New National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster Breaks With Administration on Views of Islam - Polidicks

I find it refreshing how many of Trump's appointees aren't just blind sycophants.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51873695]I find it refreshing how many of Trump's appointees aren't just blind sycophants.[/QUOTE] You mean two of them?

[QUOTE=_Axel;51873728]You mean two of them?[/QUOTE] at least 3, mattis, kelly, and mcmasters

[QUOTE=Niklas;51872627] Yes, the great majority of muslims are peaceful, but many of them have regressive views and most live in countries that to some extend enforce a disturbing form of the sharia, with overwhelming support from their population. [/QUOTE] And many of them also don't?

[QUOTE=Boaraes;51873025]Republicans are not worse than ISIS and stuff.[/QUOTE] Look at how many times the US appears on your list. 4 times with a death toll less than 200. Now compare this to - 45,000 deaths annually because of [URL="http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/"]lack of healthcare[/URL] - The deaths PR kWh for the coal indostry [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities[/url] - 68,000 deaths pr year because of unsafe abortions (around [URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/"]the world[/URL]) - The class divided [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/health/disparity-in-life-spans-of-the-rich-and-the-poor-is-growing.html"]life expectency[/URL] - Climate change killing more people [URL="https://newrepublic.com/article/121032/map-climate-change-kills-more-people-worldwide-terrorism"]than terrorists[/URL] The republicans are against healthcare, they're pro-coal, they want to criminalize abortions, and they are climate change deniers. They also try their damn best to expand the class divide. In other words [I]Republicans are more likely to kill you than any terrorist organization.[/I]

[QUOTE=gokiyono;51873776]Look at how many times the US appears on your list. 4 times with a death toll less than 200. Now compare this to - 45,000 deaths annually because of [URL="http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/"]lack of healthcare[/URL] - The deaths PR kWh for the coal indostry [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities[/url] - 68,000 deaths pr year because of unsafe abortions (around [URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/"]the world[/URL]) - The class divided [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/health/disparity-in-life-spans-of-the-rich-and-the-poor-is-growing.html"]life expectency[/URL] - Climate change killing more people [URL="https://newrepublic.com/article/121032/map-climate-change-kills-more-people-worldwide-terrorism"]than terrorists[/URL] The republicans are against healthcare, they're pro-coal, they want to criminalize abortions, and they are climate change deniers. They also try their damn best to expand the class divide. In other words [I]Republicans are more likely to kill you than any terrorist organization.[/I][/QUOTE] Good, thank you for writing something that has substance and sources to back it up. Although I disagree with the notion that Republicans are directly responsible for those deaths, I would also like to see the percentage of Republicans who agree with those topics you listed. Moreso, the number of insured people in the US has gone down since Obamacare (the closest thing we have to socialized healthcare) has gone into effect: [url]http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/17/obamacare-brings-record-low-for-us-health-uninsured-rate.html[/url] So, we can gather that being opposed to Obamacare is not the same as being opposed to healthcare. As for the coal business, Republicans are becoming more and more accepting that renewable energy is ultimately the future: [url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-20/party-of-drill-baby-drill-slowly-warming-to-wind-solar-power[/url] For the abortion statistic, those numbers are from countries that have outright banned abortion. That's not going to happen in the US, at least on a national level. As for the casualties in the class divide, it's definitely arguable that it has grown even when Obama was president: [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/business/economy/middle-class-shrinks-further-as-more-fall-out-instead-of-climbing-up.html[/url] So, despite there being a Democrat-controlled country, the middle class is growing poorer and the rich are getting richer. This is one of the things I agreed with Bernie Sanders on, is that Democrats are no better than Republicans in regards to solving this crisis. As for climate change, most voters and slightly more than half of Republicans believe that climate change is real and the government needs to take steps to combat it: [url]https://morningconsult.com/2016/06/28/poll-republicans-evenly-split-climate-change/[/url] Quite the interesting topic.

Oops, that was my bad on the CNBC article. Misread the title and the contents as insured, rather than uninsured. Anyway, what I was getting at was there is a current trend showing Republicans becoming more favorable of what would be considered "un-Republican" (i.e. becoming more favorable of renewable energy despite the GOP's official stance on coal). Rather than telling them to "switch sides", it's better for the actual party itself to evolve, in my opinion. Not to mention you can still be Republican without adhering to everything the GOP is officially pushing for.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;51875864]Oops, that was my bad on the CNBC article. Misread the title and the contents as insured, rather than uninsured. Anyway, what I was getting at was there is a current trend showing Republicans becoming more favorable of what would be considered "un-Republican" (i.e. becoming more favorable of renewable energy despite the GOP's official stance on coal). Rather than telling them to "switch sides", it's better for the actual party itself to evolve, in my opinion. Not to mention you can still be Republican without adhering to everything the GOP is officially pushing for.[/QUOTE] Your argument doesn't work because the problem is that, when you vote you get the entire package. It doesn't matter if the voters are starting to become in favour of climate change, what matters is what the party they are voting for thinks. And that party is stout anti-climate change with no reason to change in the foreseeable future.