More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Race (Other) voters
Last answered 1 hour ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Race (Other) voters.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Mar 5, 2013. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Race data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011).
Choose a demographic filter
- District of Columbia
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- West Virginia
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
6 years ago by indiatimes.com
6 years ago by youtube.com
6 years ago by cnbc.com
8 years ago by youtube.com
8 years ago by youtube.com
Data based on unique submissions (duplicates or multiple submissions are eliminated) per user using a 30-day moving average to reduce daily variance from traffic sources. Totals may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
More stances on this issue
Yes, with proper oversight and precautions in place to minimize targeting of civilians. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Sunnyvale, CA
Yes to intelligence. Yes to kill suspects only with very Gough certainty of identity and guilt and minimal flames of collateral damage (property and life). 7 years ago from a Democrat in Chicago, IL
Yes, but only when the U.S. can provide public FACUTAL evidence to the judicial system or general public that doing so keeps the general public safe. They should not be used to protect private sector interest. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Chicago, IL
Drones must be well documented & killing terrorist must be monitored closely. 7 years ago from a Republican in Gainesville, TX
Only if no other course of action is available should killings occur, but intelligence gathering is fine. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Puyallup, WA
For Investigational purposes only.
Suspects need not be put into retirement (killed) unless if they are committing criminal acts that have been noticed and/or are a part of the world's Most Wanted list and they refuse to be arrested to the fullest. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Lynn, MA
Yes if doesn't require Congressional declaration of war. 7 years ago from a Republican in Lilburn, GA
Yes, but a better job of eliminating civilian casualties all together. Inocent people are dying and we cannot gain good will by saying it is collateral damage of war. Reverse this and hopefully our government and the American people would be better... 7 years ago from a Democrat in Van Nuys, CA
Yes, but only with permission from the country in question unless that country leadership has declared antagonistic stance toward US and openly supports terrorism. 7 years ago from a Libertarian in Winter Park, FL
Whateve it takes to stop "boots on the ground". 7 years ago from a Democrat in Las Vegas, NV
Yes, to ask for permission means that the country is blackmailing us to send them some type of "aid" as trade off. If they cannot keep their terrorists in check then we have a right to go where ever they are and kill them before they kill any... 7 years ago from a Republican in Granbury, TX
Yes but only rarely and when truly necessary. Shouldn't be routine like it is now. 7 years ago from a Republican in Sun Valley, NV
This program needs some serious oversight and needs to be reigned in- there is something seriously wrong with all of these innocent people including many children being hit by these godless things. Somebody or bodies are out of control. 7 years ago from a Green in Kent, WA
No, only with that country's permission or if congress has declared war on that country. 7 years ago from a Libertarian in Cornelius, NC
Yes - maximum gaining of intelligence, minimum killing. 7 years ago from a Republican in Piedmont, CA
These strikes undeniably produce tangible national security results. The program requires reforms but it is, and has, become a necessity in the security strategy. 7 years ago from a Green in Worcester, MA
Yes, but military, civilian, and political decision makers should be liable for deaths/actions impacting innocent civilians. 7 years ago from a Democrat in Santa Clara, CA
We should sell off all of our foreign bases and slash military spending in half. Take on an isolationist-ish policy where we would lower the amount of imports and ramp up our exports. With the slash to government spending alongside a shift in capital... 7 years ago from a Green in Winter Park, FL
Covert operations should be discussed behind closed doors..Of course, objections and concerns of other nations should be heard, and addressed, and included in our calculus. 7 years ago from a Republican in Chicago, IL
Drones are simply unmanned aircraft. Focusing on them obscures the real issue, which is whether we should gain intelligence and kill suspected terrorists, period--by whatever method best supports our troops and minimizes civilian casualties. I support... 7 years ago from a Democrat in Austin, TX