Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 01 Feb '17 00:12 / 1 edit
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/29/poll-nearly-half-america-voters-support-trumps-immigration-order

    Put away your torch guns and vagina hats left wingers, the brutal fact of the matter is that 48% of Americans support Trump in his immigration actions and only 42% oppose it. He is winning in the polls.........again.

    IF Trump went against the law then I assume the courts will stop him. Either that or there are really no checks and balances within the system to stop him. That is your two options, so which is it?
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Feb '17 00:19 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/29/poll-nearly-half-america-voters-support-trumps-immigration-order

    Put away your torch guns and vagina hats left wingers, the brutal fact of the matter is that 48% of Americans support Trump in his immigration actions and only 42% oppose it. He is winning in the polls.........again.

    IF Trump went against the law then ...[text shortened]... no checks and balances within the system to stop him. That is your two options, so which is it?
    I bet if they asked the question "Do you support Trump's immigration order" they'd get a different result than from the question they did ask i.e. whether voters supported "suspending immigration from terror prone regions, even if it means turning away refugees." In fact, Trump's order did more than "suspend immigration" and the "terror prone regions" he selected have not been responsible for a single American death in the US from terrorism.

    THe poll, which was done January 5-9, is here: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2416

    It is hardly supportive of most of Trump's positions.

    EDIT: The public seems divided on immigration and refugee issues in general: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-trumps-refugee-ban-have-public-support/
  3. 01 Feb '17 00:25
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I bet if they asked the question "Do you support Trump's immigration order" they'd get a different result than from the question they did ask i.e. whether voters supported "suspending immigration from terror prone regions, even if it means turning away refugees." In fact, Trump's order did more than "suspend immigration" and the "terror prone regions" he ...[text shortened]... /national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2416

    It is hardly supportive of most of Trump's positions.
    I understood that Trump was going to set up safe zones in Syria. If so, why bring them here?
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Feb '17 00:30
    Originally posted by whodey
    I understood that Trump was going to set up safe zones in Syria. If so, why bring them here?
    There's been no mention of that since he actually became President.
  5. 01 Feb '17 01:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    There's been no mention of that since he actually became President.
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/29/gulf-leaders-agree-to-trumps-request-to-set-up-safe-zones/

    I know, I know, it's the Daily Caller but I don't think the main press covers Trump anymore unless they are calling for his impeachment.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Feb '17 02:03
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/29/gulf-leaders-agree-to-trumps-request-to-set-up-safe-zones/

    I know, I know, it's the Daily Caller but I don't think the main press covers Trump anymore unless they are calling for his impeachment.
    A safe zone proposal was deleted from the immigration draft, so where it stands now I don't know. Obviously it would require substantial US military involvement in Syria.
  7. 01 Feb '17 02:08
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    A safe zone proposal was deleted from the immigration draft, so where it stands now I don't know. Obviously it would require substantial US military involvement in Syria.
    I would favor such a zone and the international community has no reason not to support it.

    The US should not have to do all the fighting again.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Feb '17 02:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    I would favor such a zone and the international community has no reason not to support it.

    The US should not have to do all the fighting again.
    So the US should tell the international community to create a "safe zone" in Syria but not do anything militarily to enforce it? Kinda like Mexico paying for the wall?
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Feb '17 02:25
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    So the US should tell the international community to create a "safe zone" in Syria but not do anything militarily to enforce it? Kinda like Mexico paying for the wall?
    We could, ya know, help pay for it. I ain't no architect, but I bet a coupla hundred mil would work wonders.