╌>

Poll: 55 percent of Americans think Trump killing Soleimani made the U.S. less safe

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tessylo  •  4 years ago  •  98 comments

By:   The Week

Poll: 55 percent of Americans think Trump killing Soleimani made the U.S. less safe

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



World

Poll: 55 percent of Americans think Trump killing Soleimani made the U.S. less safe






06422c50-e164-11e9-bfbd-cdb74fdcbf3a January 9, 2020, 10:39 AM EST









980f0b7c265288a7e2eeda08a2e6ef95

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 .





Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
[]
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Tessylo    4 years ago

I take comfort in the fact that Iran doesn't blame the U.S., they blame tRump.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @1    4 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2    4 years ago

Projection at its' finest.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @1    4 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @1.3    4 years ago
They're definitely a menace in their little corner of the world

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.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.3.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3.1    4 years ago
And something I thought about in the shower this morning...

not Squidword ?

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
2  squiggy    4 years ago
"I take comfort in the fact that Iran doesn't blame the U.S., they blame tRump." ...much like I blame Obama's Libya Liberation for searing fear into Kim's mind - leaving the necessity of nukes his passion.
 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  squiggy @2    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  Vic Eldred    4 years ago

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."

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    4 years ago

Your 'president' doesn't have an iota of courage in his big fat pig stinky greasy body.  

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4  bugsy    4 years ago

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.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5  JBB    4 years ago

Do you feel less safe? I certainly do...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1  bugsy  replied to  JBB @5    4 years ago
Do you feel less safe? I certainly do...

Democrat talking point.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to    4 years ago

That debunked bullshit yet again.  

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.4  bugsy  replied to    4 years ago

They know the answer is yes to both, but they have to defend their messiah at all costs.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to    4 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to    4 years ago

NO AND NO

It was their money.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to    4 years ago
Just to clarify, did we send them 150 billion yes or no

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.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.8  Split Personality  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.5    4 years ago

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...

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.9  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.8    4 years ago
The $150 billion

The 2015 agreement freed up Iranian assets that had been frozen under sanctions. Called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal included Iran and the United States, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the European Union.

The agreement only affected sanctions imposed to punish Iran for its nuclear program. Iran has other assets that remain frozen.

Some conservatives have put the amount released after lifted sanctions as high as $150 billion, which is the highest of estimates we have seen. Another estimate from Iran’s Central Bank topped out at about $29 billion in readily available funds, with another $45 billion tied up in Chinese investment projects and the foreign assets of the Iran’s Oil Ministry.

After talking with officials at Iran’s Central Bank, Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, believes the actual total is between $25 billion and $50 billion.

In July 2015 , U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told lawmakers Iran would gain access to $56 billion.

It’s important to know that little of that money was under the control of the United States or any U.S. bank. Most of it, Habibi said, was in central and commercial banks overseas. Furthermore, it was Iran’s money to begin with, not a payment from any government to buy Iran’s cooperation.

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.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
5.1.10  katrix  replied to    4 years ago
Just to clarify, did we send them 150 billion yes or no, and did they use that money to sponsor terrorism? 

Jesus Christ, don't you ever read any accurate news?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.1.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  katrix @5.1.10    4 years ago
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.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
5.1.13  katrix  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.12    4 years ago

And Trump is laughing his ass off at their gullibility, as are the alt-right assholes who are manipulating Trump.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.1.15  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.6    4 years ago
It was their money

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?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.16  Split Personality  replied to    4 years ago

So you are saying that 120 now equals 150 ??

Interesting.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.1.17  Dismayed Patriot  replied to    4 years ago
Iran had limited ability to utilize its $120 billion in assets held abroad.

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."

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.18  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.15    4 years ago

International laws?

What we do to our own citizens is of no matter in this conversation.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.1.20  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.18    4 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.21  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.20    4 years ago

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.

jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.22  Split Personality  replied to    4 years ago

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

the 120 was frozen assets, that did not include the money from the arms sale that we didn't deliver among other other moneys. 

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 jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.1.24  Split Personality  replied to    4 years ago
thanks to Obama administration

and the French, British, Europeans, Russians and Chinese.

You really need to do something about that ODS. jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6  seeder  Tessylo    4 years ago

Justice Department Effectively Ends Clinton Investigation After Finding Nothing: Report

Community   »   Discussions   »   Category   » News & Politics »   Discussion   » Justice Department Effectively Ends Clinton Investigation After Finding Nothing: Report
liked.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=15780731   3  
  
Via:    tessylo    •    3 hours ago    •    19 comments

By:    Sanjana Karanth Huffpost  E N T

Politics
1b7bcfa0-ffe6-11e8-abbe-535ccd54ed26   January 9, 2020, 11:26 PM EST
5e17f47f2500009729990528.jpg

Justice Department Effectively Ends Clinton Investigation After Finding Nothing: Report

 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.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @6    4 years ago

Why is the seeder of the original seed now posting off topic stories.

Deflection from the original BS?

Author Discretion

The author defines the topic and has the right to ask members to stay on topic (as defined) and not disrupt the article.

Therefore, in my opinion, the seeder cannot be off topic on their own seeds. SP
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @6.1    4 years ago

'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

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  bugsy @6.1    4 years ago

So it's do as I say and not as I do then. Good information. Thanks for the precedent.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.4  bugsy  replied to    4 years ago
If the seeder takes the conversation off topic, she can't later declare comments related to her off topic comments off-topic.  The door is then open to the topic the seeder introduces.]

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @6.1.4    4 years ago

Give me a fucking break.

You need to leave it alone now.  

Stop going off topic.

Isn't this all meta sandy?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.6  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.5    4 years ago

You do see I was defending you, right?

If it's labeled as meta, then so be it

I was asking a simple question.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7  Tacos!    4 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
7.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Tacos! @7    4 years ago
People believe what the news media tells them to believe.

Where are you obtaining your information?  Trump and his pallies personally keeping you in the loop, are they?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @7.1    4 years ago
Where are you obtaining your information?

From the seat of my pants. Wanna feel?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.1    4 years ago

that was funny but you shouldn't tease Sister like that

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
7.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tacos! @7    4 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @7    4 years ago

So then Iran/Soleimani wasn't an imminent threat then.

Thank you tacos and others for admitting that.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @7.3    4 years ago

2302gj.jpg

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.3.3  Tacos!  replied to  XDm9mm @7.3.2    4 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.3.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @7.3.2    4 years ago

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.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.3.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @7.3.3    4 years ago

Nope, he was a bad actor.

How would you feel though if Soleimani/Iran had killed America's top general?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.3.7  bugsy  replied to    4 years ago

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.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
7.3.9  GregTx  replied to    4 years ago

That question implies that you think there might be some limit....... that's just silly.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.3.10  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.5    4 years ago
How would you feel though if Soleimani/Iran had killed America's top general?

Is America's top general a terrorist?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.3.11  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.5    4 years ago
How would you feel though if Soleimani/Iran had killed America's top general?

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?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8  Split Personality    4 years ago

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.

 
 

Who is online








Sean Treacy
Veronica


72 visitors