Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As I said on the OP, the question came at the end of a list of questions dealing with several genuine foreign policy proposals and issues including banning Muslims from entering the US, Japanese style internment camps and even banning Islam. I suspect that in light of the nature of the poll, they believed the question to be related to Isis strongholds, since that is topical and relevant to the poll as a whole. I think all this result shows is that not all Americans are familiar with the names of all Muslim cities, they haven't watched aladin, and that they are naturally wary of Islamic terrorism and want it dealt with.A new poll says 30% of republicans and 41% of Trump supporters favor bombing Aladdin's fictional hometown of Agrabah. It's a very legitimate poll, just like the one in he OP. The same polling methods were used.
Yeah 30% of republicans and 41% of Trump supporters will bomb anything that sounds arabic! Courtesy of a poll whose methods you cannot dispute!As I said on the OP, the question came at the end of a list of questions dealing with several genuine foreign policy proposals and issues including banning Muslims from entering the US, Japanese style internment camps and even banning Islam. I suspect that in light of the nature of the poll, they believed the question to be related to Isis strongholds, since that is topical and relevant to the poll as a whole. I think all this result shows is that not all Americans are familiar with the names of all Muslim cities, they haven't watched aladin, and that they are naturally wary of Islamic terrorism and want it dealt with.A new poll says 30% of republicans and 41% of Trump supporters favor bombing Aladdin's fictional hometown of Agrabah. It's a very legitimate poll, just like the one in he OP. The same polling methods were used.
I haven't seen the methodology, so of course I haven't disputed it. I'm not even motivated to dispute it as I can understand that coming at the end of a list of questions about foreign policy and Islamic terrorism, and immigration, they naturally assumed the question to be topical to bombing Isis. Is that difficult to comprehend?Yeah 30% of republicans and 41% of Trump supporters will bomb anything that sounds arabic! Courtesy of a poll whose methods you cannot dispute!As I said on the OP, the question came at the end of a list of questions dealing with several genuine foreign policy proposals and issues including banning Muslims from entering the US, Japanese style internment camps and even banning Islam. I suspect that in light of the nature of the poll, they believed the question to be related to Isis strongholds, since that is topical and relevant to the poll as a whole. I think all this result shows is that not all Americans are familiar with the names of all Muslim cities, they haven't watched aladin, and that they are naturally wary of Islamic terrorism and want it dealt with.A new poll says 30% of republicans and 41% of Trump supporters favor bombing Aladdin's fictional hometown of Agrabah. It's a very legitimate poll, just like the one in he OP. The same polling methods were used.
Oh, I do understand. People simply don't trust Trump. You could put Trump's name on almost any proposal and support would drop except among his supporters. Most intelligent people know that you can not deport 11 million people fast and easy, nor deny Muslim American the right to assemble and worship, nor ask people at the US boarder if they are Muslims and turn them away if they say yes. We all want to believe that there are simple solutions to our problems but most of us are smart enough to know they don't exist.You don't seem to understand. 45% backed it until his name was associated with it, then 25% continued to agree with it.It is perfectly reasonable that Democrats wouldn't back any proposal from Trump. Most of his proposals are racist, unconstitutional, and impractical.Them dems are so contrary. 45% of them favour banning Muslim immigration when Trump is not mentioned in the equation, but when his name is associated with the proposal, this falls by 25%. What hypocrites
A new Fox News poll finds 50 percent of voters favor Trump’s ban, while 46 percent are opposed.
However, when Trump’s name is removed from the question, support for the plan goes up five points and opposition goes down six: 55 percent favor the unnamed proposal, while 40 percent oppose it.
So while voters favor the “Trump” ban by a 4-point margin -- that increases to 15 points when the same ban is not associated with Trump.
There are stunning shifts in the responses among Democrats: 45 percent favor banning Muslims if Trump’s name is not mentioned, yet when the plan is identified as Trump’s, support drops to 25 percent.
Among Republicans, views hold steady: 71 percent favor it when attributed to Trump vs. 72 percent for the generic proposal.
Fox News Poll: Views on (Trump's) proposed ban on non-U.S. Muslims | Fox News
45% of dems still supported banning Muslims from entering the country. After they linked it with Trump, 25% continued to agree with banning more Muslims coming into the country. So, still a lot of dems don't want more Muslims in the country, although they'd prefer someone other than Trump proposed it.Oh, I do understand. People simply don't trust Trump. You could put Trump's name on almost any proposal and support would drop except among his supporters. Most intelligent people know that you can not deport 11 million people fast and easy, nor deny Muslim American the right to assemble and worship, nor ask people at the US boarder if they are Muslims and turn them away if they say yes. We all want to believe that there are simple solutions to our problems but most of us are smart enough to know they don't exist.You don't seem to understand. 45% backed it until his name was associated with it, then 25% continued to agree with it.It is perfectly reasonable that Democrats wouldn't back any proposal from Trump. Most of his proposals are racist, unconstitutional, and impractical.Them dems are so contrary. 45% of them favour banning Muslim immigration when Trump is not mentioned in the equation, but when his name is associated with the proposal, this falls by 25%. What hypocrites
A new Fox News poll finds 50 percent of voters favor Trump’s ban, while 46 percent are opposed.
However, when Trump’s name is removed from the question, support for the plan goes up five points and opposition goes down six: 55 percent favor the unnamed proposal, while 40 percent oppose it.
So while voters favor the “Trump” ban by a 4-point margin -- that increases to 15 points when the same ban is not associated with Trump.
There are stunning shifts in the responses among Democrats: 45 percent favor banning Muslims if Trump’s name is not mentioned, yet when the plan is identified as Trump’s, support drops to 25 percent.
Among Republicans, views hold steady: 71 percent favor it when attributed to Trump vs. 72 percent for the generic proposal.
Fox News Poll: Views on (Trump's) proposed ban on non-U.S. Muslims | Fox News
There's a problem in providing just aid to refugees. No one wants them. Look at Europe, they are overrun with refugees. If no country wants them, then they end up in refugee camps which become training grounds for terrorist and criminals.Them dems are so contrary. 45% of them favour banning Muslim immigration when Trump is not mentioned in the equation, but when his name is associated with the proposal, this falls by 25%. What hypocrites
A new Fox News poll finds 50 percent of voters favor Trump’s ban, while 46 percent are opposed.
However, when Trump’s name is removed from the question, support for the plan goes up five points and opposition goes down six: 55 percent favor the unnamed proposal, while 40 percent oppose it.
So while voters favor the “Trump” ban by a 4-point margin -- that increases to 15 points when the same ban is not associated with Trump.
There are stunning shifts in the responses among Democrats: 45 percent favor banning Muslims if Trump’s name is not mentioned, yet when the plan is identified as Trump’s, support drops to 25 percent.
Among Republicans, views hold steady: 71 percent favor it when attributed to Trump vs. 72 percent for the generic proposal.
Fox News Poll: Views on (Trump's) proposed ban on non-U.S. Muslims | Fox News
Other countries have put the brakes on the refugees resettlement. It is about security. There are many ways to help the refugees beside letting them immigrate.
If you are sick or injured, it can be at times impossible to care for an infant. If a country is being attacked from within, like a virus, it does not have the strength to care for the refugees.
The people want better vetting and to put a temporary hold on letting people into the country. Security of the US has to come first. The first job of a government should be to protect a country. We also have to have the resources to provide aid. Right not we are trillions in debt. We can't pay our own bills, how can we pay for the support of so many refugees? We can give of our time and share what we have by donating to charities and NGOs that help the refugees. It is not up to our government to pay for the whole world with money we don't have.
Refugees should be kept as close as possible to their homeland to make it easy for them to return and rebuild their homes and country. Moving them half way around the world is not the answer.
What do you suggest then?There's a problem in providing just aid to refugees. No one wants them. Look at Europe, they are overrun with refugees. If no country wants them, then they end up in refugee camps which become training grounds for terrorist and criminals.Them dems are so contrary. 45% of them favour banning Muslim immigration when Trump is not mentioned in the equation, but when his name is associated with the proposal, this falls by 25%. What hypocrites
A new Fox News poll finds 50 percent of voters favor Trump’s ban, while 46 percent are opposed.
However, when Trump’s name is removed from the question, support for the plan goes up five points and opposition goes down six: 55 percent favor the unnamed proposal, while 40 percent oppose it.
So while voters favor the “Trump” ban by a 4-point margin -- that increases to 15 points when the same ban is not associated with Trump.
There are stunning shifts in the responses among Democrats: 45 percent favor banning Muslims if Trump’s name is not mentioned, yet when the plan is identified as Trump’s, support drops to 25 percent.
Among Republicans, views hold steady: 71 percent favor it when attributed to Trump vs. 72 percent for the generic proposal.
Fox News Poll: Views on (Trump's) proposed ban on non-U.S. Muslims | Fox News
Other countries have put the brakes on the refugees resettlement. It is about security. There are many ways to help the refugees beside letting them immigrate.
If you are sick or injured, it can be at times impossible to care for an infant. If a country is being attacked from within, like a virus, it does not have the strength to care for the refugees.
The people want better vetting and to put a temporary hold on letting people into the country. Security of the US has to come first. The first job of a government should be to protect a country. We also have to have the resources to provide aid. Right not we are trillions in debt. We can't pay our own bills, how can we pay for the support of so many refugees? We can give of our time and share what we have by donating to charities and NGOs that help the refugees. It is not up to our government to pay for the whole world with money we don't have.
Refugees should be kept as close as possible to their homeland to make it easy for them to return and rebuild their homes and country. Moving them half way around the world is not the answer.
45% of dems still supported banning Muslims from entering the country. After they linked it with Trump, 25% continued to agree with banning more Muslims coming into the country. So, still a lot of dems don't want more Muslims in the country, although they'd prefer someone other than Trump proposed it.Oh, I do understand. People simply don't trust Trump. You could put Trump's name on almost any proposal and support would drop except among his supporters. Most intelligent people know that you can not deport 11 million people fast and easy, nor deny Muslim American the right to assemble and worship, nor ask people at the US boarder if they are Muslims and turn them away if they say yes. We all want to believe that there are simple solutions to our problems but most of us are smart enough to know they don't exist.You don't seem to understand. 45% backed it until his name was associated with it, then 25% continued to agree with it.It is perfectly reasonable that Democrats wouldn't back any proposal from Trump. Most of his proposals are racist, unconstitutional, and impractical.Them dems are so contrary. 45% of them favour banning Muslim immigration when Trump is not mentioned in the equation, but when his name is associated with the proposal, this falls by 25%. What hypocrites
A new Fox News poll finds 50 percent of voters favor Trump’s ban, while 46 percent are opposed.
However, when Trump’s name is removed from the question, support for the plan goes up five points and opposition goes down six: 55 percent favor the unnamed proposal, while 40 percent oppose it.
So while voters favor the “Trump” ban by a 4-point margin -- that increases to 15 points when the same ban is not associated with Trump.
There are stunning shifts in the responses among Democrats: 45 percent favor banning Muslims if Trump’s name is not mentioned, yet when the plan is identified as Trump’s, support drops to 25 percent.
Among Republicans, views hold steady: 71 percent favor it when attributed to Trump vs. 72 percent for the generic proposal.
Fox News Poll: Views on (Trump's) proposed ban on non-U.S. Muslims | Fox News
Well he's not presenting a manifesto, just proposals. I saw him speak on this matter twice, and both times he said no more Muslim immigration until vetting and security is sorted out. But this doesn't matter, as the pollsters were voting per written statements, statements that were the same apart fro Trump being associated with one and not the other.45% of dems still supported banning Muslims from entering the country. After they linked it with Trump, 25% continued to agree with banning more Muslims coming into the country. So, still a lot of dems don't want more Muslims in the country, although they'd prefer someone other than Trump proposed it.Oh, I do understand. People simply don't trust Trump. You could put Trump's name on almost any proposal and support would drop except among his supporters. Most intelligent people know that you can not deport 11 million people fast and easy, nor deny Muslim American the right to assemble and worship, nor ask people at the US boarder if they are Muslims and turn them away if they say yes. We all want to believe that there are simple solutions to our problems but most of us are smart enough to know they don't exist.You don't seem to understand. 45% backed it until his name was associated with it, then 25% continued to agree with it.It is perfectly reasonable that Democrats wouldn't back any proposal from Trump. Most of his proposals are racist, unconstitutional, and impractical.Them dems are so contrary. 45% of them favour banning Muslim immigration when Trump is not mentioned in the equation, but when his name is associated with the proposal, this falls by 25%. What hypocrites
A new Fox News poll finds 50 percent of voters favor Trump’s ban, while 46 percent are opposed.
However, when Trump’s name is removed from the question, support for the plan goes up five points and opposition goes down six: 55 percent favor the unnamed proposal, while 40 percent oppose it.
So while voters favor the “Trump” ban by a 4-point margin -- that increases to 15 points when the same ban is not associated with Trump.
There are stunning shifts in the responses among Democrats: 45 percent favor banning Muslims if Trump’s name is not mentioned, yet when the plan is identified as Trump’s, support drops to 25 percent.
Among Republicans, views hold steady: 71 percent favor it when attributed to Trump vs. 72 percent for the generic proposal.
Fox News Poll: Views on (Trump's) proposed ban on non-U.S. Muslims | Fox News
Trump's proposed ban changes each time Trump is interviewed. It began as a ban on all Muslims entering the country. He then he excluded Muslim athletes and diplomats and US servicemen. They he said American Muslims would be exempt because they are citizens and then mentioned other exceptions. Then a few days later he said his ban applied to all Muslims. So exactly what plan are we talking about, one that bans all Muslims or one with a long list of exceptions. Have you read his plan on his official website? Don't bother; there is no plan. That's right there's not a single word about a ban on Muslims entering the country. In fact, he never mentions Muslim nor even terrorism. Even his famous deportation plan, "They all must go" is not there. The only deportations Trump calls for are illegal immigrants that are in illegal gangs and convicted criminals.
Over the last 2 years, the UN has referred 22,000 Syrian refugees to the the US. Of those approximately 2,100 have been accepted lest than 10% of those that applied. The vast majority are women and children under the age 18. Obama has called for upping the number to approximately 1500 a year. I don't see any problem with this. There are somewhere between 3 and 7 million Muslims living in the US and we have more 10 million Muslim visitors to the US each year. I seriously doubt that another 1500 women and children a year is going have any effect on the number of Islamic terrorist attacks (2 in 2015 down from 5 in 2014, and 6 in 2013).What do you suggest then?There's a problem in providing just aid to refugees. No one wants them. Look at Europe, they are overrun with refugees. If no country wants them, then they end up in refugee camps which become training grounds for terrorist and criminals.Them dems are so contrary. 45% of them favour banning Muslim immigration when Trump is not mentioned in the equation, but when his name is associated with the proposal, this falls by 25%. What hypocrites
A new Fox News poll finds 50 percent of voters favor Trump’s ban, while 46 percent are opposed.
However, when Trump’s name is removed from the question, support for the plan goes up five points and opposition goes down six: 55 percent favor the unnamed proposal, while 40 percent oppose it.
So while voters favor the “Trump” ban by a 4-point margin -- that increases to 15 points when the same ban is not associated with Trump.
There are stunning shifts in the responses among Democrats: 45 percent favor banning Muslims if Trump’s name is not mentioned, yet when the plan is identified as Trump’s, support drops to 25 percent.
Among Republicans, views hold steady: 71 percent favor it when attributed to Trump vs. 72 percent for the generic proposal.
Fox News Poll: Views on (Trump's) proposed ban on non-U.S. Muslims | Fox News
Other countries have put the brakes on the refugees resettlement. It is about security. There are many ways to help the refugees beside letting them immigrate.
If you are sick or injured, it can be at times impossible to care for an infant. If a country is being attacked from within, like a virus, it does not have the strength to care for the refugees.
The people want better vetting and to put a temporary hold on letting people into the country. Security of the US has to come first. The first job of a government should be to protect a country. We also have to have the resources to provide aid. Right not we are trillions in debt. We can't pay our own bills, how can we pay for the support of so many refugees? We can give of our time and share what we have by donating to charities and NGOs that help the refugees. It is not up to our government to pay for the whole world with money we don't have.
Refugees should be kept as close as possible to their homeland to make it easy for them to return and rebuild their homes and country. Moving them half way around the world is not the answer.
How do you know it's actually women and children? And aren't you concerned that the head of the FBI said they cannot be vetted properly? You can't vet people from a war zone, even less so when it's a country that's been in turmoil for years. I don't see what's wrong with Arabic/Muslim countries taking them. Better for everyone, imho.Over the last 2 years, the UN has referred 22,000 Syrian refugees to the the US. Of those approximately 2,100 have been accepted lest than 10% of those that applied. The vast majority are women and children under the age 18. Obama has called for upping the number to approximately 1500 a year. I don't see any problem with this. There are somewhere between 3 and 7 million Muslims living in the US and we have more 10 million Muslim visitors the US each year. I seriously doubt that another 1500 women and children a year is going have any effect on the number of terrorist attacks a year (2 in 2015 down from 5 in 2014).What do you suggest then?There's a problem in providing just aid to refugees. No one wants them. Look at Europe, they are overrun with refugees. If no country wants them, then they end up in refugee camps which become training grounds for terrorist and criminals.Them dems are so contrary. 45% of them favour banning Muslim immigration when Trump is not mentioned in the equation, but when his name is associated with the proposal, this falls by 25%. What hypocrites
A new Fox News poll finds 50 percent of voters favor Trump’s ban, while 46 percent are opposed.
However, when Trump’s name is removed from the question, support for the plan goes up five points and opposition goes down six: 55 percent favor the unnamed proposal, while 40 percent oppose it.
So while voters favor the “Trump” ban by a 4-point margin -- that increases to 15 points when the same ban is not associated with Trump.
There are stunning shifts in the responses among Democrats: 45 percent favor banning Muslims if Trump’s name is not mentioned, yet when the plan is identified as Trump’s, support drops to 25 percent.
Among Republicans, views hold steady: 71 percent favor it when attributed to Trump vs. 72 percent for the generic proposal.
Fox News Poll: Views on (Trump's) proposed ban on non-U.S. Muslims | Fox News
Other countries have put the brakes on the refugees resettlement. It is about security. There are many ways to help the refugees beside letting them immigrate.
If you are sick or injured, it can be at times impossible to care for an infant. If a country is being attacked from within, like a virus, it does not have the strength to care for the refugees.
The people want better vetting and to put a temporary hold on letting people into the country. Security of the US has to come first. The first job of a government should be to protect a country. We also have to have the resources to provide aid. Right not we are trillions in debt. We can't pay our own bills, how can we pay for the support of so many refugees? We can give of our time and share what we have by donating to charities and NGOs that help the refugees. It is not up to our government to pay for the whole world with money we don't have.
Refugees should be kept as close as possible to their homeland to make it easy for them to return and rebuild their homes and country. Moving them half way around the world is not the answer.
Where are there any written position statements from Trump on the Muslim ban, closing mosques, deporting all illegal immigrants. I really don't believe there are any plans. These are nothing more than ideas that Trump throws out in speeches and interviews, often contradictory. Some are right off the top of his head and make no sense at all.Well he's not presenting a manifesto, just proposals. I saw him speak on this matter twice, and both times he said no more Muslim immigration until vetting and security is sorted out. But this doesn't matter, as the pollsters were voting per written statements, statements that were the same apart fro Trump being associated with one and not the other.45% of dems still supported banning Muslims from entering the country. After they linked it with Trump, 25% continued to agree with banning more Muslims coming into the country. So, still a lot of dems don't want more Muslims in the country, although they'd prefer someone other than Trump proposed it.Oh, I do understand. People simply don't trust Trump. You could put Trump's name on almost any proposal and support would drop except among his supporters. Most intelligent people know that you can not deport 11 million people fast and easy, nor deny Muslim American the right to assemble and worship, nor ask people at the US boarder if they are Muslims and turn them away if they say yes. We all want to believe that there are simple solutions to our problems but most of us are smart enough to know they don't exist.You don't seem to understand. 45% backed it until his name was associated with it, then 25% continued to agree with it.It is perfectly reasonable that Democrats wouldn't back any proposal from Trump. Most of his proposals are racist, unconstitutional, and impractical.
Trump's proposed ban changes each time Trump is interviewed. It began as a ban on all Muslims entering the country. He then he excluded Muslim athletes and diplomats and US servicemen. They he said American Muslims would be exempt because they are citizens and then mentioned other exceptions. Then a few days later he said his ban applied to all Muslims. So exactly what plan are we talking about, one that bans all Muslims or one with a long list of exceptions. Have you read his plan on his official website? Don't bother; there is no plan. That's right there's not a single word about a ban on Muslims entering the country. In fact, he never mentions Muslim nor even terrorism. Even his famous deportation plan, "They all must go" is not there. The only deportations Trump calls for are illegal immigrants that are in illegal gangs and convicted criminals.
It's pretty easy to spot women and children in an immigration interview. Last year we had over 100,000 immigrants from predominately Muslim countries and over 10 million Muslim visitors, any one of them could be an Islamic terrorist. Their screening which takes an average of less than 3 weeks to process amounts to running through a terrorist watch list. The FBI said screening a Syrian refugee would take an average of 18 to 24 months!How do you know it's actually women and children? And aren't you concerned that the head of the FBI said they cannot be vetted properly? You can't vet people from a war zone, even less so when it's a country that's been in turmoil for years. I don't see what's wrong with Arabic/Muslim countries taking them. Better for everyone, imho.Over the last 2 years, the UN has referred 22,000 Syrian refugees to the the US. Of those approximately 2,100 have been accepted lest than 10% of those that applied. The vast majority are women and children under the age 18. Obama has called for upping the number to approximately 1500 a year. I don't see any problem with this. There are somewhere between 3 and 7 million Muslims living in the US and we have more 10 million Muslim visitors the US each year. I seriously doubt that another 1500 women and children a year is going have any effect on the number of terrorist attacks a year (2 in 2015 down from 5 in 2014).What do you suggest then?There's a problem in providing just aid to refugees. No one wants them. Look at Europe, they are overrun with refugees. If no country wants them, then they end up in refugee camps which become training grounds for terrorist and criminals.Them dems are so contrary. 45% of them favour banning Muslim immigration when Trump is not mentioned in the equation, but when his name is associated with the proposal, this falls by 25%. What hypocrites
A new Fox News poll finds 50 percent of voters favor Trump’s ban, while 46 percent are opposed.
However, when Trump’s name is removed from the question, support for the plan goes up five points and opposition goes down six: 55 percent favor the unnamed proposal, while 40 percent oppose it.
So while voters favor the “Trump” ban by a 4-point margin -- that increases to 15 points when the same ban is not associated with Trump.
There are stunning shifts in the responses among Democrats: 45 percent favor banning Muslims if Trump’s name is not mentioned, yet when the plan is identified as Trump’s, support drops to 25 percent.
Among Republicans, views hold steady: 71 percent favor it when attributed to Trump vs. 72 percent for the generic proposal.
Fox News Poll: Views on (Trump's) proposed ban on non-U.S. Muslims | Fox News
Other countries have put the brakes on the refugees resettlement. It is about security. There are many ways to help the refugees beside letting them immigrate.
If you are sick or injured, it can be at times impossible to care for an infant. If a country is being attacked from within, like a virus, it does not have the strength to care for the refugees.
The people want better vetting and to put a temporary hold on letting people into the country. Security of the US has to come first. The first job of a government should be to protect a country. We also have to have the resources to provide aid. Right not we are trillions in debt. We can't pay our own bills, how can we pay for the support of so many refugees? We can give of our time and share what we have by donating to charities and NGOs that help the refugees. It is not up to our government to pay for the whole world with money we don't have.
Refugees should be kept as close as possible to their homeland to make it easy for them to return and rebuild their homes and country. Moving them half way around the world is not the answer.
40-something percent shamers don't get too far in politics. More and more people will come to this conclusion once they're not ashamed of their common sense. Their party wont matter.Shame on the 45%. Of course, it is a Faux News poll. Who knows what the actual numbers are.
Proves they are puppets.Them dems are so contrary. 45% of them favour banning Muslim immigration when Trump is not mentioned in the equation, but when his name is associated with the proposal, this falls by 25%. What hypocrites
A new Fox News poll finds 50 percent of voters favor Trump’s ban, while 46 percent are opposed.
However, when Trump’s name is removed from the question, support for the plan goes up five points and opposition goes down six: 55 percent favor the unnamed proposal, while 40 percent oppose it.
So while voters favor the “Trump” ban by a 4-point margin -- that increases to 15 points when the same ban is not associated with Trump.
There are stunning shifts in the responses among Democrats: 45 percent favor banning Muslims if Trump’s name is not mentioned, yet when the plan is identified as Trump’s, support drops to 25 percent.
Among Republicans, views hold steady: 71 percent favor it when attributed to Trump vs. 72 percent for the generic proposal.
Fox News Poll: Views on (Trump's) proposed ban on non-U.S. Muslims | Fox News
So you are saying regulations are bad now?Truth be told, before the republican pants shitting fest I was in favor of more regulation of refugees and immigration from the middle east. Thankfully their bed-wetting hysteria has reminded me that there are standards Americans should strive to live up to, and pissing yourself in terror isn't one of them.No, its true. Why let more in?Shame on the 45%. Of course, it is a Faux News poll. Who knows what the actual numbers are.
You want to let some refuges in? Sure why not. But I don't know why we need more Pakistani, Afghanistan, Saudi, Syria, Iran, Iraq, or Somalian Muslims coming to America.
Can as many people that want come to America? So we give out visas? Why do we have to give visas to Turks? I think my Greek immigrant parents won a lotto. Not every Greek that wanted got to come to America.
Political correctness already got 14 killed just over a week ago. Thanks to liberals.What's ridiculous is that terrorists can use our liberal ways against us. Can't spy because its unconstitutional. Bs. That should only be for American born citizens. You got to live here ten years before we stop spying. And we don't want to know about it.Well Fox provide the methodology, you can analyse that for us if you wish?Shame on the 45%. Of course, it is a Faux News poll. Who knows what the actual numbers are.
Poll question:
Do you favor or oppose temporarily banning Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the United States until government officials can say with confidence they can identify those who are coming here to cause the country harm?
Ridiculous question. If they had asked "do you favor temporarily banning Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the United States" the results would have been a lot different. But they had to include the rest which is typical Faux News bias.
I don't know what liberals are hoping for by letting more in.
Oh, and in Michigan all the Republicans have bent over on this because we have millions of Muslim voters. Political correctness is going to get people killed.
Just stop letting anyone new in. Or just Australians and Canadians.
