Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see: Conservapedia:Community Portal

Archive Index

About 4 years ahead of schedule?

Please read: American culture war, demographics and expected tipping point after 2020

With a Trump/Pence presidency, we might be about 4 years ahead of schedule!

One again, Professor Eric Kaufmann offered the public his brilliant analysis.

Of course, given that Kaufmann is an agnostic, and not a right-wing Bible believer, we shouldn't expect pinpoint accuracy in terms of his predictions. :) So if Trump/Pence cause his prediction to happen earlier, we should cut him some slack. :)Conservative (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2017 (EST)

Word is they're gonna take Trump out with a drone strike during the swearing in. Pence wil get nailed, too. So will a bunch of members of Congress, which will slow down cabinet confirmations. That's why 68 Dems are staying away, cause with all the vacant seats there will be a new Congress. Matthis, a loyal NATO man, is the only one confirmed so far. The Russians will be blamed for it, but former CIA boss Papa Bush, who's hiding out in an Austin hospital with Babs Bush right now, is President Emeritus of US globalists and behind it. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 21:16, 19 January 2017 (EST)
So Rob, if I wake up in my Tasmanian bed tomorrow morning to find that your latest theory is, um, apeshit, who do I blame? AlanE (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2017 (EST)
If Rob has it right, Ryan will be president. It's goes president, vice president, speaker of the house. So he's third in line. Mattis hasn't been confirmed yet. The senate approved his waiver 60-13 so he can be considered.[1] The waiver issue is the only objection to his nomination that I'm aware of, so I assume he will be confirmed. PeterKa (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2017 (EST)
That's not what I asked. In Rob's fantasy world, who do I blame? AlanE (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2017 (EST)
If Ryan gets taken out in the drone strike, succession passes back to the cabinet. Then we have a constitutional problem: while the constitution provides for senate & executive vacancies, it does not provide for vacancies in the House. What happens if enough House members are, euphemistically, 'incapacitated' in the drone strike that a quorem can't be met? Compounded by the likelihood Putin gets blamed for the attack rather than ISIS, and a new president calls for immediate Congressional action on a war with Russia. Meantime Obamacare, Nafta, 35% corporate tax rate, and illegal aliens voting in special elections are safe. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 23:38, 19 January 2017 (EST)
In a dark way, it does make some sense. However, I'm pretty sure that not even Obama would go that far, and that his underlings would even let him. Feel free to say "I told you so" if there is a rouge drone strike tomorrow, but that seems rather unlikely. --David B (TALK) 23:43, 19 January 2017 (EST)
A "rouge" drone would have Hillary's lips all over it. AlanE (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2017 (EST)
It's Papa Bush. He's "enjoying the festivities" from a Texas hospital bed. Barbara Bush is with him to avoid immediate reprisal against his family. He has plausible deniabilty and a doctors note. Jeb Bush is the point man on the ground. Allegations Papa Bush was involved in whacking JFK, the last president the CIA-Deep State removed, need further looking into if they pull this one off. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 07:38, 20 January 2017 (EST)
Well, no drone has caused any damage yet (even though leftist protestors have), but AlanE, was it really necessary to say "ape****" above in a family-friendly encyclopedia? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2017 (EST)
Thank God we exposed it and disrupted their operational plans. But this doesn't mean the coup plotters will quit. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 08:38, 21 January 2017 (EST)

Lying media exposed: Trump's approval number at 52%

His approval number is unchanged since Thanksgiving, according to Rasmussen: 52% View Trump Favorably. PeterKa (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2017 (EST)

At the time of the election, Trump's approval was at minus 21 points. Now it's at minus 8.[2] PeterKa (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2017 (EST)

Hottest year ever

The media is proclaiming 2016 the "hottest year ever." 2016 is supposedly 0.01 degree Celsius warmer that 2015. They haven't had time to compiled all the data for 2016 -- at least not completely enough to be able to say that 0.01 degree is statistically significant. The 1930s were almost certainly warmer, but the Obama regime has adjusted those years downward for political reasons. In any case, there was an El Nino event in 2015-2016, so the unusual weather lately has nothing to do with AGW. The El Nino ended in June and there has been a dramatic cooling since then.[3] PeterKa (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2017 (EST)

New Day. New Hero: 45 MAGA

Put this image on top of the homepage: PeterKa (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2017 (EST)

You had to do it, didn't you? Always need to be the first at doing everything. Now if we get a 48th president who's even more dynamic than Trump, no one will get to see that clever joke because it will have already been played. And that future president will have to wring his or her hands and cry out in anguish when they suddenly discover they didn't get to compare themselves to Jack Bauer—even after they tried extra hard to win the 48th presidency, in part, for that very reason. Way to go. VargasMilan (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2017 (EST)

Woman who harassed Trump supporter removed from plane by police

(Two vidoes). Typical of the intimidation and bullying of the Obama era. Newsflash: It's over! RobSMake Exxon Great Again 22:01, 22 January 2017 (EST)

The most popular reform Republicans could enact

Pretty much every other country requires voters to show ID. Mexico's voter ID law is among the strictest. Voter ID has the support of the 74 percent of the American people. Obama thinks Americans care about voter fraud only because we're so racist: "Obama’s Final Whopper as President" PeterKa (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2017 (EST)

It's an issue left to the states. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 09:09, 23 January 2017 (EST)
I certainly think so. But the Obama Justice Department used the Voting Rights Act to fight the idea. PeterKa (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2017 (EST)

Trump and abortion

Did Trump actually issue any executive orders yesterday concerning defunding foreign abortions, as reports had speculated? --1990'sguy (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2017 (EST)

Yes, this is something rather routine for Republican presidents to do. Anyways, here is another source:
And Donald Trump is big on loyalty when it comes to politics. And evangelicals and conservative Catholics played a big role in his election. Conservative (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2017 (EST)

History in today's schools

If today's grade schoolers know about the founding fathers, it's from the musical Hamilton. Martin Luther King is the only historical hero the schools can tell them about. Everyone else is too controversial: "Why schools have stopped teaching American history." The cabinet pick the liberals hate most is school choice advocate Betsy DeVos. The fake news is full of clips depicting her unfavorably. They don't explain the school choice issue, just how "unqualified" DeVos is. Nothing is more important to a liberal than to make sure your children grow up knowing nothing about God, country, the constitution, or anything else that might prepare them for the task of informed citizenship. What do they need to know? Only that the science is settled and that Allah is great. PeterKa (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2017 (EST)

Exactly why the schools need to be purged of their liberal elements and the teachers' unions need to be disbanded and outlawed. Northwest (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2017 (EST)
I sure hope DeVos can do something about that. Hopefully I will be shown to be wrong in my thinking that public schools are beyond restoration (even though I don't think I will be). --1990'sguy (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2017 (EST)
I hadn't realized earlier that liberalism was now a monotheistic MLK cult. FDR was the great liberal hero for many years, but now he's just another cis white male. Jefferson, Jackson, and Kennedy have also been knocked off their pedestals. Liberals have been reduced to stealing conservative heroes like Hamilton and Lincoln. MLK had quite a foul mouth, at least in private. One day, the FBI surveillance tapes will be released.[4] PeterKa (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2017 (EST)
MLK was a Republican. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 00:24, 25 January 2017 (EST)

Size does matter

The side-by-side inaugural crowd photos we've seen so much of turns out to be a picture taken during Obama's 2009 address versus a picture taken three hours before Trump spoke in 2017. The actual crowd size was about 800,000 on both occasions: "CNN Quietly Releases Updated Pic Showing Trump’s Inaugural Crowd Size Greater than Obama’s 2009 Inaugural Crowd." 800,000 is a pretty standard figure for inaugural crowd estimates because that's how many people can fit in the Mall. PeterKa (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2017 (EST)

Indeed, the whole thing is quite ridiculous. But Reuter's photographer Jackson claims that the photo at President Trump's inauguration was taken at 12:01h - the very time President Trump spoke his oath (One image was Trump's inauguration on Friday, taken by Jackson just as Trump took the oath of office, Jackson said.)
This fits the time-lapse video of the inauguration: The photo shows somewhat the peek of the crowd...
--AugustO (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2017 (EST)
The people of Washington D.C. aren't going to attend the inauguration of someone who promises to streamline government (i.e. job loss). They were rather prescient; President Trump made it a theme of his inaugural speech (federal government has prospered while working people have been neglected).
Also, if this is about viewer size, there wasn't just attendance. There were millions who saw the inauguration on TV and millions more who watched it through the internet. VargasMilan (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2017 (EST)
One Trump supporter has more sense than 10,000 Obama Zombies. So who really cares about the crowd size - especially when electoral college gives an advantage to the religious right! :) While Hillary supporters are counting the chess pieces they have remaining on the board, Trump supporters are exclaiming checkmate! :)Conservative (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2017 (EST)
I think what Trump was complaining about was the way it was reported. It was raining. One would expect attendance to fall off, but the media headlined it as a show of a lack of public support. Then anti-Trump activist/employees of the Trump administration further tried to subvert thier boss, while working on the public dime, by doctoring a photograph, which mainstream liars further exploited. I'm with Trump on this one. The behaivior of government employees, media, and anti-Trump activists was revolting. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 15:51, 27 January 2017 (EST)
Such silly behavior by the media is going to become the norm. They will only change (only possibly) once their fellow leftists do really bad in elections (like a repeat of 1984). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2017 (EST)
If Trump gains in opinion polls (despite their efforts to stop him) there will be some accomodation reached. Of coarse nowadays, who believes polls? If Trump gains approval, we could finally see the spectre of mainstream media, day after day, explaining why polls are so wrong and can't be trusted. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 23:12, 27 January 2017 (EST)
And of course, the liberal media will attempt to conveniently spin it to absolve themselves of any blame - that they themselves are behind the polls that were wrong and (along with the liberal media itself) can't be trusted. But as The Who once said in song, we won't get fooled again. Northwest (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2017 (EST)

65% back Trump agenda

[5] RobSMake Exxon Great Again 06:48, 26 January 2017 (EST)

Undocumented Voters

The current MPR story cites a study from Jesse Richman to claim that 800,000 non-citizens voted for Clinton. The problems with this assertion are numerous: the study only looked at the 2008 and 2010 elections; it was from an opt-in online survey; it was meant to only include citizens, so any noncitizens in the study were included by error anyway. While Richman does believe noncitizen voting exists, he maintains that it did not affect the outcome and has asked Trump to stop citing his study as proof: “I can’t quite account for the math being so badly wrong in their analyses,”

Problems with the claim:

Well, I guess this is why the need for an investigation, huh? RobSMake Exxon Great Again 15:43, 27 January 2017 (EST)

March for Life

Does anyone know of attendance to the March for Life in 2016 and today?

It's great news that Mike Pence chose to speak at the event. It is great when politicians who call themselves pro-life actually show their support against murder. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2017 (EST)


"Move evidence" should read "More evidence", MPR. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 14:28, 29 January 2017 (EST)

Thanks. I fixed it. Conservative (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2017 (EST)

Typo at top of main page

Iscaping Atheism says if you want to debunk atheist claims, Conservapedia "is probably the best place to start. Because nobody debunks atheist lies better than the folks at Conservapedia."

This should start "Escaping Atheism".TypoAt TopOfMainPage (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2017 (EST)

Thanks. I fixed it. Conservative (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2017 (EST)

Left has a cow over refugee halt

What explains the extraordinary uproar over immigration policy in the last few days? If you got together a room of political consultants and asked them, "What do the Democrats have to do to sweep the 2018 midterms?" I don't think any of them are going to answer, "Stand up for the rights of non-American Muslims." To make this the hill they stand on confirms all the worst stereotypes about leftists. Limbaugh says the policy is total resistance to all things Trump, and the policy specifics are beside the point: "The Left’s Resistance to Trump Isn’t Specific." The Muslim immigration ban was probably Trump's most memorable campaign promise. From his point of view, there had be some dramatic follow through. The current version of the ban applies to seven countries that had already been grouped together by the Obama State Department based on non-religious criteria (although they all happened to be Muslim). PeterKa (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2017 (EST)

Americans approve of Trump's immigration order by a margin 49 to 41.[6] Perhaps the protests aren't a political strategy after all. They may represent liberals acting on their deepest beliefs. In that case, their deepest belief is to live in a Muslim country, but one that supports transgendered rights and abortion? PeterKa (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2017 (EST)
That poll comes from Reuters, however (which is known to tilt Left), so in all likelihood, the real percentage in favor of Trump's halting of the Islamic invasion of American shores is most likely much higher. Northwest (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2017 (EST)

Heads up on the "refugee" problem. Christians & other non-Muslims there should be no problem with. However a person coming from Syria claiming asylum or "refugee" status -- with no documention he was born in Syria or held Syrian citizenship because he claims it was lost in a war zone, should not, again I repeat, should not be assumed to be a refugee. Please, as this national debate intensifies, do not take the leftist bait and loosely use the term "refuge", or "Syrian refugee". They are migrants. This is precisely the problem in Europe. By the end of this year, ther will probably be 10 million Muslim migrants from all over the Muslim world in Europe, 80% without documention and claiming they are from Syria. Syria had only 22 million inhabitants 5 years ago. The country today is not that depopulated. At best 3.5-4 million have left. And there are important authomatic legal condiderations granted when you use the term "refugee." They are not refugees, they are migrants. Don't even use the term 'Syrian migrant'. Use Muslim migrant or Islamic migrant. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 01:40, 1 February 2017 (EST)

Two for one

I wonder if this idea ever crossed Reagan's mind? Regardless, this could have huge (positive) effects if followed through. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2017 (EST)

Are you sure Neil Gorsuch doesn't have a pro-life record?


I'll admit I got panicked when I learned that Neil Gorsuch was nominated largely because of what was revealed on this site, but then I did some digging and I might as well ask, are you sure his record wasn't pro-life? Pro Life News indicates that he was actually a staunch defender of the right to life. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2017 (EST)

Yes, I'm sure. I looked at your link and couldn't find any evidence that Gorsuch opposes abortion or supports overturning Roe v. Wade. And there is much evidence to the contrary.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2017 (EST)
Many of these pro-life institutions, like the National Right to Life Committee, have been infiltrated and they exist just to mollify pro-Life voters and keep them on the conservative Republican reservation. There full of disinformation and are useless. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 01:52, 1 February 2017 (EST)
NRTLC was the original pro-life group founded by the Catholic bishop's conference back in 1967. It seems that Andy's views on this matter have already created a stir: "The Truth about Trump’s Pro-life SCOTUS List." PeterKa (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2017 (EST)
There is no way to get a direct answer to this question. I am sure that any qualified candidate would respond that he understands the importance of stare decisis, hates judge-made law, and looks to original intent. So, his vote would end up depending on how the actual case was framed and the politics of the court at the time. I could foresee a pro-life justice biding his time until another vacancy was filled. JDano (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2017 (EST)
By looking at a judge's record, personal background, and other factors, it is easy to determine with almost 100% certainty whether a candidate would overturn Roe v. Wade as a Supreme Court Justice. Gorsuch won't.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2017 (EST)

Here are a few other resources:

  • Gorsuch, 49, now attends an Episcopal church, but he attended Catholic schools.[[7] "While the Episcopal Church recognizes a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, the church condones abortion only in cases of rape or incest, cases in which a mother’s physical or mental health is at risk, or cases involving fetal abnormalities. The church forbids “abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection or any reason of mere convenience.”[8]

These resources supply some direct/indirect evidence on his views in terms of whether he is pro-life and also supply indirect evidence of his views on abortion.

After the David Souter appointment, I think Andy wants someone with a more clear cut background. And if the Republicans choose to employ the legislative tactic of the "nuclear option" in terms of getting a SCOTUS nominee confirmed, if I am not mistaken, they could conceivably nominate whomever they wish. And given the way the Democrats are acting post Trump being elected, Republicans don't have a lot to lose by playing political hardball in term of getting a very conservative judge to replace Scalia. Conservative (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2017 (EST)

The filibuster is a quaint Senate tradition that assumes a bipartisionship that hasn't existed for a long time. McCain is the man to watch on this. He and the "Gang of 14" nixed the nuclear option in 2005. The current Senate is 52 Republicans and 48 Dems. So they will need every vote to change the rules. PeterKa (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2017 (EST)
Bipartinship is probably decades away and may never come again to the USA should Jesus tarry. If McCain cannot see that then he is not paying attention to US/European politics.
The liberals are saying that 2016 was a terrible year due to celebrities dying and Trump's election. Conservatives and those on the right are less interested in celebrities and are more resilient.
I think with baby boomers aging there are going to be a lot of celebrities dying in coming years. And the Democrats might be out of power for 8 years. The liberals could be in a real sour mood due to their celebrity idols passing away and being out of power. Sourness is not the stuff which bipartisanship is made of. Conservative (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2017 (EST)
Here is the latest: "Trump to McConnell: Go nuclear if necessary." In 2005, Republicans ran the show, much like today. The base wanted the filibuster gone, and McCain screwed us over. That left conservatives without much to vote for in 2006 and contributed to the Dem takeover that year. So if history is any guide, this issue could be make-or-break for Senate Republicans. PeterKa (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2017 (EST)
Trump has had an ongoing working relationship with Schumer for decades; Trump's relationship with Ryan & Priebus is strained and opportunistic for both sides. I think the bipartisan framework is in place. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 01:16, 7 February 2017 (EST)

European Union

My conservative American friends, I'm against the far left and undemocratic institution known as the Europen Union. For that reason I would like to ask you to sign this petition for President Donald Trump to not recognise this unelected bunch of Cultural Marxists. Many thanks! --Gentenaar (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2017 (EST)

The EU is probably the organization that I most strongly oppose (as a citizen of both the U.S. and Switzerland). Their leaders have a strong and real vision for a socialist, one-size-fits-all United States of Europe with no borders or national identity. And they are undemocratic: Switzerland was forced to tighten its gun laws in conformity to EU standards (even though it is not an EU member) because it is part of the Schengen Area (the people should have known better when they originally voted to join, however). I find it interesting: when the UK voted to leave the EU, the Brussels establishment proposed even more integration.[9] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2017 (EST)
I'd agree, though I also think we should not just get rid of the EU, but also the United Nations as well. The latter was specifically created as a Trojan horse for communism anyways, and the UN's existence was technically a repeat of the mistake we made with the League of Nations, not to mention the overabundance of treaties that caused World War I, so there's no real reason to NOT get rid of it. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2017 (EST)
Yes, the UN is not an organization that I'm proud of either. Not only does it advance and support left-wing ideology, but it is not friendly towards Israel. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2017 (EST)
I totally agree, many of these international organisations are a complete failure. --Gentenaar (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2017 (EST)
U!timately, in a few decades time, it will be up to China to decide if it wants to keep the UN to govern the planet. They may have their own ideas. For now, yes, reform is badly needed in the Security Council structure that may have worked in the post-1945 world, but is sorely outdated in the 21st century realities. NATO too needs a fundamental structural overhaul and reform. Only a world statesman/woman and visionary can supply the leadership necessary to overcome the inert global bureaucracy. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 20:49, 15 February 2017 (EST)

But why did his hair turn orange?

And whatever happened to doctor-patient confidentiality? "Donald Trump’s Longtime Doctor Says President Takes Hair-Growth Drug" PeterKa (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2017 (EST)

Isn't it remarkable that the media can print the full details on Trump's health, but never had any curiosity regarding Hillary's health? The official story was pneumonia -- and that was all the sheep people were entitled to know. PeterKa (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2017 (EST)
If it came from the liberal media, it's most likely made up or embellished to make it sound worse than it really is. They have no shame whatsoever and refuse to even admit that their insistence on sticking to what caused them to lose viewers and subscribers will only serve as the final nail in their proverbial coffin. Northwest (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2017 (EST)
Hillary isn't President PeterJohnD (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2017 (EST)
We know that, but that's beside the point. The point is that the liberal media, given their pro-Hillary bias, were/are so to the point of basically cheerleading for her like they did for Obama for the past eight years while they never pass up any opportunity to take anything on Trump they perceive to be negative, no matter how small or obscure, and blow it up all out of proportion and spin it to make him look bad. That's just one of the reasons the liberal media is now regarded as a joke by the public (akin to tabloid journalism) and is no longer trusted by us, it just still hasn't taken with them yet and probably never will.
And the irony of this is that now, even the National Enquirer is more trusted than CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post. The liberal media dug their graves with their words and actions during the election campaign and they'll continue doing so even now, all the while refusing to see why they'll have to lie in them eventually. Northwest (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2017 (EST)

Gorsuch and Fascism Forever

High schoolers beware! That dumb yearbook joke may come back to haunt you should you ever get nominated to high office: "Fake News Media Goes Crazy Over Gorsuch ‘Fascism Forever Club’ In High School Yearbook" and "#FakeNews on Gorsuch on Imaginary ‘Fascism Forever’ Club" PeterKa (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2017 (EST)

Trump acts to resolve refugee crisis

Like Romans observing the onrush of barbarians, Obama and Merkel watched as Middle Eastern refugees poured in. With a few phone calls, Trump has created refugee safe areas in the Middle East and staved off a second collapse of civilization, according to Stefan Molyneux: "Did President Trump Just Save Western Civilization?." PeterKa (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2017 (EST)

They are not refugees. They are migrants. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 20:41, 15 February 2017 (EST)


"Mainstream tress upset" -- I assume it should be "Mainstream press upset" PeterKa (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2017 (EST)

Another typo: File:Lief Ericson.jpg -- "Lief" is a typo; it should be spelled "Leif." --1990'sguy (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2017 (EST)

Unions target DeVos

The Congressional switchboard is the busiest its ever been in history. It's not about the Muslim ban either. It's about Betsy DeVos, Trump's nominee for education secretary. Everything about the opposition is dishonest. The teacher's unions focus on DeVos's "qualifications," as if anyone cared about her resume. Of course, it's all about school choice. Do the schools belong to the teacher's unions or to the parents? The final vote is Tuesday: "DeVos opposition snowballs into avalanche."
Vermont has had school choice for many years. Why not the other 49 states? "Where School Choice Is a Way of Life". PeterKa (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2017 (EST)

Kuwait's "Muslim ban"

The leftist establishment is obviously going hysterical against President Trump's "Muslim ban," but if it really were so racist and etc., then why did Kuwait do the same thing? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2017 (EST)

Aye, you've properly nailed it there, fella. Make America Kuwait Again! JohnZ (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2017 (EST)
This has to do with security. Kuwait, like Trump, is recognizing a major risk. Also note: Kuwait's ban came one day after Trump signed the U.S. ban. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2017 (EST)
Don't be daft. At best, Trump's travel ban is security theatre that makes his supporters feel safer, whilst needlessly inconveniencing thousands of innocent people.
Your back door (Canada) is wide open. I doubt that's escaped the attention of anyone plotting to cause serious harm on American soil. The fact that hordes of extremists haven't already poured in and wreaked havoc via that route is probably a pretty good indication that there are far less of them than you think. JohnZ (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Fortunately, there is much less illegal immigration from the north. It's not a clean comparison to Mexico. I'm not opposed to more restrictions there either, however. I support securing national borders regardless of the threat of terrorism. There's much more at stake than terrorism (such as national sovereignty and identity). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Fair enough. You're clearly happy for your tax dollars to be spent on an incredibly expensive game of "securing" the borders whack-a-mole, irrespective of any discernible bang for your buck. I salute your consistency on this issue, if not your clarity of thought. JohnZ (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Securing the borders is worth it. It is the right way to spend our money. Protecting our sovereignty, security and national identity is very important. I'm tired of politicians cutting the wrong things from our budgets and still maintaining deficits. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Everyone wants a Muslim ban now. Even the Europeans are jealous: "A majority of Europeans want a ban on immigration from Muslim-majority countries, a poll has revealed." Only 20 percent are opposed. PeterKa (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2017 (EST)
On the Islamic immigration ban front stateside, the liberal judges' decision to refuse to uphold the ban won't stand. Trump runs the country now, not Obama and not those Obama-appointed corrupt shysters in black robes. Trump should just tell the bunch of them to take a flying leap and implement the ban anyway because it's the right thing to do at this point. Northwest (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2017 (EST)

Superbowl floundering

I really don't care about sports, but it's interesting to note that for three years straight, the Superbowl has been receiving progressively lower ratings. Somehow, the liberals are flummoxed at this development. [10] --David B (TALK) 13:09, 6 February 2017 (EST)

Soros funds the RINOs

"The biggest recipient of Soros-connected cash [in 2016] in the GOP was none other than House Speaker Paul Ryan," according to Breitbart. Ryan's opposition to Trump during the campaign makes more sense now. Neither Trump nor Cruz are on the list of recipients. PeterKa (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2017 (EST)

RINO isn't just a pejoritive like 'racist' to be thrown around loosely. It's an actual position of elected officials who represent voting constituencies who need to be respected.
Ryan represents some of the most sold GOP counties in the United States that have not voted for a Democrat since 1964. If you are intending to trash Ryan as a RINO, then Trump owes his entire presidency to the Ryan/Priebus machine that delivered Wisconsin to him, because it surely wasn't the popular vote that did. I would prefer to think you simply don't have a clue what you are talking about. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 21:17, 15 February 2017 (EST)
Wouldn't it be more logical to credit Scott Walker for the win in Wisconsin? He's the governor and all. Ryan isn't literally a RINO. He's sound on almost every issue except immigration. But that's a pretty big exception. He also took money from Soros to make trouble for Trump, or at least that is what the Breitbart article is suggesting. PeterKa (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2017 (EST)

Now that liberals are getting violent and acting like trapped rats, how long before liberalism collapses?

Now that liberals are getting violent and acting like trapped rats, how long before liberalism collapses?

It took the Soviet Union 74 years to collapse and economics played a big part.

One key block of the liberal coalition is the secular leftists, and the future does not look bright for them. See: Atheism vs. Christianity, Islam and right-wing ideology Conservative (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2017 (EST)

Leftists are being trained to fight at this club in Florida: "'Leftist Fight Club' trains UCF students to fight Republicans"
My money says the "Black Block" at the Berkeley protest was trained on how to commit vandalism at a Soros-funded camp somewhere. They should prosecuted under RICO.
As far as the left collapsing goes, they used violence on an even larger scale in 1968. The backlash caused them to lose the election that year. But they certainly didn't collapse, at least not on their own. If it gets any worse, we may need a son of COINTELPRO, the FBI operation that took the New Left down. PeterKa (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Given the fact that there are so many effete liberal elitists and limp-wristed liberals, some self-defense lessons is probably not a bad idea. Perhaps, they will develop some machismo and become more conservative! :) Conservative (talk)
In other news... Don't shoot the messenger. JohnZ (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Six points: 1) According to Gallup, Belief in God just saw a 3% uptick unless it was merely a regression to the mean.[11] 2) New Atheism is effectively dead as is the atheist movement. The last Reason Rally was a total flop. 3) America is merely 5% of the world's population and in a world of globalization where there is a global resurgence of religion that 5% can certainly be influenced in the 21st century. And there is the issue of immigration 4) Even a more pessimistic view of American religiosity indicates that godlessness will plateau before 2043 due to immigration, higher rate of fertility among religious, etc. (see: American atheism). 5) America's federal debt is gigantic. Vox Day predicted the 2007 financial crisis and the Trump presidency. He predicts a 2033 economic depression that will be worse than the Great Depression. Historically, there is generally an inverse relationship between atheism and economic difficult times and uncertainty. Pentecostalism often thrives in poor countries. 6) Global atheism is shrinking in terms of its global market share and this trend is expected to continue in the 21st century. Conservative (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Now that DeVos has been confirmed (Yea!!!!!), the schools may become more Christian friendly. PeterKa (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, see these two articles:[12][13] Denominations that adhere to Liberal Theology are shrinking while conservative denominations are holding steady and even seeing growth. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Cheers (to you and Conservative). I suspect, however, that the relative robustness and assertiveness of conservative denominations might be a significant part of the long-term problem. The insistence on a particular approach to scriptural "purity" - and a readiness to denounce others as CINO - appear deeply repellent to many of the young people who would otherwise represent the future of your churches. JohnZ (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2017 (EST)
Truth is truth regardless of what one thinks of it. The Bible, including Jesus, makes that quite clear. If we are able to attract scores and scores of young people but compromise Scripture and what we strongly believe to be the truth, we might as well disband the church. Of course, we must do this in a loving way. But that does not subtract from the fact that compromising truth for popularity is not right. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, please give me one historical example of liberal Christianity substantially growing Christendom. Worldwide conservative Christianity is more effective at evangelism and has had higher birth rates than much of its competitors in terms of religions. And the latter should not be minimized. Historically, since its beginning, Christianity has grown due to the pro-natal aspects of Christian theology (The early church had substantially higher birth rates than the pagans of the Roman empire).

My guess is that conservative Christians have a higher birthrate than "moderate Islam" (the moderate Muslims" faction of Islam) and certainly have a higher birth rates than liberal Christians/agnostics/atheists. Although having children is not as flashy as evangelism, over time the effects of higher birthrates is huge. Conservative (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, who has the long term problem? See: Global atheism statistics
Do we live in a world in which globalization is a very powerful force? Are aging developed world populations expected to have an influx of religious immigrants in the 21st century - both legal and illegal immigrants? See: Desecularization.
Will the growing hostility towards Muslim immigration in developed countries (especially Europe) cause an increased long term influx of evangelical Christian immigrants to developed world countries? Is evangelical Christianity rapidly expanding in the world and expected to increase its global market share? See: Growth of evangelical Christianity
I hope this helps to clarify things. :) Conservative (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2017 (EST)
Perhaps. It seems reasonable to suppose, however, that if US conservative denominations are now plateauing after several decades of strong growth, then something similar is likely to happen eventually to conservative denominations in the developing world.
I also note that, in highlighting globalisation and immigration as long-term destabilising forces, you appear to be implicitly predicting the failure of the wave of right wing, populist nationalism currently building in the US and Europe. JohnZ (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, conservative denominations have had several decades of growth in the USA? Conservative Christianity has been in America since its inception. Can you cite one example gay parade that happened in 1777 in America?
Second, are conservative churches in America plateauing? "The finding that Protestant fundamentalism may decline in relative terms over the medium term contrasts with a prevailing view that envisions the continued growth of “strong religion” (Stark and Iannaccone 1994a)." - Secularism, Fundamentalism or Catholicism? The Religious Composition of the United States to 2043, Journal for the Sientific Study of Religion, vol. 49, no. 2 (June) 2010, Kaufmann, Vegard Skirbekk and Anne Goujon,[14] See also: Baylor University researchers on American Christianity.
Third, you never addressed the issue of scholars indicating a plateauing of secularism in Europe sometime in the 21st century and a rise of religious fundamentalism in Europe. See: European desecularization in the 21st century
When the generous pension plans in Europe falter due to lack of young people to replace older workers, the business sector has a shortage of workers, I believe European anti-immigration sentiment will falter. Long term, I don't see politics solving Europe's problems associated with sub-replacement fertility in many European countries. It would take a Christian religious revival in European countries and the Protestant work ethic. See also: Atheism and fertility rates. On the other hand, a tough economy could lower the demand for labor in Europe. At the same, time there is an inverse correlation of atheism and hard economic times while conservative Christianity often does well in such a climate. Biblical Christianity often thrives during tough economic times and economic uncertainty.
As far as the Trumpian brand of right-wing politics, I think it could last at least 8 years given the current strength of the Democratic party. Conservative (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2017 (EST)
Interesting paper from Kaufmann. You should probably try reading it; ideally, from start to finish. JohnZ (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2017 (EST)
I wouldn't trust the sources you produced (including liberal-leaning pollsters Gallup) any further than I could throw a VW Beetle. As for your boast "you appear to be implicitly predicting the failure of the wave of right wing, populist nationalism currently building in the US and Europe", you assume too much. It's the Left which is collapsing, and in spectacular fashion as seen by the recent unhinged behavior of liberal "protestors" and Hollywood celebrities and the continued blatant spewing of fake news by the now-discredited and irrelevant liberal media and its refusal to see that it too is on the verge of collapse thanks to its refusal to change its ways. Northwest (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2017 (EST)
Don't do yourself down, fella. I bet if you put your mind to it and get just a tiny bit angrier, you'll turn green, grow massive, and be able to hurl that Beetle as far as you want. Lots of love, JohnZ (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2017 (EST)
Liberal condescension toward those who state the truth only makes the condescender look foolish. Northwest (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2017 (EST)
You're confusing condescension with (very) gentle mockery. JohnZ (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2017 (EST)
No, not even close. You don't like that I called you out on your condescension, so you (typical of a liberal) resort to denying engaging in condescension at all while continuing to do it. You're only proving exactly what the liberal style article says about those like you right. Northwest (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, you are secular leftist, are you not? Don't you leftist almost invariably go with the scholarly consensus? See: Atheism and groupthink. And of course, we know what the prevailing view is, don't we? "The finding that Protestant fundamentalism may decline in relative terms over the medium term contrasts with a prevailing view that envisions the continued growth of “strong religion” (Stark and Iannaccone 1994a)." - Secularism, Fundamentalism or Catholicism? The Religious Composition of the United States to 2043, Journal for the Sientific Study of Religion, vol. 49, no. 2 (June) 2010, Kaufmann, Vegard Skirbekk and Anne Goujon,[15] If only you were a conservative, rugged individualist, then you could escape the charge of atheist hypocrisy!

Please refrain from ad-hominem attacks. (I am aware that you have stopped accusing me of being an atheist, and I appreciate that. You still call me an "evolutionist", and I plead guilty.) @JohnZ: Please don't let people drag you into this sort of thing. Notice that, once Cons leveled that accusation at you, he then dragged you into his world of generalizations. Complete with links to his own articles. SamHB (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2017 (EST)
See what I mean about you trying to start fights on this site? Northwest (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2017 (EST)
SamHB, you do make a reasonable complaint in this matter. I do think it is odd though that JohnZ very selectively embraces Kaufmann's work. But I should not have found it to be very unusual. There are plenty of political/religious/irreligious ideologues who are given to partisanship over objectivity. And to be fair, I think Kaufmann failed to predict the extent of European backlash to Muslim immigration. I think that is the result of him being a Canadian (Canada is very pro-immigration compared to many countries). But as an agnostic, Kaufmann does certainly make efforts to not let his own personal wishes trump objectivity. He also has a very pleasant demeanor and sense of humor. Conservative (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Next, the paper by Kaufmann, Vegard Skirbekk and Anne Goujon was written in 2010. This was was BEFORE the atheist movement folded like an accordion in 2011/2012 (see: Elevatorgate and Atheist factions and Atheist pessimism about the atheist movement). In addition, 2010 was BEFORE the age of Trumpian politics and Brexit. Now, instead of advancing atheism in America, American secular leftists are bogged down fighting the public policies of the nominal Presbyterian Donald J. Trump! If only American atheism were not so dependent on the slender thread of statist atheist indoctrination.

It's so sad to see atheist men tremble at the thought of Betsy Devos. Thank God Christianity is not dependent on the state for its promulgation. In fact, historically Christianity often thrives under state persecution (See: Growth of Christianity in China). Conservative (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2017 (EST)

Just read the paper yourself. Whatever secondary source you've relied on for analysis has done you a considerable disservice. JohnZ (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, if you're such a big fan of the scholar Eric Kaufmann, then why aren't you adequately addressing his central thesis in relation to atheism vs. theism (see: Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London and Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century, Paperback: 320 pages, Publisher: Profile Books (April 19, 2011). Kaufmann has 320 pages of information which shows that the market share of atheism will be crushed like a tin can and you are completely ignoring his information!
Is this yet another case of an atheist using the fallacy of exclusion? See: Atheism and logical fallacies. Conservative (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, have you seen some of the post 2010 writings of Eric Kaufmann? The data looks grim for American secular leftists. I just added some Kaufmann material to: United States, irreligion vs. religion and demographics. Conservative (talk)
JohnZ, Kaufmann published this article in 2012: The Future Will Be More Religious and Conservative Than You Think by Eric Kaufmann, American Enterprise Institute Conservative (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2017 (EST)
OK. Let's spell it out, then. Kaufmann, Skirbekk and Goujon run their predictions to 2043, with fundamentalist Protestant denominations projected to decline from 19.5 to 16.7% of the US population. Those with no religion, on the other hand, are expected to increase slightly from 17 to 17.4%. This is all on p.305, incidentally.
Shall the Religious... reads mostly as a warning to any policy makers who think continued secularisation beyond 2050 is a done deal, especially in the face of sustained immigration and differential fertility rates. In case you hadn't noticed, Kaufmann sees conservative / fundamentalist religion as a deeply regressive force that must be resisted, lest it eventually come to dominate the political sphere.
Personally, I think he's far too pessimistic. He seems to assume conservative / fundamentalist values remain constant, when actually they don't. Now, you can dismiss the students in the linked article as misguided, misinformed, or better still, not real Christians (!), but refusing to accommodate such attitudinal shifts doesn't bode well for the future. JohnZ (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, read what Kaufmann said here: European desecularization in the 21st century. So Kaufmann said that In Europe, secularization could receive its day of reckoning as early as 2021. Also, Kaufmann said, "Committed religious populations are growing in the West, and will reverse the march of secularism before 2050."[16] So BEFORE.

As far as Kaufmann being pessimistic/optimistic, I think as far as secularization he may have been too optimistic about immigration not receiving a huge backlash in the future. He may have been overconfident about the strength of multiculturism/postmodernism. So that might delay his predictions.

On the other hand, if memory serves Kaufmann doesn't put a lot of stock in marketing/media/communications making a significant impact on the atheism/agnosticism vs. religion and liberalism vs. right-wing culture wars. But actually, the internet and Fox News have begun to chisel away at liberalism. For example, Trump used the internet fairly well as one of his means to defeat Hillary. Conservative (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, consider reading this article by a military historian about the fate of the state. The Fate of the State by MARTIN VAN CREVELD. He correctly states that governments are finding it harder to control what the public hears. And given that liberalism derives much of its power from the state and is statist, it was just a matter of time before liberalism/atheism got chiseled down by the internet. In 2011/2012 a lot of atheist dirty laundry hit the internet and New Atheism imploded. In 2016, Wikileaks hammered Hillary. Conservative (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, a few additional points:
The are liberal wings of American evangelicalism.
"In 2007, just 23 percent of Southern Baptists said homosexuality should be accepted by society, according to the Pew Research Center. By 2014, that figure had risen to 30 percent. Attitudes toward same-sex marriage have shifted just as dramatically. In a 2001 Pew survey, just 13 percent of white evangelical Protestants (the most conservative religious group on social issues) said they favored same-sex marriage. By 2015, that number had almost doubled, to 24 percent, and it was becoming easier for LGBT individuals to find a church home."[17]
At the same time, the Southern Baptist Convention is paying a price to becoming more liberal and they are now shrinking as a denomination while the more conservative Assemblies of God is growing.
I cite:
"The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the country, but it continues to lose members and baptize fewer people each year.
The latest statistics, compiled by LifeWay Christian Resources from church reports, show membership has dropped by more than 204,000, down 1.3 percent to 15.3 million members in 2015. It's the ninth year in a row there has been a membership decline.
Baptisms, which have declined eight of the last 10 years, totaled 295,212, a 3.3 percent drop, researchers said Tuesday (June 7).
"God help us all! In a world that is desperate for the message of Christ, we continue to be less diligent in sharing the Good News," said SBC Executive Committee President Frank Page in a statement.
Meanwhile, the Assemblies of God, the world's largest Pentecostal denomination, is continuing to see increases in this country. The latest statistics, compiled using reports from its churches and released last week, show a 1.4 percent rise in U.S. adherents to 3,192,112 in 2015, up from 3,146,741 in 2014."[18]
Next, the mainstream media and the public school systems are negatively affecting some evangelicals. On the other hand, things are changing on that front. Public confidence in the media got hammered in the 2016 election and is not at an all time low. In addition, Trump new Secretary of Education, Betsy Devros, is going to be pushing for school choice.
Consider this excerpt from an article at
"Contrary to popular belief, the United States has far less school choice than many other countries. For example, some European nations actually give students a constitutional right to attend any private school at public expense. Many developing countries also find ways, even with more limited resources, to give parents and students choice.
International evidence from these countries supports the positive qualities asserted by school choice advocates in the United States and invalidates the claims of harm made by some American commentators.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) surveyed its 34 member countries and partner countries in 2008 and 2009 for its annual Education at a Glance reports. As “the authoritative source for accurate and relevant information on the state of education around the world,”1 the OECD’s reports show that, of the 53 participants, 25 countries’ governments (nine of which have top 20 PISA scores overall) provide vouchers and/or tuition tax credits for students to attend private schools (see accompanied table).
Scholar Charles Glenn noted that “governments in most Western democracies provide partial or full funding for nongovernment schools chosen by parents; the United States (apart from a few scattered and small-scale programs) is the great exception, along with Greece.”2 Or as Diane Ravitch pointed out in a 2001 article, “The proportion of students in government-funded private schools is sizable in countries such as Australia (25 percent), Belgium (58 percent), Denmark (11 percent), France (16.8 percent), South Korea (21 percent), the Netherlands (76 percent), Spain (24 percent), and the United Kingdom (30 percent).”
In Finland, the government provides funding for basic education at all levels, and instruction is free of charge.3 In Sweden, schooling is “free,” and parents are able to choose their children’s schools; funding even follows the student when they change schools.4 In Portugal, the Ministry of Education finances the public sector in its entirety, and the state subsidizes each student in private schools.5 In Germany, the Netherlands, England, Northern Ireland, and Sweden, “public funding is provided so that families can choose to send their children to schools with a religious character.”6
In several European countries, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Ireland, school choice is a constitutional right. Article 24 of the Belgian constitution, for example, provides “all pupils of school age have the right to moral or religious education at the Community’s expense.” Belgium enacted universal school choice in 1958 in what it termed the “School Pact”; school choice was seen as a way of avoiding strife between Catholic and Protestant schools."[19]
In addition, homeschooling is growing in the USA.[20]
So it is conceivable that less evangelical young people will be educated in public schools.
Also, consider:
In 2011, a paper was published entitled The End of Secularization in Europe?: A Socio-Demographic Perspective. The authors of the paper were: Eric Kaufmann - Birkbeck College, University of London; Anne Goujon - World Population Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA); Vegard Skirbekk World Population Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).
An excerpt from the paper by Kaufmann, Goujon and Skirbekk:
"Conservative Protestants, a much larger group than the Mormons, also benefit from relatively high fertility. Hout et al. (2001) find that three-quarters of the growth of conservative Protestant denominations against their liberal counterparts is due to fertility advantage rather than conversion.
In Europe, there has been less attention paid to fertility differences between denominations. However, several studies have discovered that immigrants to Europe tend to be more religious than the host population and — especially if Muslim—tend to retain their religiosity (Van Tubergen 2006). Though some indicators point to modest religious decline toward the host society mean, other trends suggest that immigrants become more, rather than less, religious the longer they reside in the host society (Van Tubergen 2007). All of which indicates that religious decline may fail at the aggregate level even if it is occurring at the individual level (Kaufmann 2006, 2010). This article thereby investigates the hypothesis that a combination of higher religious fertility, immigration, and slowing rates of religious apostasy will eventually produce a reversal in the decline of the religious population of Western Europe".[21] Conservative (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2017 (EST)
The key numbers in your article seem to be:
  1. Evangelicals rising from 2.5% of Europe's population in 2010 to 4% in 2100. (Long)
  2. Muslims (of all different stripes) rising from 2-6% of Europe's population to 10-25% by 2100. (Kaufmann)
  3. 5%: Kaufmann's estimate for conservative Christians as percentage of current Europe population.
You'll forgive me if I don't see 1) as particularly noteworthy. As for 2), I'd argue the increase is likely to be at the lower end of that range, given both the current political climate and the fact that immigrants' fertility tends to converge with that of the host country. 3) is interesting because it's so at odds with Long's figures, and because Kaufmann seems to shy away from making a concrete growth prediction for 2100.
Let's split the difference on Muslims and say 15% by 2100, and take Kaufmann's estimate and charitably imagine it doubles in the same period to 10%. Clearly not all Muslims are fundamentalists, so you're talking about a voting bloc of considerably less than 25%, even in the unlikely event of conservative / fundamentalist Christians and Muslims mobilising politically in unison. That's not the kind of numbers or power base that's going to keep any secular leftists awake at night. JohnZ (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, you will find few academics projecting the rates of irreligion/religion in 2100 with any degree of preciseness/certainty. I did find a few, however (see: Global atheism statistics). That is because a lot can happen in a century due to their being many variable and interactions between variables.


Reverend Dwight Longenecker wrote: "In the late eighteenth century atheism, rationalism and Freemasonry seemed to have taken over Europe. By the mid to late nineteenth century religious revival had swept through Europe and Christianity was surging forward.[22]

In the United States, there were a series of Christian revivals/awakenings between 1730 and the 1970s (see: First Great Awakening and Second Great Awakening and Third Great Awakening and Fourth Great Awakening and Jesus Movement).

The Jesus movement was fairly contemporary and happened in the 1970s.

Consider also:

The American sociologist and author Peter L. Berger introduced the concept of desecularization in 1999. In contrast to many other forms of Christianity, charismatic/Pentecostal Christianity is very evangelical. According to Berger, "One can say with some confidence that modern Pentecostalism must be the fastest growing religion in human history."

Berger recently said that he previously thought that Pentecostalism did not have a significant future in Europe, but he recently saw signs that it could see significant growth in Europe.[23] In addition, Pentecostalism often grows fast in areas undergoing economic distress. Post 2007 there are concerns that Western economies which have high sovereign debt loads could see some significant economic turmoil in coming years - especially the European countries with aging populations that have been struggling in terms of economic growth." - Source, with attendant footnotes: Atheism vs. Christian revival and Christian apologetics

Berger sees signs that Pentecostalism could spread through the UK/Europe.[24]

France is in many ways the birthplace of modern atheism in the Western World (see: History of atheism).

On July 12, 2012, the Christian Science Monitor reported:

"French scholars say, evangelicalism is likely the fastest-growing religion in France – defying all stereotypes about Europe’s most secular nation...

Daniel Liechti, vice-president of the French National Evangelical Council, found that since 1970, a new evangelical church has opened in France every 10 days. The number of churches increased from 769 to 2,068 last year."[25]

See also: Immigrant evangelical churches are a fast growing movement in France

Since immigrants are often religious, another reason for not making precise/certain predictions for 2100 is the uncertainty about immigration policies and the degree of immigrant backlash (anti-immigrant laws, violence, etc.). Furthermore, people in developed countries may have varying levels of intensity in terms of engaging in legal/illegal immigration. For example, the rate of economic development in their respective countries, political stability in the countries, etc.

Furthermore, most atheists are East Asians (see: Asian atheism) and a lot of immigration comes from Asia. And Asia is seeing a lot of desecularization (see: East Asia and global desecularization) and it is happening at a rapid clip in some countries such as China (see:Growth of Christianity in China). Will the communists of Vietnam be able to suppress Christianity to the degree that they are able to now or will Vietnam see a growth of Christianity that we see occurring in China? This question is difficult to answer.

Why would the rate of desecularization be important in Vietnam? Wikipedia, a wiki founded by an atheist and agnostic, has an entire article on Vietnamese Australians! And according to that article, the number of immigrants coming to Australia from Vietnam has been going up since 2000.

China has the largest atheist population in the world. So from a global perspective, the fall of atheism that is occurring in China certainly has implications - especially since many scholars/futurists are predicting an "Asian Century".

At the same time, Britain has been a significant force in contemporary atheism (see: British atheism). And recently, its leading light Richard Dawkins has seen a precipitous fall in public favor (see: Richard Dawkins' loss of influence). In addition, Britain's leading atheists embarrassed themselves by shrinking from debate with William Lane Craig.

In August 19, 2011, Fox News reported:

"American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge. This month president of the British Humanist Association, Polly Toynbee, pulled out of an agreed debate at London’s Westminster Central Hall in October, saying she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style.” Lane Craig, who is a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif., and author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles, is no stranger to the art of debate and has taken on some of the great orators, such as famous atheists Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Harris once described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”.

Responding to Toynbee’s cancellation, Lane Craig commented: "These folks (atheists) can be very brave when they are alone at the podium and there's no one there to challenge them. But one of the great things about these debates is that, it allows both sides to be heard on a level playing field, and for the students in the audience to make up their own minds about where they think the truth lies."

”On August 19, 2011, the leading British Anglican weekly newspaper the Church Times wrote:

"The director of Professor Craig’s tour, Peter May, said: “If Craig is ‘wrong about everything else in the universe’ and his arguments for the existence of God are so easy to refute, it is hard to see why the leading atheist voices in the country are running shy of having a debate with him. “Rather than hurling ad hom­inem attacks on Craig from their bunkers, it would be good to see these figures come forward to rationally defend the atheism they publicly espouse.” (see: Atheism and cowardice).

Furthermore, on December 14, 2009, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported:

"According to the Mail Evangelical Christianity is on the rise.

Some 4.5million of the UK's foreign-born population claim to have a religious affiliation. Of these, around a quarter are Muslim while more than half are Christian – with Polish Catholics and African Pentecostals among the fastest-growing groups.

While traditional churchgoing is on the decline in the UK over the past decade, the latest immigrants mean Christianity is becoming more charismatic and fundamentalist.

'Perhaps the most significant change has been the growth of Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity within migrant populations, particularly those from Africa and Latin America,' the report found.

'In Lewisham, there are 65 Pentecostal churches serving the Nigerian community, and others serving the Congolese, Ghanaian and Ivorian communities.'

Professor Mike Kenny of IPPR said: 'The research shows that recent waves of inward migration have given a boost to some of the UK's established faith communities at a time when Britain's society and culture are generally more secular, and smaller numbers of the indigenous population are regularly attending churches.

'Recent migration trends are altering the faith map of the UK. Their biggest impact is being felt in some of our largest cities: London above all, where a rich mosaic of different faith communities has come into being.'

Evangelical Christianity might be heavily African-influenced but it’s also spreading among the natives as well."[26]

See also:

JohnZ, the days of atheists being able to effectively combat theism due to lame Anglican opposition are coming to an end. A more "muscular"/vibrant Christianity is moving in.

Why is this important?

Concerning the future of religion/secularism in Europe, Eric Kaufmann also wrote:

"We have performed these unprecedented analyses on several cases. Austria offers us a window into what the future holds. Its census question on religious affiliation permits us to perform cohort component projections, which show the secular population plateauing by 2050, or as early as 2021 if secularism fails to attract lapsed Christians and new Muslim immigrants at the same rate as it has in the past. (Goujon, Skirbekk et al. 2006).

This task will arguably become far more difficult as the supply of nominal Christians dries up while more secularisation-resistant Muslims and committed rump Christians comprise an increasing share of the population."[27]

JohnZ, for better or worse, when the English speaking public thinks of atheism, the person most likely to come to mind is the new atheist Richard Dawkins. And what does the public commonly see when it comes to Richard Dawkins? Desperation! Desperation and anger!! See: Richard Dawkins and anger

In 2013, Martin Robbins wrote in the New Statesman concerning the public persona of Dawkins: "Increasingly though, his public output resembles that of a man desperately grasping for attention and relevance..."[28]

JohnZ, on his telly, Dawkins is seeing religious immigrants take over London and other urban areas of Britain. He is reading about Muslim children/parents pushing back against the teaching of evolutionism in British schools and the teachers and school administrators quickly caving. [29] As a result of these things, Dawkins is working himself into a tizzy!

Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."[30]

JohnZ, have you read the article, What will happen to Western atheism and Eastern atheism after the dominos of British atheism and Chinese atheism fall??

The 21st century most definitely will be a century of desecularization. Timorous British atheists will not be able to stop it. Atheists in France are not able to stop the tide of religiosity that is beginning to sweep their nation. And the Asian stronghold of atheism is seeing its walls brought down by the ceaseless heavy artillery barrage of evangelical Protestantism. Conservative (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2017 (EST)

Thanks for the Berger article. Again, though, I'm left wondering how closely you're reading your sources, and whether reliance on poor secondary analysis is hindering your understanding of them. Berger repeatedly highlights Chemin Neuf's ecumenism, even noting how much it "impressed" Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Apologies if I missed the memo, but to the best of my knowledge, Welby represents the polar opposite of the "muscular" Christianity you reckon is about to sweep the UK, and ecumenism is the very last thing you're looking for in your holy howitzers. JohnZ (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, we already covered that liberal Christianity is imploding and another editor gave you a source about this. And the Anglican Church is imploding in the UK.

Also, "ecumenism"/cooperation/toleration among religious populations as far as its implications on the political realm may not help secular leftists in the long run.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? concerning America/world:

"High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family."[31]

Kaufmann sees a day when fundamentalist in the Abrahamic family form coalitions on social issues such as abortion/other social issues/creationism vs. evolutionism. He cites evangelicals/Mormons forming political alliances in some cases (Proposition 8, etc.)

Lastly, I still don't think you are adequately addressing the issue of global desecularization and its implications (see also: Global atheism statistics). Conservative (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2017 (EST)

Quick question before we proceed: are Catholics and Mormons real Christians? JohnZ (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, now that you are clearly losing the argument about secular leftism facing a bleak future, now you try to throw out a red herring in order to cause a distraction. You are clearly getting desperate.
I can certainly see why given the number of leftist defeats as of late and the global atheism statistics.
JohnZ, if you want to keep charging forward as a advocate of your ideology, you can certainly do so. But don't think it is going to make a difference in the big scheme of things. Conservative (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2017 (EST)
It's a pretty important question, one in fact that runs to the heart of your vision for the future. On the one hand, you seem to regard ecumenism as a byword for liberal dilution / betrayal of conservative scriptural principles, yet on the other, you crow about building triumphant coalitions with people you don't appear to regard as fully Christian. Which is it? JohnZ (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, it not my vision of the future. I just recognize that fact that people who have different views in various areas have often worked together to achieve mutually agreed on political aims. In fact, this is so common that there is a phrase for it: "politics makes strange bedfellows". You can deny this happens, but it happens nonetheless and evangelicals/Mormons working together politically to pass Proposition 8 shows that it certainly can and does happen.
If you want to put your head in the sand and ignore the fact that secular leftism is losing the war in terms of global situation and that this is going to have an impact on the Western World, again that is your choice. If you want to ignore the bulk of Kaufmann's scholarship, again that is your choice. Conservative (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, I do endeavor to be objective. For example, I have no idea if Trump will be re-elected. I do hope he is re-elected given that I think the Democrat running will be a worse candidate. If you look at some of my comments on User: VargasMilan's talk page, I point out that since 1910, presidents who have followed two term presidents have faced recessions in every single case.[32] Maybe Trump will break that pattern. I really don't know. I do disagree with some of his economic policies such as massive spending for infrastructure as i think the federal debt load could cause major problems - especially if it grows. And the next recession, could be far worse than the 2007/2008 recession. I see the growing debt as the biggest risk America faces right now.

With that being said, from an objective standpoint, I see atheism collapsing on its Eastern front where most atheists live (see: Asian atheism). In Europe, I see evangelical Christianity growing and it is growing at a fast clip in France. In Latin America, evangelical Christianity is seeing rapid growth, but atheism is not. In Africa, evangelical Christianity is seeing excellent growth, but atheism is not.

On top of this, you have Islam, a religion with a proven track record of strong intolerance against atheism and deep skepticism of evolutionism, growing at good clip in Europe and becoming dominant in many areas of Europe and in many places in the UK which is the birthplace of modern evolutionism.

Now in the USA, the situation is bit more cloudy and uncertain , but the atheist movement stalled post 2012 and turnout for the 2016 Reason Rally was anemic. But even given the cloudiness caused by immigration policies, survey data issues, economic forecasts (irreligion is negatively correlated to economic instability), Americans/Canadians have a very low opinion of atheists and indicated they trust rapists more than atheists (see: Views on atheists). And America has a growing Hispanic population as well, so the odds of major victory for atheism seem slim in America. And over time, the percentage of Americans who are atheists has been very stable (see: American atheism).

Furthermore, atheism has been losing global market share for about almost 50 years and the trend is expected to continue in the 21st century (see: Global atheism statistics).

In addition, some of the biggest guns of atheism are in decline such as the mainstream media (see: Atheism and the media), the major publishing houses (they are losing market share) and public education (homeschooling/school choice is growing).

Next, even the prominent atheist philosopher Michael Martin indicated that there has been a stagnation in terms of atheist apologetics while theists have not been stagnant and offering more objections to atheism and more arguments for theism (see: Rebuttals to atheist arguments). Intellectually, atheists are moving backwards and not forwards. And they have a number of notable cases of shrinking when it comes to debate (see: Atheism and cowardice).

History teaches that when a team/cause/etc. keeps losing and racks up a history of losing, it often gets demoralized/discouraged and loses confidence and its performance further suffers. It gets caught up in a vicious cycle of defeat. Is this happening to the atheist movement? See: Atheist pessimism about the atheist movement.

On the other hand, when a team has a long history of being victorious and is not complacent, it is often bold and effective. Christendom has 2,000 years of success and there is high morale within Christendom (see: High morale of Christendom).

Finally, atheists have a long history of making bad predictions when it comes to the promulgation of atheism.

Dr. Rodney Stark is an agnostic.

Stark in his book The Triumph of Faith wrote:

"People want to know why the universe exists, not that it exists for no reason, and they don't want their lives to be pointless. Only religion provides credible and satisfactory answers to the great existential questions. The most ardent wishes of the secularization faithful will never change that.

"Secularists have been predicting the imminent demise of religion for centuries. They have always been wrong—and their claims today are no different. It is their unshakable faith in secularization that may be the most "irrational" of all beliefs." (p. 212)".

But the secularization thesis failed miserably.

In 2016 and the in the beginning portion of 2017, the global internet market share of Richard Dawkins' website has been falling according to the web traffic tracking company Alexa.
Since April of 2016 and in the beginning of 2017, Conservapedia has seen an increase in its global internet market market share according to the web traffic tracking company Alexa.

JohnZ, you can claim that the situation is anything other than bleak for the promulgation of atheism, but you are not doing it on the basis of evidence and reason. And individuals in your camp have been making very bad predictions for centuries.

JohnZ, please read: The 21st century is a terrible century for atheism and Is atheism growing?
Game over. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Conservative (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2017 (EST)

So when did we take Never-Trumpers at their word?


I noticed that the most recent headline on the news panel had you guys quoting Ben Sasse from Nebraska on what Neil Gorsuch said. My question is, considering you supported Trump throughout the entire election cycle and put down Never-Trumpers, why are you suddenly taking a known Never-Trumper GOP senator at his word regarding Gorsuch? Isn't it a bit hypocritical? I know, I know, Andy Schlafly has issues with Gorsuch, but considering his mom Phylis, bless her heart, helped with the Supreme Court candidates list that Trump used, I'm pretty sure even she saw something in Gorsuch that meant he was viable enough to be considered a pick. Just asking why we are all of a sudden doing Never-Trumper messages even if it's in regards to Gorsuch. Besides, I'm pretty sure Gorsuch wrote a book denouncing Euthanasia anyways. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2017 (EST)

The liberals' Jesus

To a liberal, Jesus was a guy who would have supported Obamacare and was really cool about LGBT rights and Black Lives Matter too. If he was around today, he probably would have attended a Town Hall to denounce the GOP. Check it out: "Meet the Teacher Whose Powerful, Christian Defense of Obamacare Made a GOP Town Hall Go Viral" To conflate charity with taxes, as this woman does, misses an important point. Because charity is voluntary, it improves the soul the giver and prepares us for the next world. This aspect of charity was more important to Jesus than idea of a program to "pull up the people.” After all, "the poor will always be with you." PeterKa (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Right now, the USA has some messed up priorities and systems.
The Iraq/Afghanistan Wars are going to cost at least 4-6 trillion dollars. When the Israeli athletes were killed in the Munich Olympics, the Israelis used military intelligence and assassins to hunt down the killers. The USA by contrast used a methodology that is both costly and caused a lot of unnecessary loss of lives. And ultimately it was military intelligence and a SEAL team which killed Bin Laden (similar methodology to Israelis in other words).
And the USA spends a ton on health care compared to other developed nations, yet chronic diseases and obesity are rampant in the USA. The South Koreans/Swiss/Japanese live about 3-5 years longer than Americans. Conservative (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Drain this swamp: Evan Morris, drug lobbyist

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent article on how the Washington sausage gets made: "The Rise and Fall of a K Street Renegade." Remember the avian flu scare? That was a scam cooked up by lobbyist Evan Morris to sell more Tamiflu, a drug made by Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche. In 2005, he got 32 Democratic senators to sign a letter to Bush expressing their “grave concern that the nation is dangerously unprepared for the serious threat of avian influenza.” Bush authorized the purchase of $1 billion worth of Tamiflu and made Morris a rich man. He drank wine worth $2,000 a bottle and bought a speedboat and four Porsches. So what was his long game? He wanted to raise enough money for Hillary to be named an ambassador. When a drug company started investigating him for overcharges, Morris committed suicide. PeterKa (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2017 (EST)

WaPo continues to destroy its credibility

The Washington Post continues to destroy the remaining scintilla of credibility it may have had. In trashing Mike Flynn, Richard Allen, Bob McFarland, and Adm. Poindexter, it goes into detail of their post tenure as National Security Adviser, including such miniutia as McFarland's suicide attempt with valium and Poindexter & McFarland's Iran Contra related convictions. Then it brazenly says,

"George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush all had national security advisers who served three years or more. Compared to some of their predecessors, they were generally scandal-free."

Without mentioning the name Sandy Berger, convicted of theft of government documents from the National Archives to cover up Clinton administration negligence in the pre-9/11 days. Outrageous. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 20:34, 15 February 2017 (EST)

Democrats presumably call foreign officials too. How come we never hear about such calls? Because nobody would care. A story about a Democrat doing something equivalent to what Flynn did would not make even the smallest of waves. I'm not a fan of Flynn's. He seemed a bit unhinged at the RNC. These leaks apparently come from the CIA.[33] The agency has been a partisan tool since Clinton had Tenet purge it back in 1996.
Let's hope President Trump restores the CIA to be what it originally was, which was to try to find domestic threats to the nation regardless of the party in charge, and not a partisan tool. The CIA wasn't always a partisan tool. And to make sure something like what Clinton had Tenet do doesn't happen again, he probably should make a law stating that no one, not even under orders from the President, will be allowed to make purges of the CIA for political purposes, and also make clear that if they do make purges, its only if its members currently pose a very grave threat to national sovereignty. So far as WaPo, its mainstream media, when has it EVER been credible? Pokeria1 (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2017 (EST)
The CIA owns the Washington Post. Both Papa Bush & Clinton were CIA company men. They've moreless been running the country since Iran-Contra. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 08:49, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Okay, I know George H.W. Bush was former CIA, but I don't recall Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton EVER working for the CIA prior to ascending to the Presidency (and given their left-wing backgrounds, I find it extremely unlikely that they'd even align themselves with the CIA considering most left-wingers would demonize the CIA while allying with the KGB, like Jean Paul Sartre did where he denounced the CIA and labelled his enemies CIA tools even when they have absolutely no affiliation with the CIA at all and was frequently in bed with the KGB), so what's this about Clinton being CIA company? Pokeria1 (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Clinton was recruited into CIA by 1970 by Cord Meyer. Some sources say he was recruited as early as 1967 while working in Sen. Fulbright's office and attending Georgetown. Hillary represented Systematics of Little Rock beginning c.1978 which provided services for NSA. Both Clintons were deeply involved in money laundering for the CIA's Mena Arkansas operation which began in 1981. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 15:27, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Hmmm... maybe... but that doesn't explain why he would be protesting the Vietnam War during that time and even jipped his recruiter, not to mention making very anti-American statements during protests? Someone like that would not be considered for the CIA. If anything, the only consideration someone like Clinton back then would even in was someone to get rid of. Besides, I know that a lot of leftists tended to hate the CIA and side with the KGB, like Sartre did, and accuse any enemies of being CIA. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Clinton was booted out of Oxford and lost his draft deferment. Thru Sen. Fulbright, Clinton arranged to do his two years of service with the CIA (the ROTC deal was his cover story). Cord Meyer assigned him to infiltrate and spy on European anti-war movements which Nixon was convinced were orchestrated from Moscow. Clinton also was involved in the smuggling out of the Soviet Union Nikita Khruschev's Memoirs, which were translsted into English by Clinton's roommate, Strobe Talbot, and published in the West by the CIA. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 15:43, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Forbes has a story on Ted Kennedy's dealings with Moscow: "Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit." We know about this from the Soviet archive. The CIA never said a word. PeterKa (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Even CNN admits that Flynn's calls were nothing out of the ordinary -- or wouldn't be if he was a Democrat: "Officials emphasized that communications between campaign staff and representatives of foreign governments are not unusual."[34] PeterKa (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Or what about Nancy Pelosi and the Logan Act? She had nothing but praise for Bashar Assad when she met with him. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 20:00, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Excerpt from our Pelosi article:

"The trip was praised by terrorists as "brave". Members of the Islamic Jihad have said Pelosi aligns to their views about terror much better than Bush and Dr. Condoleezza Rice.Terrorists endorse Pelosi's 'good policy of dialogue', Aaron Klein, Israel News, 04.05.07. "Palestinian terror group members call US House speaker's visit to Damascus 'brave' and hope for talks with Iran; ‘I think the Democratic Party can do things the best,’ Islamic Jihad member says". Khaled Al-Batch, spokesman for Islamic Jihad, which along with Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel for the past two years, expressed hope Pelosi and the Democratic Party will pressure Bush to create dialogue with Syrian rebel and Middle East "resistance movements" and prompt an American withdrawal from Iraq." Wow, that was prophetic. Even WaPo, before the CIA purchased it, was critical of Pelosi. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 15:10, 17 February 2017 (EST)

As a result of the 2016 election, I have decided to largely not read the mainstream media anymore. They completely missed the boat when it comes to Trump winning the election. If I want to be informed by wise and intelligent people, why would I turn to the mainstream media?
And I am no fan of the Washington Post (WAPO).
Nevertheless, Jeff Bezos is a smart businessman and WAPO picking a fight with Donald Trump seems to have been good for business. The web traffic for the Washington Post website is up post 2016 election and so is its stock price as can be seen HERE and HERE.
Many people like to see a fight. And liberals smarting after their defeat are perhaps hungry for Trump bashing.
I think the WAPO is losing its credibility with sensible people, but there are a lot of people who are not sensible. Conservative (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2017 (EST)
Flynn argued with Pence over who knows what. Trump can fire Flynn, but he can't Pence. So Flynn is out. To the MSM, it's biggest scandal in American history. There is already impeachment and 25th Amendment talk! If there was any public friction between Trump and Pence, that would balloon. Removing Trump before his term is up seems farfetched. But Pence could certainly give Trump a scare in the 2020 primaries. PeterKa (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2017 (EST)
Flynn was out for the same reasons he was fired from DIA in 2014. Policy disaggreements and internal politics in the intelligence community. Plus he rubbed people the wrong way. When the CIA denied his chief aide a security clearance, Flynn was out two days later. You can't do your job if you can't get your people in, something Trump himself is finding out about Washington right now. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 22:49, 18 February 2017 (EST)

Update: Julian Assange just Tweeted on the WaPo-CIA-fake news-Russian connection. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 01:55, 19 February 2017 (EST)

  • Kelly and Mattis were also purged from the Obama administration, presumably for the reason as Flynn, i.e. opposition to the Iran deal. PeterKa (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2017 (EST)
Flynn got the boot about 6 weeks after the Islamic State took Mosul. He was probably pulling his hair out of his head before, during and after, with warnings and proposals to counteract while Obama was on the golf coarse. He was probably cussing up a storm and making it absolutely clear to anyone within earshot, as I would have, what he thought of the negligence of our commander-in-chief. As late as just last December, Obama was blaming US intelligence for not foreseeing ISIS. I'll wait for Flynn's memoirs to hear the truth, thank you. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 03:17, 19 February 2017 (EST)

China grants trademark to Trump Organization

At the recent press conference, Trump insisted that he has no business interests in Russia. But he certainly has interests in China. In fact, "Trump" is the new name in Chinese construction-related services: "China grants Trump a trademark he's been seeking for a decade."
Under the "one country, two systems" treaty, Hong Kong is supposed to be free of Chinese police. But China kidnapped billionaire businessman Xiao Jianhua at the end of January: "Missing China billionaire taken from Hong Kong hotel in wheelchair: source." Xiao had $6 billion in assets, more money than Trump. Chinese courts are big empty buildings. Who needs them? The police can "disappear" anyone in China -- and now in Hong Kong too. PeterKa (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2017 (EST)

After all is said and done, Trump becoming president was a sacrifice for him. He is constantly vilified by the mainstream press, liberals are not buying his stuff as much and he is probably making less money per year.
And while I realize the Secret Service beefed up security in a post Reagan assassination attempt and 9/11 world, given the violent history of the left, it is still is a possibility. Conservative (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2017 (EST)

Crocodile tears for Kim Jong-nam

China's Korean puppet has been naughty again. This time, a pair of female North Korean agents assassinated Kim Jong-nam, half-brother of maximum leader Kim Jong-un, at an airport in Malaysia. The killing may have been triggered by a news report that suggested that KJN was considering a possible defection to South Korea. As usual, China is the real victim, at least as far as the MSM is concerned: "In China, a sense of betrayal after the assassination of Kim Jong Nam." No, that's not a joke. That's an actual WaPo headline. I think we have heard this song before. Remember when we were told that the North Koreans were behind the Sony hack in 2014? It later turned out that the hackers not based in NK at all, but in Shenyang in northeastern China. PeterKa (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2017 (EST)

There is an important international lesson here regarding morality. In most decent societies, humans respect each other and do not violate another person's space or tranquility. The attacker was under the impression that she was performing a harmless stunt by splashing a liquid in Kim Jong Nam's face, but that this was acceptable behavior because it was a part of a television show prank. It turns out that the liquid was a fatal poison. The lesson for all nations is that crazy television producers should not have the power to suspend the societal standards of good behavior, and that every human is answerable for his own conduct both under the criminal law and to God. JDano (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2017 (EST)
It generally goes without saying, but I wouldn't doubt that the hotheaded tyrant himself ordered his own half-brother's assassination. With Communists, even family loyalty is virtually non-existent. Northwest (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2017 (EST)
Actually, if China did it, it could be a good sign, meaning China has given up on Kim jong-il and is trying to provoke international outrage against him. Not saying it is so, just offering a plausible scenario. Conversely, it also could be an effort to shore up his position. Putin it appears, may have given up on Kim jong-il, evidenced by his offer to invite South Korean and Japanese companies into economic development of Siberia & Sakhalin Island as part of a deal to lift sanctions. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 14:27, 23 February 2017 (EST)
Kim Jong-un kills his relatives because North Korea is a dynastic monarchy. Henry VIII did more or less the same. China protected KJN because he was a pretender to the Korean throne. This is also a tactic out of the medieval playbook. The Byzantines were famous for maintaining pretenders. My guess is that KJN threatened to defect to South Korea to get more money. That's all the motive North Korea needed. If he had defected, he would have lost his value to China as well. Here is a round up of what the talking heads are saying.
The WaPo story I linked to above is a part of a genre of journalism in which the Chinese claim to be disappointed with whatever North Korea has just done (or, in the case of the Sony hack, what they themselves have done). Although stories of this type have appeared in the international press regularly for many years, China continues to subsidize North Korea. It's a good cop/bad cop routine that protects China's relations with other countries, especially South Korea, which is a profitable market for them. PeterKa (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2017 (EST)
There's still a wider context in play. And the fact your source is WaPo means this is the version CIA wants in front of the public. The wider context is, the Trump administration has effectively cut a deal with Putin to end sanctions. The deal includes (a) not doing anything to aggravate China; (b) allowing Jspanese and South Korean companies to participate in Far Eastern economic development of Russia, which would include presumptively some of the most state-of-art oil drilling technologies at Sakhalin-I. China, it could be presumed, likewise would love to be invited in on these deals. (c) Having completed the early phases of this negotiation with Putin which includes taking down the Islamic State (Mosul airport fell this morning), Trump is now free to focus on the next priorities, North Korea for example, which he continually cites as an example of leaks he's concerned about published in the MSM. (d) As part of these Far Eastern projects, you can most assuredly presume Exxon and Japanese and South Korean companies would be concerned about North Korea before making any longterm, expensive commitments in the Far East, for security purposes. (e) It is likely Putin has pledged to give no more tacit support to the Kim jong-il regime in order to make these deals work. (f) China sees no further justification for supporting Kim jong-il, and has to mask its hand in ousting him by getting world opinion behind any actions they may take, overt or preferably covert. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 18:36, 23 February 2017 (EST)
South Korean intelligence says the hit was ordered by Kim Jong-un five years ago.[35] In that case, it has nothing to do with money, defection threats, or Trump's policies. The North Korean agents were just waiting for an opportunity. KJN lived openly in Macau, but perhaps an assassination on Chinese territory would have been too direct a challenge to China. PeterKa (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2017 (EST)
South Korean intelligence would make no public statements contradicting the CIA line. They work hand in glove. And in this case, the statement seems even more authoritive than if it came from the CIA itself. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 06:55, 24 February 2017 (EST)


Here is the Fox News report by Ami Horowitz about Sweden that Trump refered to. We should probably get out in front about this before the fake news media entirely destroys Trump's message. The details are covered here. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 19:04, 19 February 2017 (EST)

The Swedish police agree with Trump. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2017 (EST)
Swedish Muslim refugee responds to Trump. This guy is a great source for what's happening in Sweden to get around Sweden's censorship of the press and internet postings under their hate speech laws. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 19:09, 20 February 2017 (EST)
Pewdiepie, easily the most famous living Swede, stands with Trump: "Trump: Pewdiepie Approved." Pewdiepie's "This is How We Hunt in Sweden" video still cracks me up.
The refugees in Sweden aren't assimilating or even getting jobs. As far as being a "humanitarian superpower" goes, it would be far more cost effective to provide assistance to these people where they are. Creating an underclass of unemployed Muslims can only lead to social meltdown. Liberalism is a death wish. PeterKa (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2017 (EST)
My source sums it up great: "Sweden is what happens when you make political correctness the official state religion." We need a high profile place in an article to put that quote somewhere. And my source's wish is coming true, Trump is still talking about Sweden. Let's hope this will be ongping for months, cause ultimately, the mainstream media cannot deny it. And we got a pretty good well sourced narrative on the background facts here. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 12:30, 21 February 2017 (EST)

Europeans want travel ban

A poll in Europe, which has been ravaged by a migrant crisis, shows 55% want a Trump-style ban of Muslim migrants. [36] RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 23:11, 20 February 2017 (EST)

How Trump Spends His Time

Washington Post has constructed some useful infographs. Trump took it easy on January 21 and woke up late on February 12. But otherwise he's at work from 7 am to 7 pm. He was also on Twitter for 13 hours (out of 744). There's nothing in the graph about fundraisers, something that consumed a lot of Obama's time. PeterKa (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2017 (EST)

Perhaps Mar-a-Lago can be considered Trump's version of a fund raiser. He spent 106 hours, or 24 percent of his time, at the club there. PeterKa (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2017 (EST)
Even before he took office, we knew he'd use Mar-a-Lago, Trump Tower in NY, and his DC hotel for much business. Melania lives in Trump Tower, not DC. He doesn',t have to use the White House or Oval Office to be president. That's strickly traditional, and Trump will probably make it just ceremonial before he's through. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 18:40, 22 February 2017 (EST)
My point was that the wealthy pay to attend Mar-a-Lago and be in proximity to Trump, much as they did to attend an Obama fundraiser. Obama was a fundraising machine. He did another one every two or three days. As far as doing presidential business at the Mar-a-Lago goes, it's a nightclub not a secure area. See "A paying Mar-a-Lago member took photos of Trump being briefed on North Korea — and posted them to Facebook." PeterKa (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2017 (EST)
Trump had at least 300 people on private security payroll for himself, family, and close members of his organization before he was a candidate. There's no way he can be forced to give it up, and in fact that's a big issue right now:(1) who does Trump trust and delegate his personal security to? and (2) should Secret Service budget and protection be expanded since their primary role now is to protect the people the President trusts for his personal protection. No law can force the President to trust people he doesn't know with his personal security, especially given the record of performance with those organizations and past presidents.
As to the Facebook posting, Bravo! Perhaps Kim jong-il has enough sense to see it for himself. And we certainly don't have to worry about corruption, money in politics, and campaign finance reform since the president is now occupying his time doing the people's business rather than trading money for favors or grabbing for more power on the people's dime as Obama did. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 12:39, 23 February 2017 (EST)

Obama was a fundraising machine. What good did it do the Democrats? They lost big in Congress during the Obama years and Hillary lost.

Obama/Hillary have some similarities to fundraising machine Jeb Bush.

I think social media presence combined with social media adverting is more effective than expensive television adverts. Conservative (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2017 (EST)

It's up to Trump. Trump has got to move outside that 40-44% base he's got at somepoint. A minimum wage increase won't do it, but that could be a part. He's got to find some issues that sway people's votes that are likely inimical to his base. Something that for every vote he looses, he'll still gain 1.5-2 votes elsewhere. He needs about 6-8% of the electorate to put himself on a solid footing. Jobs could do it. But if another big crash beyond his control were to happen, he'd get blamed for it.
Hillary still thinks she's viable. Good. She can play the role of Jeb Bush for the Democrats in 2020. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 06:16, 24 February 2017 (EST)

2020: Trump leads Warren by six points

From reading the hysterical MSM, you get the sense Trump could be impeached at any time. But he is clearly doing something right: "Poll: Trump trails generic Democrat, but not Warren, in 2020," according to The Hill. Everyone agrees Bannon should go. Hopefully, Trump will take this hint. PeterKa (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2017 (EST)

Sensible Dems are already taking steps to head off disaster. [37] RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 18:45, 22 February 2017 (EST)
Whoever it is will have come through Obama. He is a big fan of Warren's -- and he doesn't care whether or not Warren can win in the general election. He got bored with governing years ago. His ambition is to be leader of the opposition, godfather of the left. Now he's got his Organizing for America henchmen going to town halls to scream at Republicans. There are also screaming at moderate Dems, so this is not about winning the midterms. It's payback for the Tea Party, a moment he has been dreaming of for years. It's also payoff for all that hard work he did fundraising for so many years. Hillary offered to put Obama on the Supreme Court, but that didn't stop him from using Comey to sabotage her campaign. PeterKa (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2017 (EST)

Something rotten in Denmark

Denmark paid $95,000 in welfare to 29 citizens who had gone to Syria to fight for ISIS. Until the passage of legislation just recently, there was no way for Danish intelligence to cut off payments to a jihadist.[38] PeterKa (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2017 (EST)

We need this in our European migrant crisis article. You want to put it in? RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 12:25, 23 February 2017 (EST)

Kim Jong-nam killed by VX

If North Korea used VX to kill Kim Jong-nam, they obviously have access to high tech WMD.[39] North Korea is so technically inept they can't even hack Sony without Chinese help. How can liberals be so sure that Saddam didn't have WMD? The CIA said it was a "slam drunk" -- and then one day, they decided it wasn't. CIA Director Tenet was a Clinton appointee. Bush's biggest mistake was leaving him in place. The MSM chose to believe Tenet one time, but not the other. It's all very selective and arbitrary. The Tenet-Bush strategy was to use the WMD issue to propel Hillary to the presidency in 2008. They didn't see Obama coming. PeterKa (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2017 (EST)

That's all good. The world is outraged. How many days has it been since he was killed, and it's still a headline. They're dragging it out pretty good.
I'm not sure a CIA Director has that much control over the agency. Cabinet Secretaries have several layers of undersecretaries who are presidential appointments, but the CIA Director is basically there by himself. The institution has a mind of its own, flooded with career bureaucrats who think they run the world. A CIA Director is there to explain to the agency what the president wants to do, and hopefully gain some allies, and match up his agenda with their agenda. It was Trump's own appointee, Pompeo who killed Trump's other appointee, Flynn. Why Pompeo had to do this was to make some compromise with the agency, and save his own skin. If he didn't get Flynn removed by withholding security clearance for Flynn's staff, he'd be isolated within the agency and nobody would listen to him. It wouldn't be long before news leaks said how incompetent and ineffective he is, how workers are demoralized, etc. Now the CIA is puffed up and full of itself, cause they have veto power over the White House National Security Council staff. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 06:30, 24 February 2017 (EST)
If China experiences an economic downturn, will they cut North Korea loose in terms of economic support? If they cut economic support for North Korea, will it implode like the Soviet Union?
How much leverage does Trump have North Korean via China if he is more of a hard bargainer than previous administrations? Conservative (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2017 (EST)