Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Democratic Voters Support Harsh Measures Against Unvaccinated


el midgetron
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

A new Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 48% of voters favor President Joe Biden’s plan to impose a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on the employees of large companies and government agencies……

– Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a proposal is opposed by 61% of all likely voters, including 79% of Republicans and 71% of unaffiliated voters.

– Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications. Only 27% of all voters – including just 14% of Republicans and 18% of unaffiliated voters – favor criminal punishment of vaccine critics.

– Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a policy would be opposed by a strong majority (71%) of all voters, with 78% of Republicans and 64% of unaffiliated voters saying they would Strongly Oppose putting the unvaccinated in “designated facilities.”

How far are Democrats willing to go in punishing the unvaccinated? Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Democratic voters would support temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine. That’s much more than twice the level of support in the rest of the electorate – seven percent (7%) of Republicans and 11% of unaffiliated voters – for such a policy.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/covid_19_democratic_voters_support_harsh_measures_against_unvaccinated

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me again how it is the conservatives who are the Facsit.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeap, this enforcement is not a good idea or some sort of punishment.
A simple mandatory documentation to attend certain places or events should suffice.

I, so far, have not seen any consensus or tendence on the medical community to push for mandatory vaccination.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Tell me again how it is the conservatives who are the Facsit.

Yes, remember this next time someone on here of the left persuasion calls you a nazi.

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, el midgetron said:

It seems my instinct about this situation has been spot on.  My favorite:

"47% of Democrats favor a government tracking program for those who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine.

How far are Democrats willing to go in punishing the unvaccinated? Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Democratic voters would support temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine".

Yeah, no overreaction here, move along.  Once you convince people they have a right to demand things of others, they can get REALLY NASTY when those demands are ignored.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

– Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.

– Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Wow...just wow. Yes definitely echos of Nazi Germany in there.

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm vaccinated and pro vaccine but I am not even close to supporting any of the measures the Dems support.  

 

Edited by Myles
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'm vaccinated and pro vaccine but I am not even close to supporting and of the measures the Dems support.  

 

Similar. I've had both my vaccines (yet to have booster) but if they tell me I'm going to need another one in six months I might be less 'enthusiastic' shall we say.

But this sort of stuff is scary, and these people are in charge.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, el midgetron said:

I have dealt with the Heartland Institute before.  They are extreme climate change deniers.  But I have proven that Oklahoma climate is changing and see nothing inconsistent between my research and those of other climate scientists.  I wouldn't take their word for the time of day.  They are strictly political trolls.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Similar. I've had both my vaccines (yet to have booster) but if they tell me I'm going to need another one in six months I might be less 'enthusiastic' shall we say.

But this sort of stuff is scary, and these people are in charge.

I bet if black people were not the most unvaccinated race, the dems would be calling non vaccinated people racists.   It seems to be their go to.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

I have dealt with the Heartland Institute before.  They are extreme climate change deniers.  But I have proven that Oklahoma climate is changing and see nothing inconsistent between my research and those of other climate scientists.  I wouldn't take their word for the time of day.  They are strictly political trolls.

Doug

Yeah, they seem pretty far out there.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

I have dealt with the Heartland Institute before.  They are extreme climate change deniers.  But I have proven that Oklahoma climate is changing and see nothing inconsistent between my research and those of other climate scientists.  I wouldn't take their word for the time of day.  They are strictly political trolls.

Doug

From your research how much is the temperature projected to change over the next 100 years?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

I always have to take polls with a grain of salt. Around 300 likely voters, and it gets headlined like it is all Democrats. Or at least this time that's getting headlined. I have seen other polls where a huge segment gets broad-brushed, it's not always Democrats. It is kind of nice that with a thousand randomly selected land lines and internet panel requests, the demographic ended up so neatly at about a third each of Democrat, Republican, and Other affiliations. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

From your research how much is the temperature projected to change over the next 100 years?

I work with past temperature records and tree-ring proxies.  Temperatures in Oklahoma have risen 0.7 F since I moved here in 2001.  That's about 2F since 1976.  Also, it is getting wetter here.  Rainfall has increased 0.4 inches/yr. in the same time.  Oklahoma has nine climate divisions; they all show warmer, wetter conditions.  Those numbers are from actual written records, not simulations.

My climate research has stalled due to covid.  I have to work from home where I don't have access to the records I need.  I am also preparing a post-oak climate chronology.  I'd like to do one for each climate division, but don't know if there's enough data.  Climate Division 1 (Panhandle), probably not.  I'll have to do the others and see what I get.

Sorry I can't answer your question, but that's nt what I do.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't judge half a nation based on 1,016 survey participants. It only has half the minimum participants needed to be representative.

BTW, I am left-ish, and strongly against any kind of vaccine coercion. It's crazy to even consider it!

 

Edited by zep73
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
5 minutes ago, zep73 said:

You can't judge half a nation based on 1,016 survey participants. It only has half the minimum participants needed to be representative.

BTW, I am left-ish, and strongly against any kind of vaccine coercion. It's crazy to even consider it!

 

1,016 participants, of which that's split into a third each of Democrat, Republican, and Other affiliation. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rashore said:

1,016 participants, of which that's split into a third each of Democrat, Republican, and Other affiliation. 

That's even worse!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
7 minutes ago, zep73 said:

That's even worse!

Yeah, it is interesting that the poll of randomly selected land line numbers/ internet panel pollers resulted in an even split that way. A rather small sample to declare an entire group on.

I tend to take the polls that say X group believes in X with grains of salt too. Sometimes they are kind of funny. There has been some fairly serious debate about the veracity of polls in general in some of those threads. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, zep73 said:

That's even worse!

If the sample is properly selected (randomized), 1016 participants should be enough.  If the sample population is evenly split into three sub-samples, that is pretty close to optimum for maximizing sampling accuracy.

I fear that if the callers in any way allowed the participants to know in advance what previous answers had been, then the "bandwagon effect" would kick in, in which participants tend to select answers similar to what they think previous participants had said.  A poll could be accidentally or intentionally biased that way.

Information needed to replicate the poll is not given, leading to the suspicion that the authors don't want it replicated.

Doug 

Edited by Doug1066
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

If the sample is properly selected (randomized), 1016 participants should be enough.  If the sample population is evenly split into three sub-samples, that is pretty close to optimum for maximizing sampling accuracy.

If they want to know what democratic voters think, they need 1,000 democratic samples as a minimum. Appr. 300 does not cut it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, a serious topic about how people want to remove rights from other groups has been derailed by Doug and his trees. 

It's like he does it by design 

All I can say is that you guys are dismissing that a large segment of people polled want to remove rights from others.

If we don't learn from history we will repeat it 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zep73 said:

If they want to know what democratic voters think, they need 1,000 democratic samples as a minimum. Appr. 300 does not cut it.

And if it showed the same result? Would you be worried about the state of your country and why some citizens think its ok to remove rights from other citizens?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hugh Mungus said:

And if it showed the same result? Would you be worried about the state of your country and why some citizens think its ok to remove rights from other citizens?

Yes. I would be equally horrified and ashamed that anyone would consider coercing their fellow citizens.

Edited by zep73
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully alot of those people don't actually want to do that but just want to give the FU response when answering the poll....

Locking people in their houses is absolutely not acceptable 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.