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?
Originally posted by whodeyI 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.
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?
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/
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by no1marauderI understood that Trump was going to set up safe zones in Syria. If so, why bring them here?
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.
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://dailycaller.com/2017/01/29/gulf-leaders-agree-to-trumps-request-to-set-up-safe-zones/
There's been no mention of that since he actually became President.
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.
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by whodeyA 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.
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.
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by no1marauderI would favor such a zone and the international community has no reason not to support it.
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.
The US should not have to do all the fighting again.
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by whodeySo 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?
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.
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by no1marauderWe could, ya know, help pay for it. I ain't no architect, but I bet a coupla hundred mil would work wonders.
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?