http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...porary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens If I watch the local or national news, I would have thought 90+% were against the temporary ban until better vetting can be established. Rasmussen's latest poll shows only 33% are against the ban. Did most of the media get it wrong....again? Where is a news source that is actually at least a little bit objective?
Show me a media source giving estimates of what % of the population is against it. All they're doing is showing the massive protests. You know, like people showing Trump's rallies during the campaign. The people who ARE against it are business leaders, which is probably more influential on politicians than the people at large. But no doubt Trump can be heartened by that poll that his deplorables are out there and have his back.
Also, I like the title of that link "newcomers from Terrorist Havens". Yeah, that's not a leading question, is it?
As usual, reality is not what twitter and twitterers are all about. 1*Do you favor or oppose a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here? 2*Do you favor or oppose a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here?
I would suggest that both those questions imply both that the current standards need improving and can reasonably be improved as methods of screening out potential terrorists. But as there have been zero terrorist acts committed in the US by people from those regions, that is a false assumption. I would be interested in the response rate without the "until" clauses. Now, I'm prepared to be depressed by the results. I don't have much faith in the goodness of heart of the US population at large after the last election, but I think it would be a less leading question.
A different poll would simply ask "do you approve of DT's executive order [describe the EO]?" Also: "would it affect your view if (as is the case) a majority of security experts say that it will not improve matters and in fact has a good chance of making things worse?" I suspect a sizeable % of Trump's base would still approve of it.
The 99% who oppose and are on the march surely know what the E.O. says. It says what the questions ask. Read it.
How about, "are you willing to shake things up to put an end to the never ending war on terror? Or, would you prefer to bomb even more countries?
since 9/11 twenty six people have died from Muslim terrorists acts on US soil....forty eight from white supremacist and other fanatic terrorists non Muslim at home...around the globe over 200,000 have been killed by Muslim terrorists....fewer in the US than most countries involved in the struggle
Quinnipeac poll. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2416 January 12, 2017 - American Voters Want Second Opinion On Obamacare, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Voters Support Immigrants, But Also Back Muslim List
I would have to see the questions asked, what demographics and areas were targeted, and who paid for the poll. You can easily create a poll to achieve a predetermined result. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the poll you listed but without further information I wouldn't jump to major conclusions.
This is fun. "Do you believe that President Trump arrived at this policy as a result of extensive advice from national security advisors or was it instead written by white nationalists and intended to make angry white folks who've never met a muslim very happy?"
You cannot put and end to terrorism, there will always be terrorism no matter how many wars, no matter how many of our troops die, or what executive orders Drumpf signs, that's just reality.
We went from peace in Iraq and skirmishes in Afghanistan in 2009 to routinely bombing 7 countries. Talk about stirring up he hornets ' nest... Whatever we did since 2011 failed rather miserably, when you consider ISIS. Feel free to make the case to continue those policies.
"Since 2011" huh. Given that we're currently supposed to be preventing terrorist attacks, didn't the failures start before 9/11/01?
I wasn't trying to make a case for any policy. I was responding to your post. Anyone who make a promise to end terrorism is a liar. There is only fighting it.
