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

Happy Conservapedia Day! 10 years and counting!

Exactly 10 years ago, this encyclopedia was founded, and we're still going strong. According to Alexa, our popularity is increasing big time. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2016 (EST)

As far as factors boosting the popularity of Conservapedia in recent months: the 2016 election; new content; Trump's running causing an increase interest in right wing politics; a potential big loss for Hillary Clinton, Obama the Democratic party; news regarding Phyllis Schlafly and her legacy, and politics shifting rightward in Europe, are all factors which boosted the popularity of Conservapedia in recent months.
It will be interesting to see how long Trumpism and European politics moving to the right will boost interest in Conservapedia.
In addition, the failure of the mainstream media to largely predict the Trump's election victory and their excesses in the 2016 election, is a boon to politically right leaning websites.
Lastly, I think political conflict in the USA creates an increase in interest in U.S. politics. And unfortunately, I see a lot of political conflict happening in America in coming years rather than people amicably working out solutions (racial conflict, class warfare, etc.). U.S. demographic changes combined with identity politics, unresolved issues as far as immigration policy, changes in the global/US economy, the popularity of Bernie Sanders and a large U.S. federal government debt point to and increase in future conflicts in U.S. politics. Conservative (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2016 (EST)
Many religious conservatives backing Trump is probably another reason why interest in Conservapedia rose. The Hillary's/Democrats hostility to religious conservatives and traditional morality, the Republican Party platform, Trump's list of potential Supreme Court judges, Trump's vow to fight religious persecution of Christians in the world and his promise to push for the overturn of the Johnson Amendment, enabled Trump to win the votes of the majority of conservative evangelicals/Catholics even though Trump isn't very religious. Conservative (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2016 (EST)
Can someone add Conservapedia's 10-year anniversary to the newsfeed? This has to be mentioned. Also, speaking of Trump, he won a higher percentage of evangelical Christians than any other presidential nominee in U.S. history [1] (of course, only evangelicals who happen to be white are counted, but I think this fact is true regardless). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2016 (EST)
Fabulous suggestion!!! Done.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2016 (EST)
Thank you, Mr. Schalfly! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2016 (EST)
  • The Alexa link above suggests that Poe's law is by far the most popular article on the site, followed by RINO, race baiting, and Saul Alinsky. PeterKa (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2016 (EST)
    • Post 2013, there was an increase interest in Poe's law on the internet.[2] During the same time, Google trends indicates that there was no corresponding interest in the topic of fundamentalism.[3] Conservative (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2016 (EST)
      • Our Poe's law article is linked at "Know Your Meme," which is probably why Google is sending readers here. PeterKa (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2016 (EST)
Good insight there, PeterKa!
It's an open question as to what the most influential topics/entries are on people. Shroud of Turin does not have a large number of visitors, but the Shroud is known to convert some hardened atheists to Christianity.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2016 (EST)

In order to better know how much impact various articles have had on people, you would need to know how many page views articles have received in total and on a monthly/yearly basis. In addition, you would need to know how long people stay on article (Free analytics programs can give you this info). Furthermore, you would need to know, the impact on people/societies.

I can tell you that Conservapedia receives about 40% of its traffic overseas now. For example, the popular French website Telerama (which is one of the top 5,300 websites in the world in web traffic and one of France's top 250 websites in popularity) did a recent article on Conservapedia located HERE.

Here is an excerpt from the article (translated via Google translate):

"Onservapedia is fast becoming a benchmark in the ultra-conservative sphere in the United States and today has more than 100,000 records and 581 million page views since its inception. The most read, besides the homepage, the one on the "homosexual agenda", atheism, Barack Obama, Adolf Hitler, and ... Wikipedia. The ascent of Donald Trump has shed new light on the site, which is often cited in the conservative Glenn Beck radio show, and is referenced on many pro-Republican websites, convinced that all mainstream and Internet media In general are leagued against conservative ideas. More worrying, Conservapedia is still used as a working tool at Eagle Forum University, an online education program created by the conservative and creationist lobby of Phyllis Schlafly."[4]

The Atheism and suicide article may have hit an emotional hot button for that Frnechman given its prominence in the Telerama article (picture atop Telerama article, citing of the article).

The world's political pendulum seems to be swinging to the right. Immigration, the global resurgence of religion (particularly evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Islamic religion) and growing problems with various liberal policies (ObamaCare, governmental debt growing, failing welfare states) seem to be fueling the growth of the political right. Conservative (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2016 (EST)

Archive talk page?

Would someone archive these discussions? There are 107 separate discussions on this talk page right now, including this one. For symbolic value, would someone archive every discussion until the 10-year anniversary discussion? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2016 (EST)

Done.Conservative (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2016 (EST)
Thanks! Much appreciated! --1990'sguy (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2016 (EST)

No shrinkage of Antarctic ice in last century

Isn't it time to prosecute those responsible for the global warming hoax? "Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years". This story is based on a peer-reviewed reexamination of the Scott and Shackleton logbooks, so it seems to be pretty conclusive. The first step is to get the hoaxers off the dole: "Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’" PeterKa (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2016 (EST)

Cuba announces the death of Fidel Castro.

No further details have been released. Castro was 90. --WashingtonRepublican (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2016 (EST)

Why the U.S. electoral college system will probably not disappear

To find out why the U.S. electoral college system will probably not disappear, click HERE. Conservative (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2016 (EST)

The problem with abolishing the Electoral College is that it would be an invitation to voter fraud. Every state would be motivated to get out as many votes as possible, legal or otherwise. Under the current system, the states are the final authority on which votes count. You could avoid this outcome if federally-mandated anti-fraud measures were part of the deal. The proposals I've seen in the media are all "sore loser" stuff and don't recognize that the Electoral College has any upside. To Democrats, anti-fraud measures are "voter suppression." So they are on a pretty high horse about this. PeterKa (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2016 (EST)
Your reason is good but there are additional compelling reasons also. A national recount in a close election is unworkable. The outcome could change with every recount, which would take months. A national crisis would result. Also, the Electoral College helps bind a massive, diverse, democratic nation. Without the Electoral College requiring geographic diversity in order to win, the 49 states other than California (with its massive immigration and lax voting system) might not want to have California repeatedly decide their future.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2016 (EST)
With California, Clinton wins the popular vote by 1.7 percent. Without it, Trump wins by two points. California has millions of non-citizens and it does not require that voters present ID. Many California Republicans don't bother to vote anymore since the system is so rigged. They are still counting votes in California. So a popular vote election could take weeks to resolve, even without a court case in the mix. PeterKa (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2016 (EST)

France turns right

If, as expected, "Thatcherite" rebel François Fillon defeats establishment favorite Alain Juppé in Sunday's The Republicans primary, French voters will have two right wing candidates to choose from in next year's general election.[5] Fillon was primier for Sarkozy, Juppé for Chirac. In the general election, the Republican nominee will face "Frexit" supporter Marine Le Pen of the National Front. In American terms, Fillon is France's answer to Ted Cruz while the National Front corresponds to the Alt Right. The party has been prominent in French politics for many years, but shunned by the mainstream as far right and neo-Vichyite. France's problems with Islam and ISIS are more serious than those of other Western nations. Incumbent President Hollande has been unable to adequately address them. As a result, Hollande's Socialist Party has all but dissolved, and the country is experiencing an extreme version of the populist reaction sweeping the globe. PeterKa (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2016 (EST)

The Right wing is ascendant in France. Breitbart is soon coming to France. Brexit and Trump. No wonder that popular French website had an effete, godless liberal feature an article bashing Conservapedia. :) Conservative (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2016 (EST)
Fillon won The Republicans primary with 66.5 percent of the vote.[6] So establishment favorite Alain "I am not Hillary Clinton" Juppé has been eliminated.[7] There is a non-partisan primary on April 23 between Fillon, Le Pen, and several minor left-wing candidates. The run off (if required) is May 7. PeterKa (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2016 (EST)
Of course, France is shifting to the French version of the "right", which is the political center by American standards. Fillon says he opposes abortion, but he also says that he will not vote for abolishing it. Europe makes America look like a very godly nation. Another thing: Fillon does not appear to oppose the socialist, globalist European Union. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2016 (EST)
Abortion is legal in France only for the first twelve weeks. That's way stricter than anything anyone is talking about in the U.S. PeterKa (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2016 (EST)
That's a fair point, and I did not know that. However, in many ways, France and Europe are, at least outwardly, much more secular overall. In several European countries, church attendance is about 2%, and there are very low levels of morality. On other issues, the U.S. doesn't (yet) have to deal with a socialistic supranational union like the EU that is actively trying to politically unite all the nations into one country. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2016 (EST)

Liberal Canadian PM calls Castro a "remarkable leader"

See HERE. It's not an exaggeration to say that liberals love Castro. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2016 (EST)

Trump claims voter fraud

The media is freaking out over this Trump tweet: "In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally." Here is a typical example in Politico: "Trump's baseless assertions of voter fraud called 'stunning'." I don't know how many people voted illegally, but I can tell you this: The Dems have been pushing hard to make voter fraud easier for many years. If it was all a "myth," they wouldn't bother. Whenever a Republican tries to crack down on voter fraud, they become hysterical. Investigators in New York City got a group of people to vote illegally as a test. They got away with it 97 percent of the time.[8] The city's Democratic administration responded by asking the attorney general if the investigators could be prosecuted. So the Dems are fine with fraud, and no one is minding the store. Why anyone object to an ID check? The Dems' attitude makes sense only if voter fraud is significant, and benefits them. PeterKa (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2016 (EST)

Obama encouraged illegals aliens to commit voter fraud.[9] But as the Scripture says, "Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain."
Trump will probably erase a very large portion of Obama's legacy. ObamaCare was major legislation slammed through without bipartisan support (it will probably be repealed or drastically altered) and Obama's executive orders will be immediately overturned. Obama's Supreme Court nominees will largely be the only thing left of his legacy if you don't count a much large national debt, fallout from a poor foreign policy and the lost GNP growth potential that was never released during his presidency. Conservative (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2016 (EST)
I sure hope the GOP will be able to erase Obama's destructive legacy. Hopefully they'll also be able to combat voter fraud without liberals getting in the way. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2016 (EST)
I certainly hope the GOP does do something about voter fraud--I'm honestly surprised that Trump did win, considering the massive amounts of it going on. Just in this election, a bunch of polling moderators were caught by a low-level assistant filling out a very large pile of absentee ballots. Of course, that never made it to the news, and the assistant was promptly discharged. Now that Republicans have everything, there is, as Rush says, "no excuse." --David B (TALK) 12:09, 28 November 2016 (EST)
Soros pledged $5 million to fight anti-fraud laws back in July.[10] Soros is a guy who expects return on investment. More fraud has got to mean more votes for Democrats. There is no other reason Soros would care about this issue. PeterKa (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2016 (EST)

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Nov. 26: Trump ridicules the idea of holding recounts.

Nov. 27: Trump alleges massive voter fraud.

Aye, you've picked yourselves a good 'un here, chaps. A totally balanced and stable personality - real commander-in-chief material. JohnZ (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2016 (EST)

JohnZ, all I will point out is that California is the state that most likely has voter fraud with illegal immigrants voting, but the Dems and Greens want to recount Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Trump is referring to two completely different situations in different states. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2016 (EST)
What on earth would be the point of using illegal immigrants to run up the score for Hillary in California? It's 55 Electoral College votes regardless of the margin of victory. JohnZ (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2016 (EST)
No point from Hillary's POV. But the state is full "sanctuary cities" that encourage voting by noncitizens. PeterKa (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2016 (EST)
JohnZ, you are not being reasonable or balanced. And I think you are well aware of not being balanced.
Obama publicly encouraged voter fraud and there is a video tape of it which I cited in the above post. James O'Keefe did a sting which caught a high level Democrat operative confess to wanting to engage in voter fraud and Democrats having a tradition of it. it was so embarrassing/scandalous the operative was fired. Conservative (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2016 (EST)
In addition, Trump campaigned as a strong leader and "alpha male". There is nothing inconsistent with him mocking the Dems' desperation. At the most, the recount appears to be based on the Green Party wanting to generate cash and Russian hacking fears (fears but no evidence of hacking in those states). I personally have no problems with a recount given the slim margins and long as the recount is monitored closely.
And "desperate" is not too strong a word. The Dems don't have a strong bench to pull from as far as presidential politics. And in 2014/2016 they received a shellacking. They also seem overly reliant on identity politics and even Sanders admitted this. Check Schumer said in 2012 that the Democrats are not paying enough attention to the middle class. Conservative (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2016 (EST)

"The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results 'accurately reflect the will of the American people.'" - New York Times, 3 days ago.[11]

"Michigan election director: No election hack evidence.[12] - Detroit News, 5 days ago.

Hillary is desperate. She sobbed the night of the election and could not pull herself together to appear on election night so Podesta made an appearance instead. This is not strong leadership.

Engineers and system designers typically do stress test to determine how sound a system is. Election night 2016 and Benghazi attack (and the events leading up to the attack} show that the voters who voted for Trump made the right choice. Conservative (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2016 (EST)

Considering Obama and his goons threatened to prosecute anyone reporting voter fraud in this past election, I think its safe to say he believes in voter fraud more than you do, JohnZ. --David B (TALK) 20:43, 28 November 2016 (EST)
Hillary's campaign was largely based on identity politics and also reactive. Trump had a core message and was often proactive. Even many pro-Hillary advocates now admit she had no real message. For example, "I'm with her" is an uninspiring campaign slogan.
Trump had more rapport with the common man. He has been around construction workers, etc. all his life. He connected with crowds. Hillary is a liberal elitist. She certainly is no Joe Biden when it comes to relating to the common man.
Hillary deserved to lose the election. She is a Michael Dukakis/John Kerry liberal elitist type candidate. It was foolish to have her run in a world currently very receptive to populist candidates. Conservative (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2016 (EST)
Cenk Uygur, of Young Turks which is a YouTube political channel, wanted Hillary to win the election. But even he admits that Hillary Clinton was the worst presidential candidate in modern politics. He pointed out that she had the media, Hollywood and others solidly behind her, but still lost the election.Conservative (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2016 (EST)
The famous strategist Sun Tzu stressed the importance of preparation before battles as often the battle can be lost before it has even begun.
Clinton's private email server, her high paid speeches to corporations and the way the Clinton Foundation was run was very bad preparation. She sabotaged her campaign before it even began. Conservative (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2016 (EST)

Gregg Jarrett: Did Hillary Clinton just squander her "get out of jail free" card?[13]

Hillary swinging her stick at the Trump hornet's nest is another demonstration of her incompetence and desperation - especially when the chance of her winning this gamble is exceedingly low. Conservative (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2016 (EST)

  • When Trump says he won the popular vote, he is referring to allegations that non-citizens illegally voted for Hillary. The proposed recounts address allegations of Russian hacking. It's two different issues that JohnZ is mixing together. PeterKa (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2016 (EST)
    • That reminds me, why is an obvious leftist like JohnZ on here? I can understand SamHB being on here since he was vital to Conservapedia's creation, but JohnZ doesn't seem to even remotely benefit Conservapedia at all. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2016 (EST)
As long as an editor does constructive edits and does not run afoul of the Conservapedia:90/10 rule, there is no problem with an editor's politics. JohnZ has done maintenance type edits to art articles, etc. Conservative (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2016 (EST)
Cheers. For the record, I believe Stein's recount efforts are sincere, but extremely unlikely to overturn the result. Trump's most presidential move would have been to let them quietly fizzle away to nothing, rather than blowing up on Twitter.
The fact that he's unable to let go of perceived slights should concern you all. Indeed, this is the man who felt the need to reassure the voting public re. the size of his manhood, all because of some dumb Rubio crack about the size of his hands. Hail to the Chief. JohnZ (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2016 (EST)
Conclusions are more effective when the arguments that precede them are true—unlike yours. VargasMilan (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2016 (EST)
Areet, son. For the record, it would amuse me enormously to watch you try and outline the "argument" you reckon I've outlined above. I'd intended a fairly bald assertion of fact, but looking back, I can see the bones of a logically valid syllogism in there. All yours from here. Divvn't spare the horses. JohnZ (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2016 (EST)

Future of liberalism/left

There are a number of articles on the death of liberalism/American liberalism that have been recently published.[14]

Death is probably too strong off a word, but liberalism - particularly neoliberalism/liberal elitism - has suffered a major defeat after Trump's victory and Brexit. And things don't look good for liberal elitism in France/Germany as far as upcoming elections.

People in the far right - particularly the alt-right and Vox Day - have been predicting a huge defeat and continued major defeats for the left. The left did achieve a victory over the alt-right recently as Trump recently disavowed the alt-right due to a neo-nazi faction (or neo-nazi like faction) of the alt-right getting spotlighted by the media (Richard Spencer's group gave Nazi salute. Spencer appears to be flirting with neo-nazism rather that being a full blown neo-nazi. He strikes me as being a non-serious person and he appears to have a small following). But non-racist alt-righters argue it is just a temporary setback and not the death of alt-rightism.

Newspapers are going out of business which certainly doesn't help the left. There appears to be a college loan crisis pending which could seriously negatively impact another stronghold of the left - namely academia and various liberal arts courses (people are defaulting on their student loans in the USA). And the school choice movement is making progress.

I have been pleasantly surprised about how fast the left has been losing power lately. It almost reminds me of the fall of the Soviet Union. And the pace of the decline of the left appears to be quickening.

So what do you think is the future of the left? Conservative (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2016 (EST)

The causes of the decline/fall of the left have been among other things: the right gaining more prominence on the internet/media (Breitbart, etc.), politics breaking into more factions (which is partly internet fed such as the alt-right) and economics (globalization affecting the working class).
Given the complexity of the internet/factions/economics and the fact that political elections are close in the USA and elsewhere in the Western World, it is hard to predict how fast the left will decline in power or whether they will eventually bounce back (or how long it may take for them to bounce back).
With that being said, Europe is facing an aging population and a declining share of the world population. And Europe is a large share of the secular left (see: Secular Europe). And China is seeing a rapid growth of evangelical Christianity and is expected to have the world's largest Christian population by 2030 (see: Growth of Christianity in China and Asian atheism). And the world is seeing desecularization and a rise of religious fundamentalism/conservatism. And in a world of globalization, this can't be good for secular leftism. So the future of secular leftism on the world stage looks unpromising in the 21st century. Conservative (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2016 (EST)
One thing I find humorous is the left's growing concern about truth/"fake news".[15] For years the left has pushed postmodernism, but now that they are losing power, truth is supposedly important to them. Conservative (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2016 (EST)
Yes, they have no problem pumping it out by the gallon, but when a few drops of genuine truth get through, they go hysterical. "Of course, we are the only sources or real information, fools!" --David B (TALK) 19:04, 29 November 2016 (EST)
It wasn't all that long ago that liberals were all 9/11 Truthers. Van Jones is a CNN commentator these days! These are the people who will decide what's fake news? As far as far I am concerned, global warming scare stories are the epitome of fake news. Trump's early prominence as a presidential candidate is due to coverage in CNN and other mainstream media. The fake news issue is a dodge to evade responsibility. PeterKa (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2016 (EST)
By the way, we have a Fake News article. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2016 (EST)
  • The decision to kill Bin Laden was agonizing for Obama. Like Jeremiah Wright before him, Bin Laden was his people. But in the end, OBL had to be sacrificed to ensure Obama's victory in the 2012 election. As penance, Obama walked away from the war on jihad and made Islamophobia his top priority. The current worldwide collapse of the left is the logical result.
    As far as the future of the left goes, we certainly haven't heard the last of it. Suddenly, the Democratic Party is full of Sanders' supporters saying, "I told you so." A sharp turn to the left, as seems likely, won't help the Dems get back into power. The schedule of what seats are up in 2018 favors Republicans. In addition, Sessons is likely to crack down on voter fraud as attorney general. In short, the midterms are already looking good the GOP. As far as 2020 goes, the feminists want a woman, the Blacks want a Black, and the Sanders supporters want a leftist. It's going be tricky to satisfy any of those groups unless Michelle runs -- and there is no indication that she is planning to do that.[16] PeterKa (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2016 (EST)

History seems to point to situation where the Republicans/Democrats take turns in terms of being complacent/proud. I think the zenith of leftist pride and complacency was achieved under the Obama/Pelosi leadership. And pride comes before the fall. Conservative (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2016 (EST)

Mattis for Defense

As widely predicted, Trump is nominating retired Marine General James Mattis as secretary of defense.[17] He is an outstanding choice, a "can do" general who is already widely admired for his work in Iraq. Some have complained that the nomination violates a 1947 law that bans military officers from the SecDef position until they have been retired for seven years. This law is unconstitutional and it should be repealed. The president needs to assert his constitutional duty to nominate whoever he believes to be best qualified for the position. PeterKa (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2016 (EST)

Instead of denouncing the unconstitutional civilians-only rule, Trump has requested a waiver. Senator Gillibrand has announced that they she will filibuster the waiver. The short version is that Mattis will need 60 votes for confirmation while Trump's other nominees require only 50.[18] (The Senate will have 52 Republicans, 48 Democrats.) PeterKa (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2016 (EST)
A lot of nonsense is being published which claims that appointing Mattis would upend American traditions. Washington's secretary of war was Henry Knox of Fort Knox fame. He was appointed in 1785 under the Articles of Confederation soon after he retired from the army. The prohibition against military officers as SecDef is based on studies of the Japanese system. Japan had a democratic system of government in the 1920s, but the country was militarized in the 1930s. This was blamed on the practice of appointing serving military officers as ministers. A Japanese minister would be assigned to another position in the army after he finished his tour as minister. So it's not all the same as appointing a retired officer. PeterKa (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Clinton aides shout insults at Conway

Another reason Clinton lost: Her aides are rude and stupid. See this Washington Post article: "Shouting match erupts between Clinton and Trump aides." This was at a forum held at Harvard. “I would rather lose than win the way you guys did," Palmieri told Conway. Then the Clinton people started started calling the Trump people racists. What a bunch of jerks. This "racist, racist" stuff was a standard line of attack throughout the campaign. Not only that, but the Democrats have been doing this to Republicans for many years, regardless of who the candidate is or what his views on race might be. The campaign is over, they lost, and their only regret is that they didn't do enough name calling. Oh, and they also blame FBI Director Comey. That's sweet. I'm sure he didn't act on his own. After Comey's cowardly capitulation to Obama in July, it's not plausible to think he developed a backbone in October. The Clinton aides still can't wrap their heads around the fact that sneaky little Obama stabbed them in the back. PeterKa (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2016 (EST)

The 5 stages of grief are: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. The liberal elitists and secular left are still in the anger/bargaining mode. By Trump's inauguration, they should accept Trump's status as the 2016 presidential race winner and the fact that liberal elitists and the secular left have lost a significant amount of power.
The large anti-Muslim immigrant protests in Europe, the gains of right-wing parties in Europe, Brexit, the large amount of people attending the Trump rallies (and Hillary inability to frequently have big rallies) and Trump surging near the end, should have braced them for a Trump victory. Nevertheless, it caught many of them by complete surprise.
Given that in recent decades the left is far more focused at politics than the right, leftists should have been among the first to see Trump's upcoming victory, but pride and cocooning (not reading much material from the right) prevented them seeing a greater possibility that Trump would win the election. Conservative (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2016 (EST)

MPR spelling error


I just noticed that Kellogg's is misspelled on MPR as "Kellogs". Thanks, GregG (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2016 (EST)

Thanks. I fixed it. Conservative (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2016 (EST)

Trump's Taiwan call

Trump will not be a status-quo president, and his call to Taiwan is another example of this. While I am not a fan of the current socially-liberal government of Taiwan, I am glad Trump is breaking the status quo and siding with a country that is more of an ally with us than the PRC is, a country to which we already sell millions and even billions of dollars in weapons. There are many things Reagan did not do that he should have. I hope Trump does those things. Along with his cabinet picks, he already seems to be succeeding. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2016 (EST)