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

Contents

Political correctness kills again

It's the Foot Hood massacre all over again. Everyone the Orlando shooter worked with knew he was a powder keg ready to blow. Nobody could do anything for fear of being called an Islamophobe. See "Co-worker: Omar Mateen homophobic, 'unhinged'" and "Orlando Shooter's Former Co-worker Says Employer Ignored Unhinged Behavior Because he was Muslim" If you can believe InfoWars, the FBI twice had to call off its investigation of the killer because Hillary's State Department declared the guy's mosque off limits.[1] PeterKa (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2016 (EDT)

The Daily Caller has a less sensational, but still outrageous, explanation of why the FBI investigation was called off: "FBI Called Off Investigation Of Orlando Shooter Because They Thought His Coworkers Were Racist." PeterKa (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2016 (EDT)
" If you can believe InfoWars." Hee hee. GerryV (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2016 (EDT)

Was the Orlando shooter gay?

Who didn't see one coming? "Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was gay, former classmate says." Daddy has an interesting take: "“If he was gay, why would he do something like this?” Seddique Mateen asked." In other words, if a non-gay Muslim shot up a gay bar, that would be perfectly understandable in dad's book. Imagine growing up gay and having a father with this attitude. Shooting up a bar starts to make more sense all the time. PeterKa (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2016 (EDT)

This story has a picture of Mateen looking pretty darn gay: "Ex-wife’s bombshell claim: Club shooter was gay" The FBI asked the ex not tell the America media, according to the article. I guess we're just not ready. He must be an embarrassment to ISIS at this point. Perhaps they will disown him. PeterKa (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2016 (EDT)
Your perspective seems to have been influenced by the politically-inspired machinated thinking of homosexual activists themselves. They are such a depraved group that they would rather see America destroyed by violence, tyranny or disease than assume any blame for their own group's acts, much less repent of those acts. Shooting up a bar with cartridge after cartridge of ammunition in this unprecedented way could never "make sense". Pursuing unnatural desires to the bitter end necessarily leads to violent acts be they violence against one's body, one's mental balance or one's society. VargasMilan (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2016 (EDT)
This one is probably too big to cover up. But if they could, they'd blame crosstalk or something ridiculous like that, as they did in the 2015 Philadelphia derailment. Citing a gay guy for being overly emotional, well, that would be trafficking in stereotypes. The Obama FBI doesn't do that. It would be like accusing a woman of overreacting during her period. The latest is that Disney warned the FBI about Mateen back in April.[2] So we must now consider the possibility that the FBI is more politically correct than Disney. PeterKa (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2016 (EDT)
Looks like there's some hope for Disney to actually change it's policy right now to go back to before 1991 where they instituted a certain infamous holiday at the beginning of June], though not by much. If they could warn the FBI of Omar Mateen despite most likely knowing he was gay, they probably could in the future end Gay Days. Who knows, maybe whoever succeeds Bob Iger can actually eliminate Gay Days the very first day of assuming command. Still, either way, the FBI may have messed up regarding this. Next time someone is made president, we probably should make a law via the usual method of making laws to forbid the use of political correctness or SJW-isms when conducting investigations to ensure they can live up to the fullest, and that any claims of racial profiling is to be thrown out of court. This whole PC, SJW thing is getting WAY out of hand and is interfering with investigations. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2016 (EDT)

What's up with Paul Ryan?

Okay, maybe this is part of a clever scheme to dump Trump and get us a more electable candidate: "'Muslims are our partners': Paul Ryan wallops Trump a day after terror speech as he insists U.S. battle is 'not a war with Islam' Otherwise -- Did any Republican support Ryan because they wanted him to echo Obama? Our leaders seem to be competing in a nutty blame game. Trump blames Muslims, Obama blames Christians, and Hillary blames the NRA. At least Trump did finger Obama's obsessive political correctness,[3] which is more than you can say for Ryan. PeterKa (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2016 (EDT)

Too soon. VargasMilan (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2016 (EDT)

Obama loses his cool

What does it take for Obama to lose his cool? A massacre of 50 Americans in Florida? Didn't do it. Trump speculating on why Obama doesn't use the phrase "radical Islam"? Bingo![4] Of course, what phrase the president might use in this context is a secondary issue. But it is important to identify the enemy somehow. See, Obama can send in the drones or kill Bin Laden. But as long as he doesn't call the terrorists by any bad names, he can think of himself as Islam's friend. In short, he is making a fetish out of verbal gymnastics that the Muslim world doesn't give a rat's behind about. PeterKa (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2016 (EDT)

Gay bar in Port St. Lucie, Florida is the scene of the most devastating Islamic terrorist attack since 9/11

Distance Port St. Lucie, Florida - Orlando, Florida: 110 mi

But perhaps that's just nitpicking. --AugustO (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2016 (EDT)

Fixed.Conservative (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2016 (EDT)

Response to Sally Kohn of the Daily Beast

The problem isn't any one group that looks for an authority above the Bible.

The problem is the hateful intolerance towards those who won't be bullied out of maintaining the Bible's ultimate authority—an intolerance disguised as a desire for social progress—and the consequences of that intolerance.

Unrighteousness is unrighteousness.

We must stand against hate and scoffing at Bible authority.

Whether in Islam, the homosexual movement or the gun-grabbing tyrants.

Whether in hundred-thousand-dollar fines against bakeries or at a nightclub.

VargasMilan (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2016 (EDT)

Huh? Why are you writing a response here? It seems unlikely that she reads this page. Her most recent article doesn't look relevant. PeterKa (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
If you really want to know, check her Twitter feed. She was on a consciousness-raising mission to spread awareness about enduring hateful intolerance—the perpetrators of which by steps melted right in with Christianity for some strange reason—until it was reported that the Muslim killer was also a regular patron at the club, etc. It was a tu quoque—anyone could have used the same steps as the ones she used in the service of bloodstaining her own political causes. VargasMilan (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
Here is a summary on Michelle Malkin's website (Twitchy). And here is a recounting of the step-wise argument she made together with Obama's similar "merging" remarks after the shooting. Both articles were written before it was learned the shooter was a regular at the bar. VargasMilan (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2016 (EDT)

Does Trump want out of the race?

So argues this article: "Trump Is Looking for a Way Out." Terrorism is the ultimate he-man Republican issue. If Trump can't make the recent shootout in Florida work for him, politics may not be his thing after all. The polls aren't in yet, but the early signs sure don't look good. He doesn't want any help either. Other Republican leaders should, "Just please be quiet. Don't talk. Please be quiet.”[5] I guess he plans to win silent, strong and Gary Cooperish. Hugh Hewitt is a voting member of the RNC Rules Committee and he wants to unbind the delegates in Cleveland. So it's not over till it's over. PeterKa (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2016 (EDT)

Setback for globalists:

There has been another setback for globalists today in regards to the Brexit. A liberal pro EU MP was killed by someone with links to the BNP.[6]. Say, haven't you shown support for the BNP in the past Andy?--SammiL (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2016 (EDT)

Speculation here, but it could be more likely that that the killer who claimed ties to the BNP may actually be a plant by the pro-EU side attempting out of desperation to discredit Brexit and bring it down by pretending to be on the Brexit side (much like the Westboro Baptist Church pretends to represent Christianity as a whole, but are really Democrat plants) - but the Brexit supporters have likely seen through the pro-EU side's ruse and tonight's referendum vote is reflecting this. Northwest (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2016 (EDT)

Here's a headline

Forbes magazine reports Russian intelligence may have hacked compromising information from Hillary's emails that Putin could use to manipulate and blackmail Hillary Clinton. [7] RobS#NeverHillary 23:27, 17 June 2016 (EDT)

So how long?

So how long is this gonna take? I've put in a lot of hours and haven't seen no merit pay yet. I sure could use page move, page delete, and page unlock, but everything I do seems to just get ignored. Not very motivational, just vague promises.

And you know, there is a huge amount of interest in what I'm working on right now. It wouldn't be too difficult at all to move to another hosting facility where my work would definitely get more exposure and be more appreciated. RobS#NeverHillary 14:03, 18 June 2016 (EDT)

I think you might get better results if you put this on Andy's talk page. Conservative (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2016 (EDT)
No. I'm tired of being ignored. There is all of 5 editors active on this wiki. When are we gonna see some action and movement?
You are not being ignored. I recently admired your Obama "Summer of Recovery" article right here on Talk:Main Page. And more recently Conservative indicated that he had sent you some correspondence. I read some interesting claims on the Nixon/Watergate section, but wasn't sure if you added it, or even if it were true or not because there were no citations. Finally I think DavidB4 assisted you with a source you had used. Maybe you could place a summary description like a bold outline on your user page to paint in broad brushstrokes what you contributed. If you ask, maybe more people will tell you what they think. VargasMilan (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2016 (EDT)
No, I was mistaken. That was User:JustinD who helped you with a source. My regrets for the error, Justin. VargasMilan (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2016 (EDT)
No, I'm just trying to get page move rights so I can fix something like this:
Category:Clinton administration
Category:Obama Administration
It drives me ABSOLUTELY NUTS everytime I look at one Category using a capital "A", and another using a small "a". Discussion on simply developing Naming Conventions is taboo, and this second Category has been screwed up for damn near 8 years now. I probably would have contributed more to that Category in the those 8 years (as I'm sure others may have, too), but there is just a lackadaisical "Who gives a rot" attitude about discussing or fixing something so simple. It just looks on the face of it so Micky-Mouse & unprofessional. Just looking at those two Categories, and my inability to do ANYTHING about it, makes me wonder everytime I need to add something to one of those two Categories, "Why am I here? "Why bother trying?".
This is one, simple, illustration that could have been fixed long ago with my user rights, which according to all three active Sysops on this site, NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. RobS#NeverHillary 18:01, 19 June 2016 (EDT)
I know it's not really the solution you were looking for, but since I can do nothing for you in the direction you are really seeking, I think I've moved everything over from Category:Clinton administration to Category:Clinton Administration as you wanted, and as you say, should have been done before. --David B (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2016 (EDT)
Thanks. But I was kinda thinking a small "a" should be the proper convention. RobS#NeverHillary 17:42, 20 June 2016 (EDT)
I could make the reverse change, but CP's rules seem to say it needs to be this way, unless I am misunderstanding them.--David B (TALK) 08:12, 22 June 2016 (EDT)

A "fart-in" in Philly

Even when we're stuck with a nominee like Trump, we'll always be classier than the Democrats: "Activists plot ‘world’s largest fart-in’ during Hillary’s DNC speech." PeterKa (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2016 (EDT)

Grammar/tense error on home page

Under "Quick Links" on the left, the first link reads, "Conservapedia: How to edit a wiki videos". Someone might want to change that to all singular or all plural. --David B (TALK) 16:13, 20 June 2016 (EDT)

Fixed.Conservative (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2016 (EDT)

New news topic

Hi.

Might as well suggest a new news topic.

Apparently, Hillary Clinton just revealed that Obama had been aiding terrorists actively, and Donald Trump took the opportunity to go to Twitter and remind everyone that he was right about that:\

http://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/bombshell-hillary-clinton-just-admitted-obama-was-helping-terrorists/

Pokeria1 (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2016 (EDT)

If you consider the Iranian regime to be our most dangerous enemy (as I do), you can justify helping ISIS on an "enemy of my enemy" basis. Of course, Obama has assured us that the Iranians are incredibly moderate,[8] so that would be an odd argument for him to make. PeterKa (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2016 (EDT)

More Trump

Hillary is currently 6 points ahead of Trump, right where she was before the massacre in Florida.[9] Terror is the only issue on which Trump has an edge compared to Hillary. As discussion shifts other subjects, Trump's numbers will only get worse. A majority of the delegates to the convention in Cleveland will be anti-Trump. They are "bound" to vote for Trump by RNC Rule 14(d). Unless the Rules Committee votes to renew this rule, it will expire and the delegates will become "unbound." As a practical matter, there is no way to prevent the delegates from voting as they like, rule or no rule. Former Congressman Enid Mickelsen was recently named chairwoman of the Rules Committee. So what will she do? Judging from this story, I'd say Trump has a problem: "Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump are going to be people that we point our children toward and say, 'I want you to be just like them when you grow up.'" PeterKa (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2016 (EDT)

More support for the theory that Trump doesn't actually want to be the Republican nominee: Paul Manafort, his campaign manager, approved the appointment of Mickelsen as Rules Committee chairwoman.[10] Trump's behavior after the massacre in Florida also had a suspiciously self-destructive quality. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to hammer away on terrorism, he dropped hints that Obama is a Muslim. What demographic does that reach out to? PeterKa (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2016 (EDT)
The demographic that Andrew Schlafly belongs to. This website is full of his allegations that Obama is a Muslim. GerryV (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2016 (EDT)
Most likely because Obama probably is an Islamic. He's done absolutely nothing to defend Christianity or Judaism while going out of his way to kowtow to Islam at every opportunity - in fact, remarks made by Obama himself (linked on the Obama's Religion article) are a sure indication toward him being an adherent of that terroristic political ideology that pretends to be a "religion". Liberals who pretend otherwise only indicate willful ignorance on their part. Northwest (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2016 (EDT)
Why would Trump run for president if he didn't actually want to be president? Here are some answers: "Trump’s Dead Broke Campaign has Been Paying Trump’s Companies (and Trump’s Family) a Lot of Money." Turns out, the campaign was a bankruptcy scam, just like his casinos. PeterKa (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2016 (EDT)
National Review is calling it the "scampaign." (See "Trump’s Fundraising Report Exposes His Scam Campaign".) Twenty percent of campaign funds go to Trump companies. In addition, there are salaries for Trump himself, his family, and his flunkies. When he said his campaign would be "self-financed," he must have meant that he would be financing himself from his campaign money. Who would donate to the Trump campaign after this? The campaign currently owes Trump $44 million! It's hard to see any way he can go forward from here. PeterKa (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2016 (EDT)
This development has evoked strong opinions across the political spectrum: "Crushed. I would feel much better if he boycotted his own venues, planes, hotels—or at least stiffed his employees!" VargasMilan (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

Mateen suffered from sickening lusts

These ISIS degenerates always say they do it for "Allah." Now the veil has been lifted on their sick, twisted world: "Omar Mateen’s Alleged Male Lover: ‘He Did It For Revenge’ Against Latino Men." It seems that Mateen got it on with a Puerto Rican he met at the club who forgot to mention that he was HIV positive. PeterKa (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2016 (EDT)

I see the The Young Turks have seized upon this news item to blame "gay self-loathing" for the massacre. The implication of this theory is that we should focus on teaching gay children to love themselves. To me, this is a runaround to avoid addressing the Islam/political correctness issue. This guy was very obviously dangerous, yet the authorities could do nothing. Even if he wasn't motivated by his love of Allah, being Muslim gave him a protective bubble of political correctness. It's a problem we can lay on Obama's doorstep and on his determination to "stand with the immigrants." PeterKa (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2016 (EDT)

How about those NBA Finals?

LeBron was unbelievable in those last three games, he pretty much singlehandedly pulled the team up to one of the greatest comebacks of all time. The block he had on Iggudala was unlike anything I've ever seen before. Meanwhile Steph Curry pulled off quite an impressive choke job, what a chump! Maybe if he ever practiced his defense instead of showboating like a moron he might have been able to lift his team up. So where is all the caterwauling about the "overrated sports star" and the "devout Christian" now? YorkHunt (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2016 (EDT)

That is only half of the equation. The other half, which you fail to address, is the media hype. Curry gets little hype; LeBron gets media hype to the point of absurdity, calling him things like "superhuman". Restoring Overrated Sports Stars based on media overhype next.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
This is absolutely ridiculous. No NBA player was discussed and covered more this season than Steph Curry, and deservedly so! He was a unanimous MVP, he's arguably the greatest shooter in basketball history, and his team set a season record for wins. But he is a defensive liability and, for the second consecutive season, he was almost a non-factor in the NBA Finals (despite their winning last year). If you are going to criticize LeBron James, Peyton Manning, Kobe Bryant, Tom Brady et al for sometimes underperforming in big games, you are a hypocrite not to do the same for Steph Curry or Kevin Durant. Eg (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
You don't seem willing even to consider the over-hype by the liberal media for LeBron James, Peyton Manning, Kobe Bryant, and Tom Brady, which is the more important side of the equation.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
If LeBron was over-hyped, he arguably lived up to it in the finals this year when he basically single-handedly led the Cavs back. Curry got a ton of attention this year with the Warriors going 73-9, and he was the unanimous MVP, what's your basis for saying Curry got little hype this year? MatthewT (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
James, Manning, Bryant, and Brady between them have won 14 championships, been voted or selected to 55 Pro Bowls and NBA All-Star Games, won 12 regular season MVP Awards, and won 9 Super Bowl/NBA Finals MVP Awards. Those are staggering numbers, and all of them are more than worthy of all the hype they have received, whether you like them or not. James, Manning, and Brady will each be regarded as among the top 5 players in the histories of their respective sports, and Bryant should be considered in the top 10 of his. And again, NO basketball player, including LeBron James, received more hype and attention this season than Steph Curry, deservedly so. But you give him a pass for flopping in the NBA Finals in consecutive seasons.--Eg (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
You seem to be saying that it is impossible to overrate James, Manning, Bryant, and Brady. Is that liberal logic at work?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
Reading comprehension is important. I am NOT saying that it's impossible to overrate those players, I am saying that they are not overrated.--Eg (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
But you never address in any meaningful way that side of the equation: their overrating by the media. Instead, you rant that they "have won 14 championships, been voted or selected to 55 Pro Bowls and NBA All-Star Games, won 12 regular season MVP Awards, and won 9 Super Bowl/NBA Finals MVP Awards," as though that somehow makes it impossible to overrate them. The media's calling LeBron "superhuman" is overrating him no matter how many NBA Finals he has won (and he's won fewer than many other players).--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2016 (EDT)

Empirically, the religious won the sports front hand down (see: Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism).

Some atheists/agnostics can't see the forest through the trees. Conservative (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2016 (EDT)

Brexit wins!

So, it looks like the so-called "experts" who predicted Brexit's defeat in the UK referendum are now going to have to eat crow now that the Leave side has emerged victorious over the Remain side (and could lead to the beginning of the end for the European Union once its other members' populations begin echoing similar sentiments to get out). Chalk one up against socialism and the forced imposition of illegal Islamic refugees that has led to the chaos Europe is currently in. Northwest (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2016 (EDT)

Once we get rid of Obama, Britain can join NAFTA. Then it will be the North Atlantic Free Trade Association. The Swedish and German governments are determined to let in as many Muslims as possible. In addition, they want to admit Turkey to the European Union. Eighty percent of Turks are pro-ISIS, so it's hard to see how the story of the EU can have a happy ending. PeterKa (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
Mark Steyn is getting in his, "I told so"s.[11] PeterKa (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
Is there a source for that ISIS-Turkey claim? MatthewT (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
I got it from a Farage speech, but it seems he misspoke. According to Pew, 73 percent of Turks view ISIS unfavorably, 8 percent favorably.[12] PeterKa (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2016 (EDT)

This needs to be made very clear, Brexit succeeded because of the support of Labour Party voters, i.e, what Americans call liberal.[13]--SammiL (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2016 (EDT)

The leadership of the Labour Party opposed Brexit. So the voters you describe rejected their own leaders, just as millions of ems will reject Hillary Clinton on Election Day in the U.S. later this year.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
Union-based anti-NAFTA and anti-free trade sentiment is a major force in U.S. politics as well. One can imagine Ohio and other post-industrial areas voting for Trump on this basis. One survey showed that only half of Labour's voters even knew that their party opposed Brexit. Doncaster, Milibrand's old constituency in the North, went heavily for Brexit.[14] PeterKa (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2016 (EDT)
Is the "Rust Belt" key to a trump victory? --SammiL (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2016 (EDT)
Given: the growing use of robotics; governments and political parties having less and less ability to control people; the increasing difficulty of engaging in censorship (internet, satellite television and world travel easier); and globalization being a potent force in the world; and religious people having more children than irreligious people, I think labor parties and liberal ideologies are going to have a hard time in the 21st century.
Long term, many rust belt individuals will have to learn new skills if they want to prosper. In the meantime, Trump does have a point about fair trade. I think better deals could be negotiated. Conservative (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2016 (EDT)

Mateen not gay after all?

So says the LA Times: "FBI investigators say they have found no evidence that Orlando shooter had gay lovers." Frankly, the FBI blabbermouths that this story is sourced to need to learn that sometimes it's better not to tell your findings to the press. Accusing ISIS heroes of being gay is the best anti-terror propaganda of all! Every potential terrorist should be asking himself, "If I shoot up this bar, will my homophobic dad start thinking that I'm gay?" The Obama administration has already tried to blank out the Allah and ISIS references in the 911 transcript. So it's not like they have a problem with falsifying public records, at least not if the target is the American people. PeterKa (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2016 (EDT)

Even After Death

"Disgraced UN official John Ashe died and he has close ties to the Clintons." May I nominate this superb piece of grammatical illiteracy for the "Trustworthy Encyclopedia's Untrustworthy Grammar Award" for the year so far. AlanE (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

I fixed it. Conservative (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

Roe v. Wade all over again.

Bad news, guys: The Supreme Court chose to force Texas to abandon its pro-life statutes to protect the abortionists, meaning like in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court sided with the Abortionist agenda over the actual welfare of the people.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/27/supreme-court-strikes-down-texas-abortion-law.html

Our job of getting abortions illegal have just become even MORE difficult. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

If you read Conservapedia's culture war article a demographic shift will occur in the USA in the 21st century which will favor the pro-life side.
It took about 300-400 for the legal slave trade to end in the West. It is expected to take about 100 to 130+ years (maybe somewhat longer due to anti-immigrant sentiment rising in Europe) to usher in an age of desecularization in the West. The wheel of God sometimes grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly finely. Conservative (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
All the more reason (besides Obergefell v. Hodges) to force the removal of the corrupt liberals that currently infest the Supreme Court. Northwest (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2016 (EDT)

The Christian cavalry is coming

"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."[15] - Eric Kaufmann.

Right now, the pro-life TRUMPet call is faint/borderline as far as the calvary. With various Hillary scandals brewing, the 2016 Trump/Clinton presidential race is hard to call. However, somewhere between 2020 to 2045 you will begin to hear the trumpet louder due to desecularization forces in the USA (see: American atheism). By the way, pardon the pun. :)Conservative (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

"Setback for globalists" because the markets fell....

I really don't understand the logic of that headline. UK voters chose to leave the EU -- that much is a setback for glo0balists, I get that much. But to frame the overwhelmingly negative market reaction -- investors world wide saying, with one voice, "we think this is a horrible idea" -- is no setback for globalists: if anything, it's a setback for the nationalists who are seeing their ideas scorned by the free market. GerryV (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2016 (EDT)

You make an interesting point, and you make it well. In rebuttal, I would say that the remarkable reaction by the markets is proof that the globalists really have been defeated. Brexit was no fluke.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2016 (EDT)
Global stock markets rally as Brexit fears abate.[16]
The timid, hand-wringing liberals who sold their stocks because Brexit was "disastrous" lost money. The conservative contrarian stock traders made money!Conservative (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2016 (EDT)
One factor to remember is that markets do not like uncertainty. People are often resistant to change and become fearful. Conservative (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2016 (EDT)

Homosexual health problems

I thought it was astounding that Yahoo news, of all places, would report something like this. That was until I read a little bit of it and found that their excuse is,

'...potentially due to the stressors that (they) experience as a result of interpersonal and structural discrimination,' researchers wrote online June 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

It figures that they would turn this around and say it is all due to discrimination. Is there be any chance a better source to cite for this story, rather than pointing them to Yahoo? --David B (TALK) 08:34, 29 June 2016 (EDT)

Planned Parenthood and StemExpress HIPAA violation

I don't know if this might be worth putting on them home page, but The House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives has released some findings which show that Planned Parenthood has indeed been breaking the law for at least five years. It might be like taking down Al Capone on tax evasion, but it looks like Planned Parenthood and StemExpress (a fetal body-part merchant) could be in big trouble for violating HIPAA by sharing the medical charts for women seeking abortions. I guess it's better than nothing. Here's the full article. --David B (TALK) 11:27, 29 June 2016 (EDT)

Fast and Furious gun used in Paris massacre

Fast and Furious, a program approved by Obama attorney general Eric Holder, literally sold guns to ISIS: "Law Enforcement Sources: Gun Used in Paris Terrorist Attacks Came from Phoenix." Think about that the next time Warren or another Democrat accuses someone of arming ISIS by opposing gun control. PeterKa (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2016 (EDT)

Global stock markets rally as Brexit fears abate

I would like to add that it is not only timid, hand-wringing liberals who have lost money. Last week my house was worth approx £230,000, today it is worth around £220,000. So in a week I have lost £10,000 in property equity alone. It is nice to know that people have been making money from my misfortune and you are happy about it.--SammiL (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2016 (EDT)

I don't think economics/investing is a zero sum game and that one person has to lose for another to gain. At the same time, events which affect the economy can produce winners/losers. That's just an unavoidable part of life.
My guess is that immigration may be lowered in the UK which would lower demand for housing. Personally, I am bearish on Europe, but bullish on China in terms of midterm to long term investing. Investor Jim Rogers, who leans toward the Austrian school of economics is bullish on China (see: Growth of Christianity in China and Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism).
The Scottish atheist and Harvard University historian Niall Ferguson declared: "Through a mixture of hard work and thrift the Protestant societies of the North and West Atlantic achieved the most rapid economic growth in history."[17]
Many investors/sociologists see an Asian Century occurring in the 21st century. And Asian atheism is expected to decline in the 21st century (see: Desecularization).
On the other hand, maybe the UK will see a spiritual renewal and see an economic boost due to the Protestant work ethic (see: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism).
Many conservatives liked what Thatcher did, but a leader can only do so much. Ever since Darwinism, the decline of the British Empire, the UK's growing godlessness and the growing Islamic population of the UK, it is hard to be bullish on the UK. But miracles and revivals happen.
As far as the future of the USA in the long term, it is hard to predict, but I think the USA will go though a period of economic trouble as will the global economy. On the other hand, America has a history of dynamism/innovation so it has that in its favor. Conservative (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2016 (EDT)

Just so you know, I have no antipathy towards the British. I am a fan of some of the work of Alister McGrath and John Lennox. And Nigel Farage is very entertaining.

And of course, there is the work of John Bunyan, Wycliffe, Shakespeare, Milton, etc. And there is the Magna Carqa, Common law and many other contributions to humanity. Conservative (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2016 (EDT)

Can the FBI end America's election nightmare?

The FBI will be meeting Hillary today, which suggests that they are just about to wrap up their investigation -- and not a minute too soon, I should say.[18] What's more, the Justice Department has promised to follow whatever recommendations the FBI makes.[19] At last, the nightmare scenario of this criminal being elected president is receeding! The convention in Philly will presumably pick someone else to be the nominee, possibly Warren. I assume Warren will do a whole lot better than Hillary in matchups against Trump, so this could be the end of the road for the Trump campaign as well. PeterKa (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2016 (EDT)

Doubtful. Between crooked Hillary, the senile socialist Sanders and "Fauxcahontas" Warren, the Democrats are too tainted by criminals, Marxists, irrelevant players in their ranks and overall scandal to be able to overcome Trumpmania this go-round. Northwest (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2016 (EDT)
If we take this to the next logical step, what happens if both parties replace their current nominees with more conventional politicians who inspire a lower level of public disgust? In that case, I would expect Republicans to vote Republican and Democrats to vote Democratic. The generic ballot is currently split right down the middle.[20] Both the NBC/WSJ poll for June and the ABC/WP poll for May are tied precisely. Fivethirtyeight gives NBC/WSJ an "A-" and ABC/WP an "A+."[21] PeterKa (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2016 (EDT)

The notion that Trump is replaced is a fantasy at this point. He has too many delegate votes and a rule change would cause pandemonium and a defection by Trump supporters. It would harm the party for years. The current trends of populism/nationalism/anti-immigration (which are worldwide) are too strong for the party to fight.

The type of immigration that many anti-immigration people would allow would be for spouses (and perhaps other family members) and for people who invest (and create jobs) or are at least highly skilled and in short supply. Conservative (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2016 (EDT)

What was Bill up to in Phoenix?

What was the purpose of the meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the "tarmac summit" in Phoenix? It's hugely irregular for the attorney general to with family of individuals under criminal investigation. It seems that Bill arranged an ambush and Lynch was dumb enough to fall for it. No doubt Bill is hoping to delay the investigation of Hillary by forcing Lynch to recuse herself or even resign. See "Bill Clinton Up to No Good Visiting Attorney General Loretta Lynch." (Best line in the article: "Many won’t believe Lynch and Clinton only discussed grandkids and golf in her cozy jet. But I do.") If this analysis is correct, it implies Bill has run out of ideas as far as heading off an indictment goes. He is instead throwing himself under the juggernaut in the hope of buying some time. If so, the move seems to have backfired. Lynch's response was to announce that she would abide by the FBI's recommendation, whatever it might be. PeterKa (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2016 (EDT)

Judge Jeanine Pirro said Lynch used double talk in her announcement and won't indict because the first witness they would have to call is President Obama because he knew about Hillary evading the law by doing public business on a private server. VargasMilan (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2016 (EDT)
Michael Savage is predicting a Nixonian end to this issue. Obama pardons Hillary just like Ford pardoned Nixon.
I think the FBI will cave in and not recommend indictment or Obama will pardon Hillary, Sanders seems to be the most likely replacement. Many Sanders voters would be upset and stay home if Biden waltzed in near the end of the process and got the nomination.
If Hillary is pardoned, Trump would probably be elected. Ford was unelectable after he pardoned Nixon.
At the federal level, liberal Protestants and liberal Catholics run the executive and judicial branches right now. And they are turning the United States into a quasi-banana republic. Conservative (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2016 (EDT)
Ford unelectable? He nearly won using the Rose Garden strategy. VargasMilan (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2016 (EDT)
There is no way this administration (or the next) could conduct anything resembling an impartial prosecution of Hillary. In my opinion, a pardon would be correct under these circumstances. The constitutional solution is impeachment and trial before the Senate. PeterKa (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2016 (EDT)
I don't understand. Hillary has already resigned and was replaced by John Kerry. VargasMilan (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2016 (EDT)
There is no precedent for the impeachment of a former officeholder, but there is nothing in the constitution that limits the procedure to current officeholders. In other words, Congress can impeach her and declare her ineligible for public office before the election.[22]. PeterKa (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2016 (EDT)


Hillary hands out job offers

Is this what Bill told Lynch in Phoenix? "NYT: Hillary Clinton "may decide" to keep Loretta Lynch as attorney general." This is even more brazen than her earlier offer to appoint Obama to the Supreme Court. If this doesn't disqualify DOJ from taking on her case, what would? PeterKa (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2016 (EDT)

If Hillary were elected president, it would probably have to do with a "crooked FBI" not recommending to indict. Hopefully, the "law and order" impulse of the FBI will override "careerism". It may put the head of the FBI in a difficult spot. Will Lynch tell the head of the FBI privately not to indict? Does he hold Loretta Lynch to her public statements about not interfering and going along with the FBI recommendation?
If Hillary is elected president, I think due to her unlikeability and temper, she will be a one term president. Obama was able to have four more years due to his likeability to many people and because many of his scandals were not made public until his second term. I am also guessing that the bulk of her scandals would break out during her first term.
Sadly, the effects of her presidency would extend far beyond her presidency due to multiple Supreme Court Justices. So there would be increased lawlessness due to liberal judges ignoring the U.S. Constitution. In short, "Crooked Hillary" and a more "Crooked Supreme Court". Conservative (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2016 (EDT)

Happy Independence Day

A happy Independence Day to all the Americans here at Conservapedia. Just for the record, though, I'm not sure that referring to Independence Day as the 4th of July is a "globalist" thing. We know, for instance, that Thomas Jefferson referred to Independence day as the Fourth of July, for instance.--Whizkid (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2016 (EDT)

FBI clears Crooked Hillary. She'll probably be elected

I think Trump's biggest chance to be president was for the FBI to recommend indicting Hillary Clinton. And the FBI is crooked. I don't think Trump will pour a lot of cash into his campaign nor do I think others will.

As the pro-Republican leaning greatest generation and silent generation dies off in America things will get worse as the baby boomers are on the political fence (slight lean Republican) and younger voters lean Democratic.

I think things will get worse for the United States politically/economically.

Looking at European/world politics and the Trump candidacy, it appears as if right-wing nationalist/populist politics is ascendant and the political moderate sector is shrinking. When the economy sours enough, the door to a right-wing U.S. presidency may open.

Should Jesus tarry, I think desecularization will eventually kick in as far as United States and shift politics rightward/conservatively, but that might not be until sometime between 2020 - 2043 (see: American atheism and Culture war). See also: Causes of desecularization. Conservative (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2016 (EDT)

The Limbaugh Theorem states that Obama has no fingerprints anywhere but we all know he is heavily invested in Clinton. Obama's magic touch has long faded, like his Brexit push. Expect Trump to gain support in polling. Everybody wants to here what Trump has to say and he has a lot to say.--Jpatt 14:58, 5 July 2016 (EDT)
Maybe I am too pessimistic. As far as the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the political betting market Paddy Power offers Trump 11/4 betting odds and gives Hillary 1/3 odds. The betting markets have a better track record than the polls/pundits.
As far as the public, Hillary is a lot less liked/likeable than Obama so she may be a one term president if she is elected. If she is elected, I am guessing the scandals would break out in her first term and not wait until a second term.Conservative (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2016 (EDT)
  • After the uproar over the Phoenix summit, I was sure the FBI would recommend indictments. This outcome certainly makes them look foolish, corrupt, or at least under Obama's thumb. See "FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook." Perhaps Obama pushed until he got whatever concessions he wanted from the Clintons -- and that was the plan all along. Was it the offer of a Supreme Court nomination that did the trick? The guy can smile at your face even while he is knifing you in the back. Trump should demand that Congress impeach Hillary and declare her ineligible for public office. PeterKa (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2016 (EDT)

Conservative Patriots

Conservatitves are more patriotic

Yeah, right. The same conservatives now rallying behind a Presidential candidate who says he will " Make America Great Again". When did America cease to be great? And when did it become patriotic to say she is no longer great? I have little doubt as to what the conservative reaction would have been if Obama decreed America was no longer great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreatAgain (talk)

Just words, just words when Trump says them. When Obama says as much, you circle the wagons. What's not great about America? Record unemployment for starters. I'm no longer a patriot?!? The us vs. them mentality will not suffice. The collapse of Liberalism is in motion [23] --Jpatt 17:36, 5 July 2016 (EDT)
American started to lose its greatness during the Bush years when it piled up debt, piled on more regulations and jumped into the Iraq War. It stopped being great when it elected Obama twice. Obama zoomed up the national debt further. We have been losing left and right since Obama and have had multiple terrorist attacks. Obama bowing to all those foreign leaders and bowing to Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio was an early sign that he would preside over an "Ichabod presidency".
The Heritage Foundation ranks the USA #11 on its freedom index which is their second tier.[24] The top 6 countries have a Protestant cultural heritage or have been significantly affected by a country with a Protestant cultural heritage (Hong Kong and Singapore are past colonies of Britain). See: Protestant cultural legacies
Switzerland, a beacon of European creationism/evangelicalism, is greater than godless Sweden though.[25][26]
America might be great again, but it won't be under a Hillary Clinton administration if she is elected. The Democrats have moved further left in their politics. Conservative (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2016 (EDT)
Nobody is questioning Trump's patriotism credibly. He is a nationalist. I don't think what he said about McCain's military service was right though. McCain served honorably. He was a war hero. He could have left Vietnam earlier as a POW. I am not a MCCain fan as far as his politics, but I think undisciplined populists like Trump are more likely to denigrate/demonize their opponents unfairly. Conservative (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2016 (EDT)

Top MPR Story

The story about the potential recession is nearly a month old--the byline is June 8. Additionally, as Politico shows here: http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-shift/2016/07/driving-the-week-june-jobs-report-215152, economists believe the staggeringly low May numbers to be an anomaly and predict the June report coming out Friday will show 180,000 new jobs. MatthewT (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2016 (EDT)

Thanks. I don't trust Obama administration's jobs numbers. I will look further into it. In the meantime, I will delete the entry. Conservative (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2016 (EDT)
Moody's Analytics economic forecasting model for the 2016 election is forecasting Hillary to win easily.[27]
It seems the best chance for Trump to win is for a black swan event to hit the economy or a very major terror attack.
I don't think the USA has as strong a anti-immigrant nationalist/right-wing segment of voters as Europe at the present moment. There are no major anti-immigrant marches in the USA (which has happened in some European countries). So an unexpected "Brexit like" victory seems unlikely.
Given Hillary Clinton's unfavorability ratinga and that the next president will probably be hit with a recession, it appears that Hillary will be a one term president if she is elected president.[28][29] Many Austrian school of economics are saying the next recession could be worse than the 2007/2008 recession (and this school of economics performed the best in predicting the 2007/2008 recession). The USA is deeper in federal debt. And the feds can't lower the rate much without going into negative interest rates. Conservative (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2016 (EDT)
278,000 jobs in June. The Obama economy at work, it seems. MatthewT (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2016 (EDT)

Hillary's server was less secure than Gmail

Here is Comey:

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government — or even with a commercial service like Gmail.[30]
PeterKa (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2016 (EDT)

Why did the FBI let Hillary skate?

Back when Valerie Jarrett leaked the email story to the New York Times, I assume Obama's plan was to replace Hillary with a loyalist like Warren or Biden. At some point, he realized that if Hillary was indicted the convention in Philly would probably nominate Bernie. Post-retirement, Obama plans to receive a hefty income from the corporate interests that Bernie despises so much. So that was a deal breaker. It's not like Hillary is worried about being tied to corporate interests. News like this helps her send a message to Obama: "You could be making this kind of money too, if only we can keep Bernie from spoiling the fun." PeterKa (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2016 (EDT)

I saw this coming due to this:
"When the news broke that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had met with former President Bill Clinton, politicians from both sides of the aisle condemned the meeting as being a clear conflict of interest.
Rumors have swirled that the meeting wasn’t just a “social” visit as Lynch has repeatedly claimed. Now, the journalist who originally broke the story is coming forward with more bombshell information about what happened on the plane — or rather outside it.
Christopher Sign of KNXV-TV explained during an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that FBI agents on the tarmac weren’t allowing journalists to photograph anything.
Since when are journalist not allowed to photograph politicians in public spaces? Freedom of the press was being violated. Again, government officials see themselves as being above the law. Conservative (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2016 (EDT)

Comey misapplied the law and turned himself into a illegitimate quasi legislator and let Hillary skate for career reasons and/or he didn't want to be a pariah in Washington establishment cocktail parties and be highly criticized by the press.

Judge Roberts didn't want to face heat either and that he why he legislated from the bench.

The situations are very similar with the exception that Roberts has a lifelong appointment and he cannot be fired.

The rise of populist candidacies, people marching in the streets and rioting in places like Greece point to people being angry at government official elites and the consequences of their incompetence and/or corruptness.

The power of the state is getting smaller as a general trend: The Fate of the State by MARTIN VAN CREVELD Conservative (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2016 (EDT)

Bill must have told Lynch something in Phoenix that turned this issue around completely. Perhaps it was something like, "If you indicted Hillary, she will tell the delegates to vote for Bernie." PeterKa (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2016 (EDT)
On second thought, the decision to let Hillary skate must have been made by Obama at some point before he officially endorsed her on June 9. There was apparently a lot of last minute wrangling over who would announce what.[31] Comey's announcement was a surprise in that insiders were expecting a joint FBI/DOJ press conference.
Comey had a such a great reputation until now. It's illogical to claim there must be intent when the legal standard is "gross negligence." Whether or not there was intent in earlier cases has nothing to do with anything. Hillary had this setup for four years! The IG report found that State Department employees who pointed out that the server setup wasn't kosher were told "never to speak of it again." Is that what someone who has no intent to violate the law says? PeterKa (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2016 (EDT)

The American baby boomers, when compared to world history, have had great amounts of prosperity. Unfortunately, it has bred arrogance, corruptness and complacency. Politically, baby boomers have been a bust. The Obama/Clinton team are at the zenith of baby boomer power. If Clinton is elected, she may be the last baby boomer president.

Comey's actions doesn't surprise me at all.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

"Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” - Jesus Conservative (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2016 (EDT)

If we take Comey's statement at face value, Hillary should be subject to, "security or administrative sanctions.” I interpret that to mean loss of security clearance and/or demotion. How can someone too irresponsible for a security clearance be considered qualified for the presidency? PeterKa (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2016 (EDT)
I think people receiving benefits/salaries/power from the government is taking precedence over the rule of law, national security and ethics. Hence, Obama was elected twice and Hillary is favored to win the 2016 election. Conservative (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2016 (EDT)

Rules for radicals guides this president through it all. Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. The Clinton investigation dragged Lynch into a question. That outrage is now off the table thanks to the Democrat FBI covering for Democrat Hillary. Rule 11: If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive. The positive became Clinton cleared for a presidential run.--Jpatt 14:04, 7 July 2016 (EDT)

Comey was put in office originally by Republican George W. Bush. He also put Roberts on the Supreme Court. Sadly, I think much corruption/ineptness in the populace in general produces corrupt and/or inept candidates to be elected. On the whole, people get the elected officials they deserve. I also think liberals are more active in politics/media/internet than conservatives. Conservative (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2016 (EDT)
Comey was deputy attorney general under Bush in 2003-2005. Obama appointed him FBI director in 2013.[32] An FBI director is appointed for a ten-year term. So he has a greater degree of independence than other presidential appointees. PeterKa (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2016 (EDT)
Comey appointed Fitzgerald special prosecutor in the Plame affair. Fitzgerald got Scooter Libby convicted on trumped up charges. (DC juries are happy to convict any Republican.) So Comey is well rehearsed in the role of "disloyal Republican." Rush is arguing that the fix has been in for Hillary at least since April 10 when Obama gave a Fox News interview exonerating her.[33] PeterKa (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2016 (EDT)

Airport insecurity

In both the Brussels and Istanbul attacks, ISIS attacked people waiting at the airport outside the secure area. Thus the lines created by airport security are themselves a source of insecurity. The terrorists have turned the tools of anti-terrorism against us, just as Mark Steyn predicted. PeterKa (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2016 (EDT)

Giuliani tells it like it is

Here's the attorney general we need: "Rudy Giuliani: Hillary Broke The Law; 'Gross Negligence Equals Extreme Carelessness.'" Back in October, Obama went on 60 Minutes and called the charges against Clinton "ginned up."[34] So he was grossly and improperly interfering in the investigation from the beginning. Hillary is the new O.J. Simpson, as this article puts it. Someone should ask her, "How does it feel to be above the law?" Thanks to Comey's passive/aggressive press conference, Trump now has something he lacked up to this point: A path to the presidency. It seems that the best that Hillary's campaign can do in response is to complain that a six-pointed star Trump used is anti-Semitic. Huh? When did Hillary become Jewish? PeterKa (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2016 (EDT)

Trump raised 51 million. Hillary may face a real fight.

Trump is trying now. Raised 51 million.[35] Hillary may face a real fight.

Newt Gingrich recently said Trump wasn't really trying. Now Trump seems to be more serious and rolling up his sleeves. He probably needs more of a ground game. More staff to crank out turnout. But maybe historic turnout will happen anyways.

I thought he was a big long shot before. Now things look more competitive. This race takes twists and turns. I think it is hard to predict. Conservative (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2016 (EDT)

Obama's war on cops goes to Dallas

And the grinning fiend can't conceal his delight: "Republicans slam grinning Obama for politicizing Dallas police massacre as he laughs his way through NATO summit." PeterKa (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2016 (EDT)

The sheriff of Milwaukee County explains how Obama's rhetoric has inspired anti-police violence.[36] When the victim is a black man, Obama goes into agitator mode and reaches a conclusion immediately. But in this case he asks us "to wait for the facts to emerge." PeterKa (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2016 (EDT)

"Dump Trump" fizzles

About 65 percent of Republicans want to keep Trump compared to 18 percent who want the convention to dump him, according to this poll. The poll was taken July 2-5 when Trump's chances of going to the White House were not nearly as good as they are now. Ah well. The open convention thing seemed like a promising idea just a few days ago. PeterKa (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2016 (EDT)

How much money would it take to get Trump to drop out of the race? This video says $150 million. If he's a billionaire, you'd think $150 million wouldn't mean anything to him. PeterKa (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2016 (EDT)
It's official now: ""Never Trump" Movement Dies in Committee." The Rules Committee approved a proposal to bind the delegates by a vote of 87-12. A minority report requires 28 votes, so this issue won't even go to the full convention. PeterKa (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2016 (EDT)

Leftists plan riots in Cleveland

To Obama and Soros, America is a very, very bad country. They are not through punishing us. Dallas was just a rehearsal. The main event is the Republican convention in Cleveland. As usual, Soros is financing these rioters. See "Democrats to Spend $800,000 to Disrupt GOP Convention." PeterKa (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2016 (EDT)

The 22-page plan outlines a series of press appearances and t-shirt ideas. No riots anywhere in the agenda despite the article's insinuations. MatthewT (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2016 (EDT)
The memo is full of stupid pranks the Democrats plan to play on the delegates.[37] It's the stuff they used to call "dirty tricks" back in Nixon's day. As far as riots go, well, they aren't going put anything seriously illegal in the memo, are they? The Russians must have hacked this memo off the DNC site. PeterKa (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2016 (EDT)
But if there aren't any riots in the memo, what's the basis for saying the DNC is planning riots based on the memo? It doesn't make any sense...MatthewT (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2016 (EDT)

Theresa May

[38]She will take office Wednesday 9 July. A "more" conservative choice.--SammiL (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2016 (EDT)

Where have all the polls gone?

From June 5 to July 5 there were 29 national matchup polls, almost one a day. In the week since Comey's press conference on July 5, all we political junkies have had to chew on is a snap Rasmussen poll that showed Trump two points ahead of Hillary.[39] If they have decided to block the release of polls, the news must be really grim for the Democrats. PeterKa (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2016 (EDT)

There was an NBC poll that showed Clinton up 3, and a Reuters/Ipsos that had her up 13. RCP hasn't put them in yet but they are out. MatthewT (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2016 (EDT)
WTF? There is nothing like that on the Ipsos site.[40] You have an inside source? Whatever the reason for the poll drought, it seems to be over now. A McClatchy/Marist poll just came out that shows Clinton ahead by 3 points.[41] Update I think I see the reason for the problem. It takes them a week a do a poll. If you were in the middle of a poll and opinion shifted at the time of the press conference, you would have to start over to get a valid result. PeterKa (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2016 (EDT)

General Flynn, terrorist fighter

Former DIA director Michael Flynn would be a fantastic choice for vice president -- and let's hope Trump picks him. He has served on the front line against terror and understands the threat. See "Michael Flynn: Iranian Spies Are Up to No Good in New York City." Next time terror is in the news, Trump can step aside and let Flynn do the talking. PeterKa (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2016 (EDT)

Probable coup d'etat in Turkey.

[42]--SammiL (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2016 (EDT)

As usual, Obama unhesitatingly comes down on the wrong side: "Surprise! Coup in Turkey– Obama Sides With Islamist Erdogan Government Over Moderates." PeterKa (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2016 (EDT)
It was a Turkish Reichstag fire.[43] Erdogan is now conducting mass purges in order to turn Turkey into an Islamic dictatorship.[44] PeterKa (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2016 (EDT)

The FBI has become a joke

At Comey's FBI, you just don't say anything would make a Muslim look bad, especially not if he is a terrorist. Did you ever imagine that you would see the police this concerned about a killer's reputation? "FBI has found no evidence that Orlando shooter targeted Pulse because it was a gay club." A headline like that certainly makes the FBI look ridiculous. We know he cased the joint with his wife. So he must have realized it was a gay nightclub. Yet the FBI wants us to know he was a broadminded, equal opportunity killer. It's a war on terror. In a war, you use every opportunity to portray the enemy in an unfavorable light. PeterKa (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2016 (EDT)

But wouldn't that mean letting the truth take a back seat to a political agenda? MatthewT (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2016 (EDT)
After every shocking crime, the police should find something nice to say about the perpetrator? In this case, all they are really saying is that we can never get inside this guy's mind and know for sure. You can let the philosophers make that point. PeterKa (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2016 (EDT)

Madman in the White House

The war on cops continues with three officers dead in Baton Rouge.[45] Can America withstand another six months of this cop-hating president?[46] This is not about ghetto scum marching around chanting mindless anti-police slogans.[47] No sirree Bob! Black Lives Matter leaders are pulling down six figure salaries. The money is said to come from George Soros.[48] It's a relatively new organization, yet somehow they have connections. In short, the group is a front for the Democratic Party. So how do the Democrats figure that dead cops will help elect Hillary president? After all, the Left tried this strategy once before back in 1968.....and it got Nixon elected president. Perhaps Obama accepts leftist mythology about 1968, or he may want to get Hillary out of the picture. Either way, the FBI investigation of Clinton Foundation is still in the pipeline. PeterKa (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2016 (EDT)

From what I've read here, BLM may actually be a front for the Communist Party USA.[49] Obama's involvement in agitating the BLM protesters to continue rioting, vandalizing and even targeting the police is making it more and more evident that the usurper in the White House has to be stopped. Northwest (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2016 (EDT)
A mad man elected by mad people. 6 months is going to feel like 7 more years.--Jpatt 11:05, 18 July 2016 (EDT)
Don't forget the Mass Media's likely involvement in agitating and rooting for the BLM protestors to do so. At least here in Atlanta, the major networks generally entered breaking news last week regarding the BLM protestors gathering near the Governor's Mansion. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2016 (EDT)

Something all Americans can agree on: Hillary's guilt

From Christie's post-speech interview with NBC:

O'DONNELL: You incited this crowd to get on their feet, to talk about her, to say guilty over and over again. Do you think that is unifying the party in a way that's good for the country?
CHRISTIE: Yes, yes I do. And I think you do, too.[50] PeterKa (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2016 (EDT)

Clinton's "Seizure"

Snopes has an article on the video: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-seizure-video/ It's already over a month old, and if you watch the other video they've included which shows the thirty seconds or so leading up to the reaction, it makes sense. She had just answered a question from the reporter over her left shoulder, and was immediately hit with a barrage of questions/microphones from the three reporters in front of her, causing her to jerk back in mock surprise. It makes sense in context. MatthewT (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2016 (EDT)

Scopes does make a good case on this matter and a better case than Vox Day (who cites Snopes).[51] So I removed the news post.
As far as her health, an excellent case can be made that the public needs to know more about her traumatic brain injury.[52]
I don't believe the mainstream news organizations are doing adequate reporting as far as her health and her various scandals. Where was the Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein like investigative reporting when it came to the DNC favoring Hillary over Sanders? The Washington Post has a large team of reporters digging into the various dealings of Trump. Why not the same degree of effort for Hillary? Conservative (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2016 (EDT)

Here's a gauntlet

[User:Conservative challenges PZ Myers to... something or other.

Here's two for User:Conservative:

  1. Prove PZ Myers has any awareness whatsoever of you or your blog
  2. Provide evidence the "Question Evolution" booklet for middle schoolers ever existed.

KenSr (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2016 (EDT)

Response to gauntlet challenge

Four points:

1. The User: Conservative account has been used by several editors and is being used by more than one editor. So your "You" and "Your" are wrongheaded.

2. Setting aside whether or not the Examining atheism blog is run by a member or members of the User: Conservative account, the blog post located HERE cites Myers citing the Examining atheism blog.

3. Upon further reflection, Myers wasn't widely recognized as the fifth horseman of New Atheism movement although he tried to "self-dub" himself as the 5th horseman. Furthermore, the New Atheism movement is dead. Freethoughtblogs is bleeding profusely in terms of its web traffic as can be seen HERE.

I guess I mentioned Myers on the front page out of reflexive nostalgia. But I removed him from the front page as he is a has been of a dead atheist movement. Global google searches for Myers has plunged over the years and the trend is downwards.

Myers isn't all that interesting as a person, but he has the potential to be interesting. However, right now he is in a secular leftist rut of uninterestingness (see: Atheism and inspiration).

4. The User: Conservative account cited the Question Evolution blog. You haven't show a link between the blog editors and the User: Conservative account in terms of a significant connection.

Also, you don't know if the "Question Evolution Book for Middle Schoolers" will soon be published or already has been published or if some tragic accident happened to the individual who was working on the book that will delay or prevent the book from being published. Do you think the book has or will be titled the "Question Evolution Book For Middle Schoolers". That is not exactly a catchy title. How would you know if the book has already been published or not? The book publishing industry is a large industry and there is self-publishing as well.

I know desperate evolutionists are obsessed with propping up their failing evolutionary paradigm and various evolutionists were upset that they could not satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists, but I think this obsession with the creation of a creationist book for middle schoolers is a desperate and petty act to gain some kind of victory.

There is no victory. You cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and global creationism is growing rapidly and creationism is even spreading in secular Europe. 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."[53]

I hope this clarifies matters. Conservative (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2016 (EDT)

I'd say you both clarified and (in Army terms) smoked him! This made me curious though; which editors use the Conservative account? If that's mod-only intel, please signal this to me by deleting this entry. --Pious (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2016 (CDT)
I would prefer not to say who the editors of the User: Conservative account are.Conservative (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2016 (EDT)

France Cathedral terror attack.

Considering that France just had a terror attack occur within a cathedral that resulted in the beheading of a priest by ISIS, I'm surprised there isn't any coverage on here. You do know that Christians, even if they were catholic, had just been attacked by ISIS, right? Pokeria1 (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2016 (EDT)

Britian's foreign secretary on foreigners

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson will have an interesting relationship with the next U.S. president, whoever it is. On Hillary: “She’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.” On Trump: “the only reason I wouldn't go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.”[54] All the same, he may a better relationship with the U.S. president than the leader of Turkey. His poem about Erdogan having sex with a goat won once won a prize of £1,000.[55] (I learned that "Ankara" rhymes with "thankera." Thankera Boris!) PeterKa (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2016 (EDT)

Examining Atheism

I notice that all links to this site have been deleted from Conservapedia and the site itself has had all it's posts deleted. what happened?--SammiL (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

The blog owner pulled down the blog with no warning or explanation. Conservapedia obviously couldn't keep links to a former blog on the main page.
It may forever be a mystery to why that blog was pulled down. The vast majority of people will not notice the blog was pulled down. It was a very new blog and post New Atheism being a dead movement, there appears to be little public interest in atheism.
With Europe waning in influence, atheism collapsing in China and Christianity growing rapidly in China, I see a bleak future for the promulgation of atheism.
Here is what the French philosopher Jun-Luc Nancy (who is probably an atheist based on the people who significantly influenced him) said, "In fact, there is no “West” anymore, and instead there are techno-economic poles of power whose visible heads are the United States of America and the Non-United States of Asia, but whose possessions and actions are found almost everywhere, and wherever there are resources to be exploited. Europe no longer has a consistency of its own, and it is subjected to this division of world powers."[56]
The USA has a lot of evangelicals and now evangelicalism is growing quickly in China (see: Growth of evangelical Christianity in China). I think the Protestant work ethic is help causing these countries to be dominant powers. See: The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China. Conservative (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
It occurred to me this morning. Given the economic dynamism associated with evangelical Christianity, the Protestant work ethic and the higher fertility rate of the religious over the irreligious to make this economic dynamism sustainable (irreligious have below replacement level of fertility. Also, replacement level of fertility makes the immigration of Muslims unnecessary. No: Muslim extremist violence/terrorism/high spending to monitor Muslim extremists in country/Cologne like sexual assaults, etc.), it makes atheist Bill Nye's claim that creationism will hold a nation back scientifically ridiculous. A more religious/creationist America does better than secular Europe as far as: technological/scientific innovation, new patents, innovative products/service being launched, etc. Conservative (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
My mistake, I thought it was your blog, signs such as SS Atheism being changed to HMS Atheism on Conservapedia and the blog almost simultaneously led me to this confusion as did the the almost identical presentation and writing style. I appologize for getting it wrong.--SammiL (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

I merely said the blog owner pulled it down without explanation. I didn't say whether or not it was a blog I contributed to or not. Conservative (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

Was it because PZ Myers tore it to shreds? RyanFT (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2016 (EDT)
Myers couldn't rip a wet paper bag to shreds. That is why he refuses to engage in debates with strong proponents of theism or biblical creation.
Of the few and declining number of people who know who Myers is post New Atheism dying as a movement, he is known for being shrill, mean-spirited, contentious and illogical (argument by assertion, attacking strawmen, etc.). Myers has critics from the atheist/theist camps who point out his frequent bouts of unreasonableness.
While Myers did make a legitimate criticism about a portion of one of the articles at that former blog (namely, the point about differentiating atheism from the atheist movement), he descended into secular leftist madness in the rest of his blog post.
The author of the blog mentioned in another related blog "Combating atheism" that the atheist movement had a schism and is imploding. In addition, it was mentioned that the global atheist population is a dying breed and in terms of global market share it is declining and this trend is expected to continue. Furthermore, it was mentioned that there is nothing exciting happening with the atheist population and it is receiving significantly less news coverage than during its New Atheism era. I will post an excerpt from this Combating atheism blog post directly below.
"Lately, the major news outlets have sparse reporting on the topic of atheism. And the few news stories they do have are often negative towards atheism or boring stories reporting on trivial matters. In short, "Atheism: The excitement is not raging."
There will be no glorious future battles in relation to atheism vs. religion, but rather a slow global attrition of the dying breed of atheists. This will be combined with a withering away of atheist influence in the media and the educational systems of the world.. The 21st century will be a horrible century for militant atheists and antitheists.
The growth of atheism in the twentieth century began with a bang due to the militant atheism associated with the Russian Revolution and the subsequent formation of the Soviet Union. The decline of atheism will be death by a thousand cuts due to demographic changes in the global population (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).
Periodically, I may choose to post to a newly created blog entitled Examining atheism. However, reporting on the losing atheist movement "team" could quickly grow to be tiresome, so it will be infrequent after awhile (given the amount of infighting going on they can hardly be called a team). I posted an initial post to the blog Examining Atheism so people would not go to an empty blog.
Today, this blog received over 1,400 page views which is not bad for a new blog with only 14 posts. At the same time, given the current state of affairs, a blog named "Examining atheism" is a better fit. In the 21st century, the rickety building of atheism won't be able to withstand the gale of the global resurgence of religion - especially the gusts of wind caused by the global growth of evangelical Christianity and the global growth of creationism."[57]
So the most reasonable explanation for the blog largely disappearing (its main page banner is still there) is that the blogger no longer wished to blog on the decline of global atheism via death by a thousand cuts. The blogger said: "Atheism: The excitement is not raging." And it is true that atheism is very boring (see: Atheism and inspiration).
Blogging is often best suited to topics which are exciting and have many newsworthy things happening within them. People often expect blogs to have fairly frequent blog posts. Evidently, the Christian blogger in question found the topic of covering the decline of atheism by death by a thousand cuts to be too boring for a blog! If only atheism were as exciting as Evangelical Christianity which is true and experiencing global market share growth! See also: Evidence for Christianity and Growth of evangelical Christianity). Conservative (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

By the way, over the years various people have humorous criticisms of Myers' folly. One of my favorites is Ray Comfort video recording Myers emphatically saying humans are fish.[58] It was like a scene out of the 1960's comedy "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" which featured a man being granted his wish to become a fish. Of course, Conservapedia pointing out how an overweight Myers had noticeable difficulty descending from the triceratops ride for kids at Ken Ham's Creation Museum was humorous too. If only Myers understood the field of applied biology better. He would have never allowed himself to become overweight! See: Essay: PZ Myers embarrasses himself at the Creation Museum

A tip for you. If you are going to carry on with the line that the blog was not yours and User: Conservative has more than one editor you really do need to sort out your pronouns.--SammiL (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

I explicitly said up above: "I merely said the blog owner pulled it down without explanation. I didn't say whether or not it was a blog I contributed to or not."

I and the other editors of the User: Conservative account rarely discuss our off wiki activities.

微乎微乎,至于无形;神乎神乎,至于无声;故能为敌之司命。 :) Conservative (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

Of course, alternative explanations could be: 1) A change of tactics/strategy on the part of the author/authors of Examining Atheism. After all, the internet is a big place and there are a myriad of direct/indirect ways of affecting the atheist movement. 2) Perhaps, the author/authors of the Examining Atheism feel global atheism is imploding and the best course of action in terms of reporting it is benign neglect. Most people rarely think about atheism (and have no desire to) and often atheist PR efforts are designed to be provocative (see: Atheism and public relations). Conservative (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

Might Trump win in a landslide?

No, but he can win with a degree of comfort. I cannot find the link right now but out of the swing states, Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, N Hants, Virginia etc only Virginia currently leans towards Clinton. Sanders polled over 13 million votes in the Dem contest and perhaps half of them will not vote for Clinton. Most will not vote for Trump either but will vote for Jill Stein severly damaging Clinton's prospects. Trump has to be favoutie right now and I think he will "Pull a Leicester", ie. rank outsider (mid 2015) to champion.--SammiL (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

A lot of liberals dislike both candidates, so certainly a number of them will not be voting, or will vote minority party. I can't say Trump will win in a landslide, or even that he will win, though. Trump has a lot of enthusiasm behind him, but as Rush Limbaugh says, "the Clintons always pull through." I'm afraid that through the gender card, fraud, and bribery, Hillery Clinton will win anyway, even after loosing Sanders votes. I hope not, but a large number of her supporters are behind her simply because she is a woman. --David B (TALK) 09:34, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

The archive index

I believe that Cons's rebuild of the archive index is correct, and JPatt's reversion is incorrect. The archives go up to 141, not 131. Please check this. SamHB (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2016 (EDT)

Some food for thought about patriotism, optimism, and American exceptionalism, from the Dem convention

There is an interesting article on the "Talking Points Memo" website. [59] This is a liberal website, but the article was a collection of comments from conservative writers, radio hosts, and such. The gist of the article was that the Democratic convention was about patriotism, optimism, and American exceptionalism, things that used to be the property of Republicans. Republicans used to own these positive themes, while Democrats were spouting tree-hugging pot-smoking nonsense. But this time, Democrats were chanting "USA! USA!", whereas Republicans had been chanting "Lock her up! Lock her up!" Interesting quote, from John Podhoretz, former speech writer for Ronald Reagan: "Take about five paragraphs out of that Obama speech and it could have been a Reagan speech. Trust me. I know." SamHB (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2016 (EDT)

Technically, people were chanting "USA! USA!" at the RNC, too. --David B (TALK) 13:45, 30 July 2016 (EDT)
That could be. I didn't watch either convention; just a few clips from news sites. The comment about the chants was from the cited article, not from me. SamHB (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2016 (EDT)
What a weird party the Democrats have became. If racist police and class division don't destroy us, global warming will. But be happy -- Obama is president! Obama's quest for a legacy trumps all else. Justified or not, the country is in a dark mood now. The wrong track number is at 68 percent.[60] The sunny DNC is almost certainly bad politics. But with a second FBI investigation rolling along, Hillary has no choice -- Obama owns her. PeterKa (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2016 (EDT)

Trump's poll numbers plummet

With the nomination safely his, Trump has gone back to being Trump, a man who has decidedly mixed feelings about allowing presidential politics to cramp his "politically incorrect" style: See "A Rigged Outcome? Trump May Be Engineering It Himself." His poll numbers have gone through the floor. His favorables are 34 to 59[61] and he is almost 7 points behind Hillary in the matchups.[62] Some of this is Hillary's post-convention bounce. But mostly Trump can blame himself. Traditionally, the independents make up their minds in early September. So he still has few weeks to turn this around. We saw this all before in June, so we know what he has to do. Start reading professionally written speeches off a Teleprompter. Keep the focus on Hillary. Do fund raising and run TV ads. Turn the Twitter account over to a staffer. In short, get your eye back the ball, Trump. PeterKa (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

Only if one believes what liberal polls say - which, to be honest, I don't. Northwest (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
The DNC had the last convention. In thirty days, the post convention bounce issue will be settled. In addition, I doubt many people are closely following politics during the summer.
The five main remaining issues are: the debates; fundraising; media coverage and the public's response to it; ground game; and will Trump be more disciplined in his attacks.
Trump could easily win the debates, but I am not sure about the last four. In addition, Trump wins on enthusiasm of his followers, but Hillary may have enough foot soldiers to drag enough Democratic voters across the finish line.
A six issue is various old/new/revived scandals upsetting the apple cart. Conservative (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

A good read on the recent polls. [63]--Jpatt 11:04, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

The liberal media are smearing Donald Trump with everything they have now, an it's like the famous George Foreman versus Muhammad Ali championship bout. Foreman, who was the hardest puncher in boxing history, threw everything he had at Ali for multiple rounds:[64]

I thought I'd knock him out in one or two rounds, but about the third round, I'd hit him, and he fell on me. I thought, 'That's it.' And he started screaming, 'That all you got, George?! Show me something!' And I knew then I was in the wrong place at the wrong time," he said.

The liberal media has immense power, but it lacks patience. It is making the mistake of immunizing Trump against criticism when it would count. Come October, Trump will be down by only 5 points and there will be nothing left for the media to criticize him with. Then the middle class comes roaring back for Trump.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

If Trump loses, the Republican Party has a tradition of candidates running a second time. Maybe he will run again in 2020 if he loses. Nationalism/anti-immigration and tougher trade agreements are ideas that are picking up steam in Western politics and my guess is that Hillary will be a disaster if elected. In addition, her unpleasant personality could easily doom her to being a one-term president.
Trump saying if he loses his candidacy will have been a complete waste of time would seem to indicate he may not run again though. On the other hand, he might relish running against her a second time and beating her. Conservative (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
It is only August, so Trump could turn things around if he decides to be more judicious in who he counterpunches and how he counterpunches. Contrastly, he could rile up enough moderate Republicans/voters or somewhat moderate Republicans/voters to make a second run impossible.
On the other hand, since Trump became the nominee once fairly easily, he could theoretically do it a second time.
A lot depends on how close this presidential election is on whether Trump or Hillary can run again. My guess is that Hillary could only lose in a landslide if she was a disaster in the debates. For that to happen Trump would have to do a lot of debate preparation and/or win the debate by alpha-male bravado and populism. Alternatively, Trump could get under Hillary's skin and cause her to lose her temper and expose her inward nastiness. Conservative (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
Hillary and Trump are both unlikely to run again, in part because of their ages. Also, there is not a tradition (not in the last 40 years) of a presidential contender losing and then winning in another try. Many examples without success: Al Gore, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Michael Dukakis, etc.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

You could easily be right.

I thought about their ages. Trump has a lot of energy and is in good health. Hillary's health is not the best, but she has a lot of ambition. Plus, it's a woman's turn as far as identity politics goes. But the farther we go out, the more it will be a Hispanics turn as far as racial/gender politics due the growth of the Hispanic population. Conservative (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

Another thing Trump has going for him is his ability to stir public interest as can be seen by this Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Google trends graph where more people are doing Google searches on Trump. I don't think 4 years would diminish his star/celebrity power much. Conservative (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

I would put the odds of Trump running again to be less than 20%. I don't think he will want to put himself through the aggravation again. Also, potentially losing a second time might be a gamble Trump is unwilling to take due to his "winner brand".

There could be more celebrity presidential candidates in the future though.

And if Trump wins, it appears as if Cruz will still run in the 2020 primary.[65] Conservative (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

Hillary is not mentally ill

Hillary is not mentally ill. She is just evil and a manifestation of the immature/selfish baby boomer generation. If elected, she may be the last baby boomer to be elected president of the United States. George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the 2016 election candidates display poor leadership and are a reflection of the baby boomer incompetence and immaturity. Trump has some good ideas and is a smart man, but his narcissism/egotism/immaturity (which is very common in baby boomers) causes him to engage in battles/behaviors which are unwarranted.

Psychology has way too much influence in the United States and is dominated by a lot of pseudoscience that cannot be replicated in experiments.

Liberals try to tar their opponents with bogus charges of mental illness/instability. Let's not do the same. Conservative (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

Agreed, I would not go as far as saying she is evil but she is deeply unpleasent and she is in politics to benefit one person, Hilary Clinton. This has been proved time and time again when she has used her high profile to charge $100 K for an after dinner speech. She also cannot be trusted, I do not think she showed criminal intent over the E_Mail scandal but she did act with criminal neglegence. She should be attacked on these issues, crocked Hilary.--SammiL (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
She's in politics to benefit one person and she can't be trusted. She sounds like an evil person to me! Crooked Hillary!!!Conservative (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
Sorry, crooked not crocked. I love Trump's names for his rivals, crocked Hilary, little Marco, low-energy Jeb, lying Ted:) He does seem to have some respect for Sanders though.--SammiL (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

What's good for the goose....Well if you watch the video, they make a very convincing case. When will Hillary release her medical records? It's important.--Jpatt 14:55, 5 August 2016 (EDT)

How accurate is modern polling when it comes to predicting election results? Is social media a better indicator?

"Amid reports today that Gallup, one of the longest running political pollsters, is sitting out the 2016 presidential cycle, concerns grow among the entire polling industry about whether current methodology remains sound. The questions have arisen as broadcast outlets continue to rely on poll numbers to determine which candidates are invited to appear on stage in presidential primary debates."[66]

"Polls in Britain had some poor results in the last few years, including in the Scottish referendum and recent parliamentary elections. In the United States, referendum polls can also often be less accurate than general election surveys."[67]

How accurate is modern polling when it comes to predicting election results?

Is the social media strength of a candidate a better indicator?

Is Trump winning in a landslide delusional?

Personally, I think the Trump vs. Hillary debates could be a decisive factor. Hillary avoids being cross-examined like the plague and she rarely interacts with reporters. Conservative (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2016 (EDT)

About 100 days until a presidential election, the polls have had a 70% accuracy rate.[68]
Various assumptions about voters may not apply this time though.[69][70]Conservative (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2016 (EDT)

DNC noise and cell phone jamming

This is ridiculous. Apparently, the democrats used white noise machines during their convention to dull down the voices to Sanders supporting states. Even more ridiculous is that it sounds suspiciously like they used cell phone jammers to block reception for protesters outside. Hillary really didn't want any bad press. [71] --David B (TALK) 12:38, 13 August 2016 (EDT)

America lately has been catching up to Europe in terms of its values as far as a large segment of the population. Hence, the popularity of Sanders.
Trump is a sign of the far right/right wing populism/alt-right/anti-immigration gaining popularity like it is in Europe.
In Europe some of the demonstrations are large and boisterous. In the future, I think it is going to take a lot more than white noise machines to deal with protests. Conservative (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2016 (EDT)
It's frightening to see that Public Education has so thoroughly brainwashed people that they think socialism will help them. As Hitler said as he pushed his Hitler Youth program, "control the youth and you control the nation." We have our own little successful Hitler Youth program, and no one ever sees it, not even most of the teachers. But here I am preaching to the choir.
You might be right. Tensions are high between the militant ignorant and the angry abused. The question is who will win, but as long as our Hitler Youth program continues, I can almost guarantee they will. --David B (TALK) 14:59, 13 August 2016 (EDT)

Devout Christian sprinter Trayvon Bromell ...

... came dead last in the same final that devout Christian Ussain Bolt won. I don't think God picks sides - these people win or lose based on their hard work and support. RyanFT (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2016 (EDT)

Where is your proof and evidence that God does not pick sides in matters both big and small in various instances? One can look at many events in history and see providence at work (For example, the Six-Day War). See: God's hand in the Six-Day War.
In addition, please see: Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism Conservative (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2016 (EDT)
There are so many examples and counter-examples of people of all sorts of faith triumphing over and being defeated by one another that we would be here all day if we went down that path, and I suspect you have more time to put into the argument than I. Instead friend, perhaps you could offer proof of some ways in which God's favour has been manifested in a sprinter such that he has been granted an advantage? RyanFT (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2016 (EDT)
The point is not that God has a preference about who wins, but rather that athletes inspired by Christianity do better than those who reject it, such as atheists. Likewise, I don't think God prefers for atheists to be obese, but something about atheism leads to that result.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2016 (EDT

"Blessed to finish my first race for the season with a W," the 29-year-old Jamaican sprinter known as the fastest man in the world tweeted to nearly 4 million fans on Saturday.[72] The fastest man in the world gives God the glory! Many atheists are incapable of running this fast (see: Atheism and obesity). :) Conservative (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2016 (EDT)

"Morrow up to Silk. Five seconds left in the game. Do you believe in miracles? ... Yes!" - Sports announcer at the 1980 Hockey Olympic game where the American Olympic Hockey team triumphed over the team of the godless Soviet Union and won a gold medal.
"...Team USA’s 1980 Olympic hockey victory over the Soviet Union truly did seem ordained from heaven." - Real Clear Sports.[73]
I hope this clarifies matters. :) Conservative (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2016 (EDT)
It does not. Men are flawed and these quotes prove nothing. Andy's point about inspiration driving success, however, makes more sense. I just have this thing about people selling incredible achievements short by attributing divine intervention RyanFT (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2016 (EDT)
Faith is something more than inspiration, but does not require divine intervention. Indeed, many translations of the Bible do not refer to miracles but to "signs" of the underlying reality, which is divine rather than atheistic.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2016 (EDT)
RyanFT, you said, "Men are flawed". Flawed? That implies an ideal standard for a being - namely God. I take it it you are not an atheist. If you are an atheist, using the definition of atheism used by encyclopedias of philosophy, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true? Conservative (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2016 (EDT)

Gabby Douglas

From the linked article "She was attacked on social media for not placing her hand over her heart during the playing of the national anthem after the Americans won the team all-around event ". What would Conservapedia's attitude be were an atheist athlete, if such a thing exists, to do the same during a medal ceremony? Davidspencer (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2016 (EDT)

I don't think conservatives criticize this sort of thing by athletes, particularly when inadvertent. Regardless, the bullying of Gabby Douglas on social media has extended far beyond (and also preceded) the issue of the medal ceremony. The only plausible motivation for the repeated bullying is because she is an outspoken Christian. But thanks for your comment.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2016 (EDT)
An American, black, woman, Olympic athlete in who is an atheist - very unlikely!!! (See: Western atheism and race and Atheism and women and American atheism and Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism).
In addition, Gabby experienced poverty as a child.[74] And we know that Western atheists tend to be arrogant individuals who are fairly well off and foolishly think they don't need God (see: Claims of being an oppressed minority by American atheists are often not taken seriously and Atheism and arrogance and Atheism and Hell). Conservative (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2016 (EDT)

As usual, I am charmed by Cons's statistical claims, and especially by his attempts to support his assertions by references (7 of them!) to his own writings. Are we supposed to read them??? And is Gabby unlikely relative to the whole population of the planet? Relative to Christians? To atheists? To Olympic athletes? To black people? You have to define the universe of your statistical sample.


There is a good summary of the criticisms here. They are, of course, really stupid. She got criticized for carelessly not placing her hand over her heart at a ceremony (no one doubts her patriotism!), and for her hair (really, what's wrong with it?) and for her facial expression (huh???)

None of the criticisms, at least in the referenced article, were for her being a Christian. So I don't follow Andy's line of reasoning that "The only plausible motivation ..." is that she is a Christian. Are there known criticisms, not in the referenced article, over her Christianity? Can you cite them? Or is there some line of reasoning that, whenever a Christian is criticized, there must be some religious motivation underlying it? I am not aware of any such line of reasoning. And, as a Christian who is occasionally criticized for things (not related to religion), I think I would have noticed this.

It's really unfortunate that these utterly unfair criticisms were made, and that they bothered her. And may have contributed to her less-than-perfect performance. I can only say that, as a Christian, she knows how to rise above these small-minded attacks. I'm tempted to put in a few references to Matthew here, but I don't need to. SamHB (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2016 (EDT)

I do not want to date myself, but I grew up in a traditional town with very traditional teachers who were strict about civic protocols. We were told repeatedly that one should put his hand on his heart for reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and should stand at attention facing the flag for the national anthem. If someone switched them around, they were rebuked by the teacher (on the assumption that the student could not tell the difference between the two different items.) Who said that you are supposed to put your hand over your heart for the national anthem? Nor should you try to sing the Pledge of Allegiance. JDano (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2016 (EDT)
SamHB, I didn't merely attempt to support my claims via various articles the User: Conservative account wrote. I did support my claims.
Second, your whining about me using articles that the User: Conservative account wrote is an example of someone using the genetic fallacy. In addition, the 7 articles are supported via reasonable sources with relevant information and the articles are footnoted. So you are being rather petty. Furthermore, the British atheist editor of Conservapedia EJamesW admitted about the atheism articles posted by the User: Conservative account: "...they're very detailed, thorough and have lots of quotes and citations." (see: Essay: A British atheist on Conservapedia's atheism articles).
Third, as far as your comment about readers taking the time to read the 7 articles, I certainly wouldn't expect someone who is being illogical, engaging in petty complaining and being intellectually lazy to read the articles. So I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't read the 7 articles.
If you could be more logical, less intellectually lazy and less petty in the future, it would be appreciated. Conservative (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2016 (EDT)
(edit conflict) In independent response to SamHB's comments, they strike me as a classic example of liberal denial. Why was Gabby Douglas so unfairly criticized? That question cries out for an answer. And the answer is obvious: because she was a Tim Tebow-type of athlete, and being African American with such outspoken Christianity is something liberals don't like. So they worked overtime to try to bring her down. It's no answer to say that she should have withstood it, as SamHB implies, which simply adds to the unfairness of it all.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2016 (EDT)
The word "denial", as you are using it, refers to a pathological refusal to accept that which is clearly true. What I do not accept is your claim, a few paragraphs above, that "The only plausible motivation for the repeated bullying is because she is an outspoken Christian." Can you explain your line of reasoning? Can you explain why you say that "outspoken Christianity is something liberals don't like"? None of my acquaintances, most of whom are liberals, dislikes Christianity, outspoken or otherwise. I read a great number of news articles, columns, and editorials from the mainstream media, which, as you know, is dominated by liberals. This includes NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, WSJ, NYT, WashPo, HuffPo, etc. (See, Cons, I'm not lazy about reading stuff; just about reading your stuff.) I don't recall anyone writing in opposition to Christianity. And I would notice such things. Do you hang out with the wrong sorts of acquaintances? Do you perhaps pick this stuff up from the sleazy/tabloid press (Twitter, Facebook, etc?) Or perhaps from the sorts of weird things that Cons reads so much? Can you give a specific citation of any article in the mainstream press of someone "disliking Christianity"? Or disliking Gabby Douglas because she is a Christian? The only things I can find are the scurrilous garbage described in the HuffPo article I cited above. And none of that was over her religion; it was about her hair or her facial expression. Complete garbage.
About saying she should have withstood it, I was not excusing these attacks in any way. I was simply saying that, in accordance with, for example, Matthew 5:10-11, she knows that she is blessed. Jesus was not excusing the persecution, just saying that the victims are blessed, and that their reward in heaven will be great. I was simply saying that Miss Douglas might draw comfort from knowing that. SamHB (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2016 (EDT)
SamHB, you're free to deny obvious bias against outspoken Christian athletes. But be aware that determined denials ultimately lose credibility.
Do you even deny that Tim Tebow was criticized more harshly, and more unfairly, than other quarterbacks? If you take your denial to that level, the loss in credibility will be complete. If, however, you admit that liberals criticized Tebow more harshly than others, then why do you deny it with respect to Gabby Douglas? Notice that you never provide an alternative plausible explanation for the unfair criticism of Douglas.
You say that liberals do not criticize their Christianity specifically, but it is obvious why they criticize other things instead. If any liberal criticized someone directly for being a Christian, then the liberal would lose support. Liberals are not that dumb.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2016 (EDT)
Maybe. Then again, Seth MacFarlane DOES constantly demonize Christianity directly, and last I checked, he didn't lose his support from fellow liberals (otherwise, they would have all but ensured he be shut down), so we can't say with absolute certainty that they aren't that dumb. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2016 (EDT)
There is a long article in the LA Times about her demeanor during the National Anthem. But I have not been able to find any article, column, or editorial about her religion. (Though I have not, and will not, scan the garbage side of the Internet.) Aside from not putting her hand over her heart, it's mostly about her hair and her facial expression. And Huffington Post, not surprisingly, thinks her race figures into the criticism.
You say "That question [why she was criticized] cries out for an answer. And the answer is obvious." No, sometimes questions don't cry out for an answer. Sometimes garbage is just garbage. And you have no evidence in support of the answer you propose.
The Tim Tebow case was very different. And it had very clear religious overtones.
@Cons: If you want to make personal attacks against me, my talk page is always open. And it might help avoid distractions on this page.
SamHB (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2016 (EDT)
SamHB, you wrote: "If you want to make personal attacks against me, my talk page is always open. And it might help avoid distractions on this page."
Sam HB, there must be a reason why you are still not addressing your use of the genetic fallacy in order to make an illogical criticism (see my commentary below). What is the reason? Conservative (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2016 (EDT)

Aschafly, did you notice that SamHB is silent about his use of the genetic fallacy in terms of his "reasoning". He doesn't appear to want to address the matter. I believe this is because he wishes to continue to be illogical and/or he is proud and does not wish to admit error.

If only SamHB could point out a single factual error in one of my atheism articles or point out a single use of fallacious reasoning in one of the articles, then he could actually provide constructive feedback. Given that liberal Christianity is often anti-supernatural in its theology, it must irk him that he cannot provide legitimate criticism of User: Conservative created atheism articles.

Lastly, given that atheism is wicked, it should not surprise SamHB that Conservapedia's atheism articles point this out. So his "weird" charge is rather petty. Also, liberal/progressive journalists have a long tradition of investigative/"muckraking" journalism. So SamHB's irritation with the research of the User: Conservative about the wickedness of atheism and/or atheists (which is fully supported via footnotes in the articles) is rather hypocritical. Conservative (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2016 (EDT)

USA has less gold per capita than Germany, Great Britain 4x.

As it stands Germany has one gold medal per 10,000,000 people, The USA has 1 gold per 12,000,000 and Great Britain has one gold per 4,000,000. So Germany has more gold per capita then the USA with Britian having 3 times as many gold per capita than the USA, including two gold in gymnastics. Rather a poor argument me thinks.--RichardsonD1 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2016 (EDT)

Update: USA 1 gold for every 11,500,000. Germany 1 gold for every 8,000,000. The gap is getting bigger, no wonder you are such an unsuccessful lawyer with such pathetic arguments.--RichardsonD1 (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2016 (EDT)
Criticizing Andy's skill as a lawyer is completely off-topic and inappropriate here. Though criticism of his skill at statistical analysis and at drawing causative conclusions from observations of seemingly unrelated observations is certainly fair. SamHB (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2016 (EDT)
The USA have 4 gymnastics golds, all won by Simone Biles who went to, drumroll, public school.--RichardsonD1 (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2016 (EDT)
Behold, I give thee, Fabian Hambuechen [75] German public school 1, US homeschooled, 0.--RichardsonD1 (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2016 (EDT)
Germany, for what it's worth, won a bronze gymnastics medal today. http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/uneven-bars-final-germanys-sophie-scheder-finishes-third BrianKay (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2016 (EDT)

Britain/Germany both have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (see: Protestant cultural legacies). Given the Protestant work ethic, it is really not surprising that they racked up gold medals (See: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism).

My guess is that France/Portugal/Italy were not able to effectively compete against these two countries with a Protestant cultural legacy. And Cuba didn't even come close. Conservative (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2016 (EDT)

Most successful countries at the Olympics in terms of per capita success.[76] Notice that 9 out of 10 of the countries have a Protestant cultural legacy (Estonia has a Protestant cultural legacy). The Bible remains the greatest book ever written! Conservative (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2016 (EDT)

The reason why the Germans who won the gold medals went to public school is because homeschooling is illegal in Germany. Besides, it's quite amazing that several homeschoolers in the USA were good enough to go the Olympics. BTW, Biles was homeschooled[77] for a time. Also, see this [78]. Good evidence that homeschooling works. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2016 (EDT)

In furtherance of the insights by the 1990'sguy, the sole German medal winner in gymnastics (only a bronze) is by a woman who is relatively old for a female gymnast, and who has been out of the German public schools for at least a year. In an online interview, she used profanity to describe the complexity of the German school system, which I don't care to link to.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2016 (EDT)

If you mean " standing up against the homosexual agenda." as murder[79][80][81] then yes, they are very strong. They stand up to the homosexual agenda just as Omar Mateen(Orlando shooter) did. By the way they are third--RichardsonD1 (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2016 (EDT)

Richardsonb, what are your thoughts about homosexuals having higher per capita health problems - including sexually transmitted diseases? See: Homosexuality and health. Conservative (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2016 (EDT)

In summary...

... this entry

"Hooray! American arrested in foreign country!"

Does that sum it up, Andy? Why do you hate America? BryanL (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2016 (EDT)

I beleived he is speaking against the American news media, not the American people. --David B (TALK) 10:10, 18 August 2016 (EDT)
Andy Schlafly just put on the main page: Conservapedia proven right, again: liberal media favorite Ryan Lochte apparently "vandalized Rio gas station, got in fight," and then the media unfairly smeared Brazil with Lochte's tale of being robbed at gunpoint. [82] Conservative (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2016 (EDT)

"Pay to play" at Hillary's State Department

How much was face time with Secretary Clinton worth? For Bahrain, it was $100,000 from the government plus another “$25,000 to $50,000” from the state oil company.[83] Get this: "Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain wanted to reach the secretary of State, he was told to call the Clinton Foundation to make an appointment." The prince had already donated $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative -- and they were still shaking him for money! See, the prince made a rookie mistake, which is the only reason we know about his travails. Dealing with the State Department leaves a paper trail, which has been uncovered thanks to the magnificent work of Judicial Watch. What he should have done is go directly to Huma. Huma turns out to be the link between Clinton and wealthy Arab donors -- the epicenter of corruption. This level of corruption sounds less like modern times and more like the stuff Jefferson's diplomats had to deal with when they visited less civilized regions such as Paris or the Barbary Coast. Someone needs to ask Clinton which donor paid how much to cancel the Benghazi rescue mission. See "E-mail: Military Offered to Send Rescue Team to Benghazi During Attack." PeterKa (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2016 (EDT)

It's not that Hillary is insensitive to ethical concerns. She is attacking this problem, but in a manner that reminds one of Augustine ("Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.") See "Ethicists scoff at Clinton Foundation transition plan". Will she really be less greedy as a president? Let's not find out. PeterKa (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2016 (EDT)
Are you concerned that you might not be able to continue to pay your usual bribes to Hillary after she is elected president? Well, worry no more! She's already working on that: "Clintons Already Planning Next Stage of Corruption." The Wall Street Journal spells it out: "the [Clinton] foundation’s largest project, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, might continue to accept foreign government and corporate funding," PeterKa (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2016 (EDT)

Trump reverses immigration stance

We all saw this one a mile off, didn't we? "Krauthammer: Trump Immigration Stance Exactly What He Denounced Bush, Soft-Liners For Taking." The only surprise is, Why didn't Trump reverse himself right after clinching the nomination? That's what pundit after pundit predicted during the primaries. As long as the alternative is a woman who is determined to sell America out to the Gulf Arabs, he's got my vote. As Hillary's health declines, Huma will become the real president. Huma's mom wrote an article defending the 9/11 attack.[84] If either Hillary or Huma disagree, they haven't said anything. Really, you might as well vote for ISIS. PeterKa (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2016 (EDT)

FBI Director Comey put us under Roman law when he announced that Hillary could not be prosecuted because she didn't have criminal intent, or mens rea as the Romans called it. Here is another famous principle of Roman Law: Silence implies consent, qui tacet consentire videtur. PeterKa (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2016 (EDT)

Hillary on women and children

From a recent Hillary Clinton speech: "During the raid to kill bin Laden, when every second counted, our SEALs took the time to move the women and children in the compound to safely. Donald Trump may not get it, but that's what honor looks like."[85] Yeah, and Obama also ordered that all the men in the compound be shot on sight. Why was it so important to end bin Laden's life? Because Obama had already promised to close Guantanamo. Quick! Get the man another Nobel Peace Prize. I think a few Branch Davidian children may have survived the Waco raid. So Bill deserves a silver star, at least.
"Take no prisoners" was once a metaphor for extreme ruthlessness. Yet it is Obama's literal policy toward Jihadis. Don't get me wrong. I'm happy bin Laden got what was coming to him. But don't let Hillary convince you that Republicans are ruthless while Democrats have "honor." PeterKa (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2016 (EDT)