Poll: 55 percent of Americans think Trump killing Soleimani made the U.S. less safe
World
Poll: 55 percent of Americans think Trump killing Soleimani made the U.S. less safe
A majority of Americans don't seem to be buying the Trump administration's rationale for killing Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleiman, according to a new poll.
In a USA TODAY /Ipsos poll released Thursday, 55 percent of U.S. adults said the United States' recent drone strike that killed Soleimani and its immediate aftermath made the country less safe.
The administration has contended the opposite in the days since the strike. Vice President Mike Pence, for example, told Today in an interview Thursday that "America is safer" as a result of Trump's decision.
But only 24 percent of Americans in this poll said the strike made the country safer, and almost a third of Republicans said the strike made the U.S. less safe. Even so, 42 percent of Americans still supported the Soleimani strike, while 33 percent opposed it and 25 percent didn't know what to think about it.
Fifty-two percent of those surveyed also described Trump's behavior with Iran as "reckless," while 62 percent said the strike that killed Soleimani made it more likely that the United States and Iran will go to war. Forty-seven percent said they believe Trump authorized the bombing to distract from impeachment.
USA Today 's poll was taken by surveying 1,005 adults online on Jan. 7 and Jan. 8, and it was completed prior to Trump's recent address. The margin of error is 3.5 percentage points. Read the full results at USA Today .
I take comfort in the fact that Iran doesn't blame the U.S., they blame tRump.
Of course you do. It was pointed out long ago that progressives don't consider themselves Americans unless on of their own is President. Party over country ever time for them.
Projection at its' finest.
You could probably also take comfort in the fact that Iran is a lot less scary than you have been led to believe. They're definitely a menace in their little corner of the world, but beyond that, they aren't much of a threat.
Very true, I don't expect them to fire an ICBM at NYC but here's the thing....where do we have a lot of troops deployed? And something I thought about in the shower this morning...it doesn't take a lot of know how or technology to construct a chemical weapon. They have the SAMs...just strap a 50 pound bottle of chlorine gas on to it and you've got a chemical bomb.
not Squidword ?
To be fair Clinton, Bush, and Obama made all 3rd world regimes very nervous.
Of they were all Establishment candidates, so that makes what they did OK./S
There is a lot of danger in the world. Doing the right thing takes courage.
To the title, I'll refer to FDR at the dawn of the Second World War - "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
Your 'president' doesn't have an iota of courage in his big fat pig stinky greasy body.
Can you post the methodology of this poll?
I would be very, very surprised to not find democrats over sampled, or that the majority of those polled were in the northeast or west coast.
Do you feel less safe? I certainly do...
Democrat talking point.
That debunked bullshit yet again.
They know the answer is yes to both, but they have to defend their messiah at all costs.
We should have just sent them the antiquated, at least by that time, equipment that they supposedly paid for in advance. Isn't that what the money was purported to have been for? NO interest accrual included.
NO AND NO
It was their money.
No.
U.S. Treasury Department estimates put the number at about $50 billion in Iran's own “usable liquid assets,” that had been frozen, according to 2015 testimony from Adam Szubin, acting under secretary of treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence. The deal with Iran was for them to give up all their nuclear ambitions and ability and agree to be heavily monitored for the next 15 years in exchange for access to their own money/assets and a lifting of some financial sanctions. By all accounts, they had been abiding by their end of the bargain until dishonest Donald abruptly pulled the plug on the US participation in a global deal made by the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—plus Germany) and the European Union, not "Obama".
So please stop repeating all the bullshit lies coming out of this dishonest Presidents mouth. He gets his news from Breitbart and Fox, so of course he can't be trusted. Stop letting the right wing "alternative fact" machine delude you, you're all smarter than that, you don't have to let yourselves be deceived unless you wanted to be deceived and the insertion of the head into Trumps voluminous backside was intentional. If that's the case, then I supposed there really isn't anything anyone can do to change your mind until someone changes dirty Donald's diaper.
That would have been a possibility if they still existed. What were they buying, F4s? They only exist in museums now I believe.
The only US aircraft Iran ever had were F4, F5 and they are still flying F-14s
And I understand that giving them back their own money with interest meant that it would be to some percentage
be used against us and our allies by funding terrorists. Obama and our allies knew that they could not control that.
Nor could they keep the money frozen for 40 more years.
But the alternative to the negotiated $1.7 billion was to let the
World Court pass a judgement of $8 to 10 billion against the USA which would have financed far more more attacks against us & Israel.
which we would not have honored and would have caused political damage to the UN, NATO and our own
legal reputation/standing in the world.
Keep in mind that Treasury had discovered a secret Iranian account of $2 Billion in NYC in 2012 which Obama promptly froze
and declared it would be divided among any claimant against Iran, including military.
Iran sued and the case went to the Supreme Court which decided for Obama.
Iran sued in the World Court which last year agreed to make a judgement but warned Iran that it's "dirty hands"
would be factored in to whatever judgement would be rendered.
So we have come back to the same dilemma ( for some people); if the WC finds for the USA all is well.
If the WC finds partially or all for Iran ( unlikely ) the it will be up to President Trump to concur or tell the WC
to go to hell.
hence, the human game continues...
So, No. Neither Obama, the US or the other signatories gave Iran $150 Billion dollars as President Trump has repeated.
they did unfreeze something less than $60 billion.
Jesus Christ, don't you ever read any accurate news?
Of course not, they're being indoctrinated inside the right wing "alternative fact" machine to believe anything outside of their propaganda is "fake news" and an "enemy of the people". It's how populists, despots and dictators have always built a barrier against any logic, reason and intelligence that doesn't align with their personal political objectives.
And Trump is laughing his ass off at their gullibility, as are the alt-right assholes who are manipulating Trump.
Why is that important? We confiscate money and private property from drug dealers and other criminals all the time. We don't give it back to them when we let them out of jail. Why should we return money we confiscated from people who kidnap our citizens and are the biggest exporters of terrorism on the planet?
So you are saying that 120 now equals 150 ??
Interesting.
So I take it you're not familiar with the definitions of "limited ability" and "utilize"?
Above, we have a Trump loyalist repeating the lie about "Obama" giving Iran $150 billion. This is an obvious, easily disproved lie.
You then link the actual PDF of the updated Iran sanctions that disproves your own lie. Besides the number being $30 billion lower than your repeated lie, it directly states that only a part of that total was completely frozen. How does it feel to hoist yourself on your own petard?
"The phrase's meaning is literally that the bomb-maker (a "petard" is a small explosive device) is blown up ("hoisted" off the ground) by his own bomb, and indicates an ironic reversal, or poetic justice."
International laws?
What we do to our own citizens is of no matter in this conversation.
I'm thinking that when they engage in kidnapping, rape, and murder, they forfeit their right to protect their assets under "international law." For me, kidnapping, rape, and murder are violations of more serious international laws than confiscating the funds of people who engage in that kind of thing.
Unfortunately, it is the human game. The old Testament endorsed the same behavior at God's direction as does the Koran.
but we may be wandering off topic here.
Well at the risk of repeating your own words to you, you implied that "we" sent to Iran $150 billion.
You know you misspoke and you are just spinning wheels.
Per my other comments, "we" as in in the Obama Admin negotiated to send 400 mill in cash to Iran and 1.3 billion in interest.
That is uncontested.
When the USA Germany France UK EU Russia and China crafted the Iran Nuke Deal
they unfroze Iranian assets around the globe the amount of which is
still contested by a lot of links to be between 25 billion and 120 billion
which has been exaggerated by certain media and the current President to $150 billion
So I can only assume ( I know, I know) that we are in 100% agreement
and that you are in total denial that that was ever possible.
Cheers
and the French, British, Europeans, Russians and Chinese.
You really need to do something about that ODS.
Justice Department Effectively Ends Clinton Investigation After Finding Nothing: Report
By: Sanjana Karanth Huffpost E N T
Politics
Justice Department Effectively Ends Clinton Investigation After Finding Nothing: Report
A Department of Justice inquiry into Hillary Clinton that began after conservatives demanded more investigations into the former Democratic presidential candidate is reportedly ending with no actual results.
Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed U.S. Attorney John Huber in 2018 to look into concerns raised by President Donald Trump and his Republican allies that the FBI did not properly look into Clinton’s involvement in a uranium deal while she was secretary of state in the Obama administration.
Huber allegedly reviewed documents and spoke with federal law enforcement officials in Arkansas who were handling an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Though the inquiry has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to Congress, Huber has effectively finished his assignment and found nothing worth pursuing, current and former officials told The Washington Post in a report published Thursday. HuffPost has not been able to independently confirm that the inquiry has ended.
Canadian mining company Uranium One, which had major U.S. holdings, was sold in 2010 to a Russian firm while Clinton was secretary of state. The sale required approval from nine U.S. agencies, including the State Department, before it could proceed. Conservative media and critics of the 2016 Democratic nominee have falsely claimed that the sale was a quid pro quo for donations to the nonprofit Clinton Foundation.
The State Department did not have the power to unilaterally approve or reject the sale, and Clinton was not actually directly involved in the approval process. The original FBI investigation into whether Clinton had ties to the deal found no evidence of wrongdoing, but Sessions revived the inquiry in late 2017 after facing pressure from Trump.
Huber’s effective conclusion of his review is likely to anger many Republicans who hoped the top prosecutor from Utah would validate their long-held conspiracy theories about Clinton.
Attorney General William Barr, a Trump nominee who succeeded Sessions, has previously supported the president’s call to investigate Clinton and has questioned the need for Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.
But Trump has largely shifted his focus away from Huber’s investigation and toward U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review of the origins of the Russia investigation, which concluded with a report that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election in order to help Trump win. Barr appointed Durham to the review last year, though he allegedly sees no evidence so far that the Russia probe was a setup by intelligence officials, as Trump claims.
Why is the seeder of the original seed now posting off topic stories.
Deflection from the original BS?
'Why is the seeder of the original seed now posting off topic stories.
Deflection from the original BS?'
See 5.1.1 and 5.1.11
So it's do as I say and not as I do then. Good information. Thanks for the precedent.
This is for moderator Sandy
Then why did you delete my 4.1.4 , Loki's 4.1.3 and Tessylo's 4.1.1? She changed the topic to dog poop, where I and Loki answered accordingly, with no disrespectful posts.
She asked if we check our dog's poop and we both stated that we did for health reasons.
She changed the topic, so answers should not be deleted, even though she later claimed the answers were off topic.
IMO, the entire thread, even Tessylo's post, should be reinstated.
Give me a fucking break.
You need to leave it alone now.
Stop going off topic.
Isn't this all meta sandy?
You do see I was defending you, right?
If it's labeled as meta, then so be it
I was asking a simple question.
People believe what the news media tells them to believe. Considering the way they freak out over everything Trump does - from foreign policy to the way he eats pizza - it's not surprising that a nation that can't even find Iran on a map thinks we are in more danger from them than before.
Where are you obtaining your information? Trump and his pallies personally keeping you in the loop, are they?
From the seat of my pants. Wanna feel?
that was funny but you shouldn't tease Sister like that
[deleted]
So then Iran/Soleimani wasn't an imminent threat then.
Thank you tacos and others for admitting that.
She's just upset because we killed that sweet old man who never did no harm to no one, and was only in Iraq to share his grandma's Koloocheh recipe.
So then why did the 'president' and prick Pence say Soleimani and Iran were imminent threats?
Moving the goalposts once again.
Can't have it both ways.
Nope, he was a bad actor.
How would you feel though if Soleimani/Iran had killed America's top general?
Well, to be fair, our number 3 in line is Pelosi. I have no problem sending her, but more than likely, they don't want the old hag either.
That question implies that you think there might be some limit....... that's just silly.
Is America's top general a terrorist?
Well, it depends...
Has America's top general been labeled a terrorist by international bodies?
Was America's top general responsible for hundred's of a country's troops where there is no active conflict?
Has America's top general responsible for thousands of innocent civilians in a country he is not from?
Was America's top general responsible for the death of a contractor from a country there is no active conflict with?
Was America's top general responsible for attacking an embassy in a country he is not from?
I will be locking this at 6PM EST due to the seeders absence.
I she so chooses we can unlock it Monday when she returns.