Looks like @Dinner's anti-Muslim rhetoric is working!

Which of the various polls in this link do you mean? I've looked at (only) three of them and two had sample sizes of around 1.000 and one over 3.200.

But if you point is that poll are, more often than not, BS, I agree.

They just want a cheap source of glass

Actually what happens is that people figure Agrabah must be a key ISIS-held city, otherwise no pollster would be asking about bombing it.

So, utter idiocy.

No, that's why Republican and Democrat percentages who support bombing Agrabah are almost the same fractions of Republicans and Democrats who support bombing ISIS.

Carpet bomb Republicans, IMO

No, deception and trickery with agenda-driven "poll" created to convey some political message is the worst that can fairly be inferred.

Else questions might be posed e.g. "Would your answer change if best data suggest ... a large part of the population intended to be bombed are innocent women and children" or " . . . the chances are only slight that the bombing would hit known terrorists," etc.

The point is that a lot of the people polled think bombing an enemy is a good idea, w details to be determined by our "leaders" and intelligence agencies despite their many many missteps.

And sure, masses sound stupid and say stupid things (and yet, for all the elitist smugness of the well informed and/or bright, look where we are compared to history despite how stupid the masses can be made to sound by a clever poll-maker with an agenda).

Sample size is meaningless without method. In this case method is part of the problem. and also part of the conclusions you can draw from it. There is bias using the results to determine whether or not agrebah exists. However, in determining how many people are willing to bomb the hell out of an arabic sounding city from a position of complete ignorance it is somewhat mopre telling. It still would exclude people who might have actual military knowledge of operations who would not bomb some town that clearly would not be beneficial even though whether or not they knew it was just a made up city could not be determined.

This is why most media polls suck. They are often loaded with some bias because they only seek good enough neutrality. To conduct a truly valuable survey of a random sample size that would be scientifically useful would take time. You would need a larger sample set. You would have to find some way to include people who are not easily available. It also seems that many of the "pollsters" look for sellable data. This new polling for profit game seems to be creating the same sort of bullshit we see pushed by so called professional economists who ignore the basic principles of their field.

Ha ha ha ha.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...abahthe-fictional-city-in-aladdin--W1lsPaM_jg

Well, there you have it. Well beyond partisanship. Are we sure this isn't an "only in America" story?

One thing's for sure. There seems to be a lot of idiots around....