Because I looked over that entire page and couldn't find any evidence of your argument.

Furthermore, "extremism" is opinionated in the first place. Everyone has a different definition of extremism.

Your numbers were silly.

I'm talking about those in the Muslim world who believe terrorism is justified. If you think it's some infinitesimal number, you're kidding yourself.

No, you're talking about the percentage of Muslims that you believe support "extremism", and of course you're making shit up.

I just looked at those numbers and a disturbing amount of the Muslims polled do support extremism. It varies country to country of course. This is what Sam Harris is always referring to.

Newsflash:

There is nothing in any of the data provided that demonstrates what "extremism" actually is.

It's bullshit.

Nigerian Muslims -20% have a favorable view towards ISIS.







Wow only 86% say suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians are never justified. Shouldn't it be atleast 99%.

You're just playing semantics now because the data, not to mention common sense, doesn't support your BS politically correct view of the world.

You're just playing semantics...

the data....

common sense.....

politically correct world....

Keep singing your sad song, Ivy.

It makes sense that a small minority in certain Sunni Muslim countries would support extremism, to be honest. I am not justifying it, but when your country is frequently bombed and droned, those feelings can develop.

I am sure Muslim support in America would be much, much lower. Not to mention Muslims in countries that aren't exploited and bombed.

I am not going to say a majority of Americans are bad people because a minority supports torture (which is a form of extremism, in my opinion) or because a majority suported a war of aggression in Iraq (where at least 300,000 civilians were killed, which is a low estimate). The only way to understand why Americans justify those actions is when you view things through a nationlistic prism (America brings freedom and democracy through bombs). When it becomes a good versus evil kind of thing, a lot of bad actions can be supported.

Also, what Olivant said. That was a good point.

+1

Alot of this is has got worse because of US actions abroad should have never gone near the middle east but there is money there so there is always an interest when millions were getting slaughtered in Rwanda where was the US? no where because there is no money During the Balkan war of the 90s where was the US i know they eventually helped but they took there time thousands being killed UN stood and watched thousands of people get slaughter by the Serbian army of course thats not just US fault alot of those UN guys in Bosnia were actually dutch.

The invasion of Iraq was the worst but its not an isolated case backing rebels to kill Gaddafi in Libya now look at its a basket case 8 governments and now ISIS exists there thousands of refugees crossing over into Italy Europe gets stuck with US mistakes. Even the Syrian crisis your backing people you dont know with guns and training i know beating ISIS needs to be a priority but the people you guys are backing at the moment could be just as bad look at Afghanistan in the 80s US helped create Al Qeada and make the Taliban into a power because they were fighting the Russians. Stay out of Syria let Russia and Assad retake the country and beat ISIS maybe back the kurds but no one else you dont know who these people are. US never learns from its mistakes and everyone else gets stuck with the US faults.

Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia became the second Republican member of Congress to break from party lines and endorse a candidate who is not his party's nominee.

Rigell told The New York Times on Saturday that he will be voting for Libertarian Party nominee and New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson instead of Republican nominee Donald Trump.

"I’ve always said I will not vote for Donald Trump and I will not vote for Hillary Clinton," Rigell told The Times. "I’m going to vote for the Libertarian candidate."

WASHINGTON ― After a disastrous week for a Republican presidential nominee, you might have expected the party to circle the wagons and bring out its most prestigious leaders to defend their candidate, particularly in front of a friendly, conservative news outlet. Newt Gingrich did his best to defend Trump, and effectively attacked Hillary Clinton’s recent bizarre and false statements about her email scandal. But Gingrich also had to acknowledge that his candidate’s economic plan is nonsense. When host Chris Wallace asked whether Trump’s tax and spending plan adds up, Gingrich admitted the absurdity. “Of course not,” Gingrich said.

yes, if trump had a little substance about his plan to help the country, it might help, but, as yet I have heard nothing about how he is going to bring back jobs. the jobs that disappeared cant come back, you cant create steel mills out of nothing, its the rust belt now, [steeltowns] the advent of the computer took millions of jobs away, how can they come back?

even construction can never realize the number of employed it once had. wall street ruined that market, how is he going to bring jobs back?

You know, I was listening to Michael Medved the other day and he reminded us that Reagan campaigned on a promise to bring the primacy of steel manufacturing back to the US. Of course, that didn't happen.

Trump has no idea how to create jobs, so he just makes stuff up, like blaming China for everything. But Hillary isn't any better. They'll both make the economy worse.

My thoughts exactly.

There's no way to get excited about either candidate. Not when it comes to the economy.

@socalgangs

more muslims disagree with terrorism than republicans do racism

yeah they aren't the same but both of them are hate driven


@ivyleague

u seem angry at the entire world

Does anybody recall another election that was like this? Meaning, people aren't getting behind one candidate but rather standing against the other one?

I'm waiting for the dueling bumper stickers/buttons that read "Not Hillary" or "Not Trump".

Because of the nature of this election, candidates don't even have to sell themselves or their plans.

Bloomberg got a preview of the big economic policy speech the Donald's giving today:

He will repeal the estate tax.

He will cut the corporate tax rate by more than half, to 15%.

He’s expected to call for three income-tax brackets, down from the current seven.

He will revive the Keystone pipeline and kill the Paris climate agreement.

He will repeal Dodd-Frank, the post-crisis set of (fairly tepid) regulations, and “he will not propose any new financial regulations until the economy shows ‘significant growth.'"

He is expected to say that civil servants whose focus is job-killing regulation should be replaced with experts who would help create jobs.

That sounds pretty good to me. Then someone will ask him a question unrelated to that. Then he will feel he has to answer it and stick his foot in his mouth again.

Business loves certainly so they can plan in advance the further in the future the better.

How does his promising to repeal bills lend itself to certainty?

The Estate Tax doesn't need to be lowered. Current Federal exemption is 5.45 million for an individual, double that for couples. That's plenty. There are ways to minimize that cost, too.

I don’t know why I torture myself by even reading the crap that comes outta Trump's mouth, but does he even know what Civil Service is? What they do? An he does realize you can’t just fire civil servants, right? Right?


And the estate tax is nonsense. Gets the proles all riled up thinking 'the gubmit' is gonna get their money', when they won't earn 5 million over their lifetime, never mind leave an estate worth more than that behind.

When you own property work 5 million you can leave it to your kids?

You know why the pipe line from Canada to here was never built. One of Obama and Clinton backers is warren Buffett. The oil from Canada is being moved by his railroad now.

This is for people filling a joint return. That will end under Clinton the money you saved what ever it is will be going to support Obama care.

Politicians are magicians. Convince the proletariat that they speak for them or are acting on their behalf.

Reality is if you don't have powerful lobby pushing your interests/agenda, politicians don't care about you or have to.

Amen, gets, amen.

It means if your net worth is smaller than 11 million (as a couple), you have nothing to worry about. The exemption for an individual is 5.45 million.

But there is also annual gifting ($14,000 for an individual, double for a couple) which doesn't count against against the $11 million lifetime exemption. And, most people worth considerable amounts are going to be using Trusts and other entities to grow their money. The current federal AFR is so low right now you can loan an asset to a trust, let it grow inside the trust (estate tax free), and use the profit to pay off the loan interest at no cost to yourself.

There are also states with smaller exemptions but Trump can't do anything about that.

Why most normal Americans give two fucks about Estate Taxation, I have no idea.