Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen


Recommended Posts

  • Platinum Contributing Member

:lol:   I know libruls love them some polls.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Most voters approve of President Trump’s temporary halt to refugees and visitors from several Middle Eastern and African countries until the government can do a better job of keeping out individuals who are terrorist threats.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) 

Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided.

This survey was taken late last week prior to the weekend protests against Trump’s executive orders imposing a four-month ban on all refugees and a temporary visa ban on visitors from these seven countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
6 minutes ago, Momorider said:

The leftards will say that Rasmussen is an republican hack pole Alternative Facts :lol: 

If the poll numbers were opposite it would take up every liberal newspaper front page and 1/4 the nightly news. :lol:   Because it come out the way it has it won't even get mentioned.  Same with Trump approval numbers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
5 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

most americans have zero clue on the current vetting process. ignorant. they just listen to trump and his made up bullshit. 

Just how well do you think we can vet someone from Syria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Yeman or any other of these countries included or not?  I'm guess the countries have very little intel on their citizens and if they did do you honestly think they would share potentially dangerous individuals with us?  Take Syria for example.   We are trying to overthrow Assad essentially why would they be honest with us?  Reality is what we learn from "interviews" could be little or nothing.  

 

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Just how well do you think we can vet someone from Syria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Yeman or any other of these countries included or not?  I'm guess the countries have very little intel on their citizens and if they did do you honestly think they would share potentially dangerous individuals with us?  Take Syria for example.   We are trying to overthrow Assad essentially why would they be honest with us?

 

:lmao::lol: Your don't expect a straight answer from AFJSpookassfuck do you? :lol2: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Just how well do you think we can vet someone from Syria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Yeman or any other of these countries included or not?  I'm guess the countries have very little intel on their citizens and if they did do you honestly think they would share potentially dangerous individuals with us?  Take Syria for example.   We are trying to overthrow Assad essentially why would they be honest with us?  Reality is what we learn from "interviews" could be little or nothing.  

 

what's the current vetting process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
7 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

what's the current vetting process?

Google it yourself.   I've looked it up long ago and it basically includes interviews, fingerprinting, registering with the UN as a refugee.  I seen very little where we ask much of the their home country.  Most of what our govt looks at is if they already have ties to the US (family), if they have a chance of getting employment.   All in all not bad for what is available, however there is much we can't always know.

One has to ask is the cost of the system justifiable or is that money better helping them where they are.   

You libs always like saying about guns...well if it can save one life. :lol:  

This goes beyond of they are currently radical but if they can more easily be radicalized because of where they are from. 

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

true. many think the refugees come to our shores in rafts and walk right in.

 

And $1700 a month and 7 years no taxes. Had this discussion yesterday. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

most americans have zero clue on the current vetting process. ignorant. they just listen to trump and his made up bullshit. 

 

2 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

true. many think the refugees come to our shores in rafts and walk right in.

 

Look at these two crowning members of the FSCE "intellectually elite".  You two are hilarious!  Neither one has a good bead on anything other than what they are told by their media.

NOW!!!!!  Get out there and protest.  Ride you bike to the location.  Spinner...you pedal, Slinger...you control the air foil. :lol:

Image result for laverne and shirley bike

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

Reality is our process maybe sufficient but if the info on these people is not there then we need to not let them in.   There were a number of Obama top intelligence officials testified in front of congress stating this exact thing. 

How many of you really want us to do what Germany or Sweden? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Highmark said:

:lol:   I know libruls love them some polls.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Most voters approve of President Trump’s temporary halt to refugees and visitors from several Middle Eastern and African countries until the government can do a better job of keeping out individuals who are terrorist threats.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) 

Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided.

This survey was taken late last week prior to the weekend protests against Trump’s executive orders imposing a four-month ban on all refugees and a temporary visa ban on visitors from these seven countries.

What percentage of Americans supported putting people of Japanese decent in internment camps? What percentage supported turning boat loads of Jewish people fleeing the holocaust back to certain death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 1jkw said:

 

Imagine the poll numbers if they asked who is in favor of SA topping the list, I haven't talked to single person who doesn't think  they should.

Because if you did that you would pay at the Gas pumps. Trump business interests would also suffer.  Evidently security is worth the price but only if refugees pay it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
8 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

What percentage of Americans supported putting people of Japanese decent in internment camps? What percentage supported turning boat loads of Jewish people fleeing the holocaust back to certain death?

Don't know i wasn't alive then.   Its about as relevant as your opinion on our immigration rules right now.

In fact didn't Trudeau just put a limit of 1000 refugees for Canada for 2017? LOL.  

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Don't know i wasn't alive then.   Its about as relevant as your opinion on our immigration rules right now.

In fact didn't Trudeau just put a limit of 1000 refugees for Canada for 2017? LOL.  

Do you support banning refugees entering the USA from Syria? 

BTW. I think the number for Canada is 300,000 in 2017. Something about not being cowardly assholes. Think of that per capita? If Americans were not so frightened they could save 3,000,000 people.

But I guess life is only precious when it's in the womb. American Christian logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, revkevsdi said:

Do you support banning refugees entering the USA from Syria? 

BTW. I think the number for Canada is 300,000 in 2017. Something about not being cowardly assholes. Think of that per capita? If Americans were not so frightened they could save 3,000,000 people.

But I guess life is only precious when it's in the womb. American Christian logic.

And libs are only generous when it's not their money. :groin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...