VIDEO: Trump Repeats The Lie To Cover For Vance!
Yesterday PRRI looked at the connection between Christian nationalism and authoritarianism (and political violence). 67% of Republicans score high on the Right Wing Authoritarian Scale (RWAS)— as opposed to 35% of independents and 28% of Dems. One finding was that “Republicans who hold favorable views of Trump are 36 percentage points more likely than those with unfavorable views of Trump to score high on the RWAS (75% vs. 39%). Another was that “White evangelical Protestants (64%) are the religious group most likely to score high on the RWAS, followed by slim majorities of other Protestants of color (55%), Hispanic Protestants (54%), and white Catholics (54%). A majority of weekly churchgoers (55%) score high on the RWAS, compared with 44% of Americans who attend church a few times a year and 38% of those who never attend church services.”
They wrote that “There is strong overlap among Americans who hold Christian nationalist and authoritarian views [and that] Right-wing authoritarians and Christian nationalists are most supportive of the need for a strong leader who is willing to break the rules… While most Americans reject political violence, those who score high on the RWAS, CRAS, and Christian nationalism scales, as well as Republicans with favorable views of Trump, are more likely to do so.
Just one in three Americans agree with the idea of a leader who is willing to break some rules if that’s what it takes to set things right (34%).
More than half of Republicans who view Trump favorably (55%) agree that we need a leader willing to break some rules compared with 26% of Republicans with unfavorable views of Trump, 32% of independents, and 22% of Democrats.
The majority of those who score high on the RWAS (59%) and those who qualify as Christian nationalism Adherents and Sympathizers (55%) agree with the need for a leader who is “willing to break some rules,” compared with 44% of those who score high on the CRAS (“Child-Rearing Authoritarianism Scale”).
Similar to earlier PRRI studies, three in ten Americans identify as either Christian nationalism Adherents (10%) or Sympathizers (20%).
Strong majorities of Christian nationalism supporters (Adherents and Sympathizers) score high on both the RWAS (74%) and CRAS (61%), more than double the rates of Christian nationalism Skeptics and Rejecters (30% and 31%, respectively).
Among those who score high on the RWAS, the majority qualify as Christian nationalism supporters (51%) or score high on the CRAS (56%). By contrast, among those with low RWAS scores, just 7% are Christian nationalism supporters and 21% score high on the CRAS.
Among those with high CRAS scores, 44% qualify as Christian nationalism supporters and 59% score high on the RWAS. By contrast, among those who score low on the CRAS, 14% qualify as Christian nationalism supporters and 25% score high on the CRAS.
Just one in three Americans agree with the idea of a leader who is willing to break some rules if that’s what it takes to set things right (34%).
More than half of Republicans who view Trump favorably (55%) agree that we need a leader willing to break some rules compared with 26% of Republicans with unfavorable views of Trump, 32% of independents, and 22% of Democrats.
The majority of those who score high on the RWAS (59%) and those who qualify as Christian nationalism Adherents and Sympathizers (55%) agree with the need for a leader who is “willing to break some rules,” compared with 44% of those who score high on the CRAS.
Just 16% of Americans agree that “patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country,” 16% agree that “if the 2024 presidential election is compromised by voter fraud, everyday Americans will need to ensure the rightful leader takes office, even if it requires taking violent actions,” and 15% agree that armed citizens are needed as poll watchers to ensure a fair presidential election.
Republicans are more likely than independents and Democrats to agree that patriots may have to resort to violence (27%, 15%, and 8%, respectively); Americans need to ensure the rightful leader takes office, even with violence (24%, 15%, and 10%, respectively); and that armed citizens are needed as poll watchers (24%, 10%, and 10%, respectively). Republicans with favorable views of Trump are more likely to agree with all three statements (32%, 27%, and 28%, respectively).
Christian nationalism supporters are slightly more likely than Americans who score high on the RWAS or CRAS to agree that true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country (33%, 28%, and 21%, respectively) or to ensure that the rightful leader takes office (30%, 26%, and 20%, respectively), and that armed citizens are needed as poll watchers (29%, 25%, and 20%, respectively).
This can be boiled down to the unpleasant fact that about a quarter of Republicans said that Americans needed to “ensure the rightful leader takes office” if 2024 is “compromised by voter fraud”— including by taking violent actions. The same percentage said that Trump should “do whatever it takes” to become president if he isn’t confirmed as the winner in November.
The moment from last night’s debate that everyone is talking about today is the nonsense above, Trump repeating the JD Vance assertion that Haitian immigrants in Ohio are stealing people’s cats and dogs and eating them. “They're eating the dogs, the people that came in, they're eating the cats. They're eating the pets of the people that live there, and this is what's happening in our country, and it's a shame.”
Trump's answer was among the most extraordinary of the first 30 minutes of the debate: a former U.S. president spreading an internet rumor— one labeled by some of his critics as racist— in front of an audience of millions of Americans. The comment illustrated the rapid spread of misinformation in today's media ecosystem.
David Muir, the ABC News anchor co-moderating the debate, immediately fact-checked Trump's claims, saying that the city manager in Springfield, Ohio, told the network there had been no credible reports of pets being harmed, injured or abused by people in the city's immigrant community.
Baseless rumors have spread on social media for days claiming that Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets. Most of the rumors involve Springfield, which has a large number of Haitian immigrants, but police there released a statement Monday knocking down the stories and saying they hadn’t seen any documented examples. “There have been no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community,” the police said in a statement.
Republicans including Ohio Sen. JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential nominee, have pointed to the claims as evidence that immigrants are causing chaos. Vance, though, hedged in a statement on X earlier Tuesday, saying, “It’s possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false.”
The claims about pets were based in part on vague social media posts, including one fourth-hand story posted in a Facebook group devoted to local crime, as well as statements at public meetings, where residents spoke about violence against animals without providing evidence.
Springfield Mayor Rob Rue repeated Tuesday that the city had no documented cases of immigrants eating pets.
“Rumors like these are taking away from the real issues such as housing concerns, resources needed for our schools and our overwhelmed health care system,” he said at a meeting of the city commission.
Rue said that one alleged case of someone attacking a cat— falsely attributed to a Haitian immigrant in Springfield— actually occurred 160 miles away in Canton, Ohio. And the defendant there charged with animal cruelty has no known connection to Haiti, according to the Canton Repository newspaper.
The topic of immigration took center stage at Tuesday’s city commission meeting in Springfield. At the meeting, resident Nathan Clark, whose 11-year-old son was killed last year when a minivan driven by a Haitian immigrant struck his school bus, denounced Republican politicians who he said were using his deceased son Aiden as “a political tool” to fuel anti-immigrant hatred.
On the other hand, it is well know that one of the senators from Ohio— now Trump’s running mate— has been embarrassed about stupid remarks he made about “childless cat ladies,” and although there is no evidence he has been eating people’s dogs, many people— many, many people— say Vance is well know for eating people’s cats, especially the cats that belong to women who have no children living at home.
Comments