The Most Disturbing Exit Poll Data Coming Out of New Hampshire !!!

[HHSHOG62]

It's mind-boggling disturbing.

 

Of course, the voting public is mostly made up of complete idiots so it doesn't really surprise me that many feel that way.

 

Funny, I thought the same thing when Obama was elected twice. Hope and Change!!!!

[John Anthony]

9/11, San Bernardino, Chattanooga, Boston, what is all the fuss about we know who the good ones and bad ones are coming in, we're safe? Besides, nothing is going to happen in Rabbit Hash, KY.

[capt278]

If "temporary" was used, it is in no way the same question.

 

Agreed.

 

Trump's statement was to ban Muslims from entering "until our representatives figure out what's going on". His statement sounds like a temporary ban to me. I'm sure others will disagree.

[spindoc]

To be clear, I am staunchly against Donald Trump and against his notion of banning Muslims from entering the US. However, Mr. Friction has left out a VERY important word in his original post, and that word is "temporary"...as in "a temporary ban".

 

All news agencies I've found coverage on this story from are referring back to what appears to be an original article posted by ABC News, who appears to have conducted the exit poll. Their report said "Two-thirds said they support Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the country."

 

Live New Hampshire Primary Exit Poll Analysis: How Trump And Sanders Won - ABC News

Shocked

[BirdBrain]

My two cents, which will offend everyone.

 

Islam is full of bad ideas. There is a reason why that group which I now refuse to say its name gets so many recruits. The reason resides in the bad ideas to which they subscribe. I support every person's right to believe whatever, but reserve at the same time my right to say "that is a bad belief."

 

I think it is essential that we exercise this right. We can't kill all the terrorists. Hell, we can't even identify them all. We should kill the ones we can, but in the long run, it is not a solution. We have been killing terrorists for a good long while now, and look where we are. We have to force the collision between these bad ideas and our way of life. There was recently a story about some factory where the Muslims were demanding time off to pray during the work hours. This is the perfect opportunity to force the collision.

 

Unfortunately, and this is where I will lose many readers lol, Christianity has paved the way for Islam. The constant and never-ending encroachment upon our principle of separation of church and state is the wedge the Muslims can and are using. If Christians don't have to bake cakes, or sign licenses, or refrain from prayer groups in schools, then why should not Muslim Americans enjoy the same?

 

And if you say that it's because we are a Christian majority, you miss. Badly. Essentially telling them, we got the right god and you don't. It may be persuasive to the speaker, but it wont be persuasive to the listener. Telling Muslims they have the wrong god won't work with them any more than it would to tell a Christian the same. But dedicating ourselves to a society that allows all religions, but endorses none, will force them to choose.

 

My two cents.

 

I was tracking along, then I lost you. Not offended, well said. Lost you when you when...well, when you said "this is where I will lost many readers.." ....not because of disagreement, I just don't know what your point was in that paragraph.

 

Too much separation, too little....help me out.

 

I'm a huge fan of the collision course, but I am also a huge fan of waterboarding and killing whomever we need to to keep ourselves safe, with whatever means we need to use....

 

Also believe a temporary ban until we can do a thorough review of immigration process is a solid idea.

[Science Friction]

Yes, "temporary" ban. If I remember correctly, he said, ..."Until we figure out what the hell is going on." Do some of you worry about how long it might take Donald to figure out what the hell is going on with Muslims ? My guess is, most of that 64% would be perfectly okay if that "temporary" ban became permanent.

[HHSHOG62]

Yes, "temporary" ban. If I remember correctly, he said, ..."Until we figure out what the hell is going on." Do some of you worry about how long it might take Donald to figure out what the hell is going on with Muslims ? My guess is, most of that 64% would be perfectly okay if that "temporary" ban became permanent.

 

Do you have anything to back up this "guess" of yours?

[NKY Bandit]

I would blame the question. Many people can't tell the difference between people from a certain region and their dominant religion. Check out Jeff Foxworthy and his take on southerners by those in the north. They assume. I think the media has trained us that people from the middle east are terrorists and most of them are Muslim. Sensible people see the difference but many others are just sheep following the flock.

[Bluegrasscard]

It was well known in 2014 that refugees present a threat.

 

Link:

Isis Terrorists Disguised as Refugees in Trojan Horse Plot Against Europe

 

It has been reiterated that it is still a threat in late 2015.

 

Link:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/262316-isis-has-targeted-refugee-program-to-enter-us-chairman-sayshttp://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-terrorists-disguised-refugees-trojan-horse-plot-against-europe-1468701

 

And the proposal of a temporary ban is 'the most disturbing'?

 

'Disturbing' is that any elected or other official would not support similar actions.

[capt278]

It was well known in 2014 that refugees present a threat.

 

Link:

Isis Terrorists Disguised as Refugees in Trojan Horse Plot Against Europe

 

It has been reiterated that it is still a threat in late 2015.

 

Link:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/262316-isis-has-targeted-refugee-program-to-enter-us-chairman-sayshttp://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-terrorists-disguised-refugees-trojan-horse-plot-against-europe-1468701

 

And the proposal of a temporary ban is 'the most disturbing'?

 

'Disturbing' is that any elected or other official would not support similar actions.

 

Some would rather be PC than realistic.

 

I find it interesting that Trump get hammered so bad on this when the only two Presidents in history to do this that I am aware of were Democrats.

[mcpapa]

Some would rather be PC than realistic.

 

I find it interesting that Trump get hammered so bad on this when the only two Presidents in history to do this that I am aware of were Democrats.

 

Did they ban a religion or a place?

[capt278]

Did they ban a religion or a place?

 

Does it matter?

 

They singled out a particular people to ban. No difference. If Trump is being a bigot, so were they.

 

Just because they were Democrats doesn't change what they did.

[HHSHOG62]

Did they ban a religion or a place?

 

FWIW, the term Muslim is used to describe a follower of Islam. Muslim is not a religion, rather a descriptor of a person who believes in a religion. So Trump never said he would ban (or temporarily ban) a religion.

[BirdBrain]

Does it matter?

 

They singled out a particular people to ban. No difference. If Trump is being a bigot, so were they.

 

Just because they were Democrats doesn't change what they did.

 

I don't see this as an issue of bigotry. It's a realistic, defensive stance to protect our country and the people that live here. (Sounds like this: "I do solemly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic...")

 

The problem is that we have these huge government entities running the immigration programs and the standards in our current state are too lax.

 

Until a bunch of white Anglo Saxon Protestants start flying planes into buildings, shooting up military installations / offices, or buying a whole bunch of pressure cookers, I'm not in favor of banning that group.....

 

I am very much in favor of a temporary hold on anyone coming in to the country meeting certain profiles, until we have a thorough review and direction for the ICE...which likely means not until something changes at the head of the snake.

[MayfieldFan]

I was tracking along, then I lost you. Not offended, well said. Lost you when you when...well, when you said "this is where I will lost many readers.." ....not because of disagreement, I just don't know what your point was in that paragraph.

 

Too much separation, too little....help me out.

 

I'm a huge fan of the collision course, but I am also a huge fan of waterboarding and killing whomever we need to to keep ourselves safe, with whatever means we need to use....

 

Also believe a temporary ban until we can do a thorough review of immigration process is a solid idea.

 

Fair enough, I will try to make it clearer. Or maybe more confusing. Keep in mind this is broader than refugees, plenty of Muslim Americans born and raised here. They are American as you and I.

 

The collision of ideas. It should not be "Christianity vs. Islam." That is the foundation for a religious war, besides the small point of infringing on religious freedoms of Americans. It needs to be Secularism vs. Islam. When we tell Muslims that they can't shut a factory down a couple times a day to pray, it needs to be because we respect their right to be Muslim, but we don't bend to it. Islam needs to bend to the world at large. But, due to some of their doctrines, Islamic-majority countries don't have to bend. Islam avoids some of the conflicts with Secularism that Christianity has had, and learned to adjust to. (Sun in the center, evolution, slavery, and so on). But we can make them bend here.

 

But is difficult to take this position, when Christians constantly agitate, and get, the same sort of accommodations that Muslim Americans are now asking for. If we carve our public policy around the desires of Christians, and tell them they don't have to bake cakes, or sign licenses....then what is the base from which we tell Muslim Americans "no." The means by which Muslim Americans will demand, with lawsuits and such, that we bend to their religious doctrines are already established by the Christians. Strict separation of church and state is the best way to both protect everyone's right to religion, and to defend our society from bad ideas of any particular religion.