with undigestible bits of debris from every culture and race and tradition all existing side by side with nothing connecting them but geography. Out of one many would be their motto (E uno pluribi? Don't know Latin).
This is how we create world government; break any loyalty to nations or ethnicities or tradition or culture in favor of this multi-cultural hodgepodge and transfer loyalty to a united Earth. It's the same scam every wannabe world conqueror has tried. Alexander the Great tried it with Pan-Hellenism, imposing Greek culture on his conquests in Egypt, in Mesopotamia, in Persia. The Romans tried it to a lesser degree. The British tried it in their own colonial empire and now Britain has largely been conquered by that very empire they built. I could go on but the point is made; this is an old, old dream going all the way back to the Biblical Nimrod and his Tower of Babel. And it's never worked because we are not herd animals and someone always tries to grab an unfair advantage.
The Communists tried it in the old Warsaw Pact and failed.
Humanity is never going to be like Star Trek, with a unified Earth and a growing, peaceful Federation of planets. Inevitably those planets would turn on each-other. (In Star Trek we learn the Vulcans and Andorians - those blue guys with slug antennae - hated each-other and were in a cold war with each-other. Just joining the Federation would do nothing to prevent the war, in fact it would probably make the war happen all the sooner as the two parties would no longer worry about total annihilation.)
At any rate I believe this poll is pure gaslighting. Anyone with half a brain knows that securing the border is a huge benefit to all of America. Weepy sentimentality aside, Americans have given more than was ever required of them by God or decency.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:00 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1734 words, total size 11 kb.
31kb generated in CPU 0.0201, elapsed 0.2378 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.2247 seconds, 182 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.2247 seconds, 182 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
