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

Liberals are pantywaists. They have a weak ideology. They will be defeated

See also: Essay: Liberals are pantywaists. They have a weak ideology. They will be defeated.

Four pieces of evidence that liberals are pantywaists and will be defeated:

1. "Liberals worldwide seem to have concluded, with a collective sigh of relief, that Macron’s emphatic victory is a sign that the global “populist” wave has peaked, and that time is on their side. Such optimism is premature. The weakness of Macron’s appeal—and strength of Le Pen’s—among many young French voters is further evidence of a disquieting truth: In many parts of the world, the young may simply care less about liberal democratic values than they once did."[1]

2. The Next Generation of Americans (Gen Z) May Be the Most Conservative Since WWII.[2]

3. The ability to bounce back after many significant defeats is a key to long term victory. How emotionally resilient are liberals? Will they be able to withstand multiple big defeats over a period of years? In addition, the ability to: pull yourself together and understand why you were defeated; study the opposition and know thy enemy; and come up with a rational plan to eventually win is a key to long term victory.

4. Furthermore, not only do liberals have to come up with a long term term plan, but it has to be a workable long term plan. Long term, how economically viable is leftist ideology? Does the USA and most Western European countries have high and unsustainable levels debt? Does Japan have a huge and unsustainable amount of government debt? Is Venezuela one of the worst economies in the world? Was a very large part of the Soviet Union's collapse due to economic reasons? Will more and more young people sour on liberalism when the consequences of high government debt hit countries which supported liberalism? Do we liver in a global economy where a lower amount of government debt will be a competitive advantage for countries over the long term? Long term, will lack of economic growth due to high levels of governments force liberal governments to trim overly generous social programs loved by liberals?

To answers these questions please read this paper issued by the European Central Bank: The impact of high and growing level of government debt

I hope this clarifies matters. :)Conservative (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

I, for one, welcome our new conservative overlords. JohnZ (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
JohnZ, I added point #4 which is a capstone to my argument. Conservative (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the heads up. Whilst you're gazing into your crystal ball, you might want to ask it about the industrialisation of Africa vs. increasing automation in the developed world. Both will be disruptive forces, and the interplay between them will be fascinating to watch. JohnZ (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
It'd not going to happen anytime soon now the Hillary Clinton and the neocolonialists put Africa back in chains. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 19:43, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Tell that to China. I doubt they're spending all that money on infrastructure just for the warm glow it gives them inside. JohnZ (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

JohnZ, it is not a matter of crystal ball gazing. It is just a matter of taking into account broad trends, looking at key indicators and having a pretty good idea of what is true and what is untrue.

I will point out that I was correct before in my prognostications:

Granted that Donald Trump is not conservative and more of a right-wing populist, but he did pick Mike Pence as his running mate, appoint Betty Devos as his Secretary of Education and put Ben Carson in charge of HUD. And if Jesus tarries, conservatism/right-wing politics and fundamentalist/conservative religion will continue to grow.

Already in Britain, the birth place of Darwinism, we have seen secularism not advance for 2 years in a row and religiosity actually grew this past year. See: UK and secularism

By the way, have you examined the resource: Evidence for Christianity vs. evidence for atheism? Conservative (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

I'm glad we agree on Trump, at least. You should probably worry more about the impact his inevitable implosion will have on the GOP's electoral prospects, and on the credibility of those in the conservative media who cheered him on all the way. JohnZ (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
No biggee. We survived Nixon. We survived th Baby Bush. We'll survive Trump. Don't you find it telling that Trump critics have to resort to using George W. Bush to attack Trump? RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 21:18, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Nixon instituted wage and price controls. Not a conservative. GW Bush increased government regulations on business and ran up the government debt. His "compassionate conservatism" was not conservatism.
JohnZ, more importantly, perhaps you missed the terms "long range trends" and "key indicators" (which include economic indicators such a government debt and GNP growth). Trump/Brexit are merely birth pangs of right-wing politics to come. Religious conservatism will fuel right-wing politics.
Lastly, I expanded the essay Liberals are pantywaists. They have a weak ideology. They will be defeated.. Please read the latest version which is the finalized version. Conservative (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Regarding Trump, so far his policies have been very conservative -- repealing regulations, nationalism, securing the border and immigration enforcement, judges, etc. He would need to change his policies quite a bit for me to change my mind. I'm just worried he's going to listen to the leftist establishment and stay in that Paris Climate Agreement. Other than that and the whole Jerusalem embassy thing, I think he's taken very conservative stances. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

User: JohnZ, you quote William Empson on your user page who was an English literary critic and poet who was critical of Christianity. Are you from the UK? Second, who predicted the fall of Richard Dawkins first - you or an evangelical Christian conservative at the User: Conservative account? Second, who first predicted the recent stalling and eventual falling of British secularism/irreligion which has occurred in the last 2 years? Was it you or an evangelical Christian conservative using the User: Conservative account? If you are from the UK, why should we trust your political commentary over the commentary of an evangelical Christian conservative who has a better track than you when it comes to predictions? If you are from the UK and an atheist, you can't even predict what is going to happen in your own backyard let alone America and the world as a whole!

Admit your utter defeat JohnZ and create a 6,500 word article on the topic of Propaganda in the Soviet Union as an act of contrition! Conservative (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

JohnZ, another point. Is a Trump implosion inevitable? First, liberals said he couldn't win the primary. And then many liberals said he couldn't possibly win the election. And after he won the election, many liberals claimed he was not their president.
One thing I can say for certain is that the Democrats can't implode. They have lost 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts since Obama was first elected president and then they lost the White House. So the implosion pretty much happened already. For the first time in history, Deomcrats do not control a single legislative chamber in the Southern USA. Overall, the party is now at its lowest point at the state level since 1920.
Trump's reelection is still within the realm of possibility and you didn't give me one single reason why his implosion is "inevitable".
It is true that the Democrats/liberals are making it very difficult for Trump to govern, but that is a sign of their desperation. There are like rats trapped in a corner. Conservative (talk)
Trump 2020 raises record $314,000 in just one day.[3]. U.S. News & World Report: Donald Trump Will Likely Win Reelection in 2020.[4] Newsweek: 2020 ELECTION BETTING ODDS PEG TRUMP AS FAVORITE.[5]
JohnZ, Trump's implosion is inevitable? Conservative (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
He's likely British - he used the British spelling, "Industrialisation," instead of "Industrialization." He might be Canadian though. He's certainly wrong about a human imploding, though; that's doesn't happen.----Nathan (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
Abcqwe, I hope he is British. The Brits are used to being in a declining empire. So as the secular leftist ideological empire continues to unravel, it will not be so painful to him. He will just keep a stiff upper lip like an Englishman should.
Unfortunately, Richard Dawkins was not able to take his defeat at the hands of feminists with a stiff upper lip. He whined about being bullied by feminists. See: Unlike Napoléon Bonaparte, Richard Dawkins failed to take his Waterloo like a man.
Very often there are 5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.
Many secular leftists have moved beyond the denial stage of secular leftism dying and they are at the Dawkian anger stage (see: Richard Dawkins and anger). The secular leftist PZ Myers is at the anger/depression stage of secular leftism dying as can be seen HERE and HERE.
Hopefully, most secular leftists will soon move to the stage that the agnostic, academic Eric Kaufmann has reached which is the acceptance of the eventual death of secular leftism.[6]
I am afraid that JohnZ is still in the denial stage of secular leftism dying.
The ex-atheist C.S. Lewis at first resisted the death of atheism within himself. But he eventually hecame a Christian and was surprised by joy. One thing for sure, should Jesus tarry, the dying of secular leftism in Britain will make Britain a cheerier and cheerier place at Christmastime each year. Conservative (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2017 (EDT)

Since this country isn't even close to a theocracy I think secularism is safe.User:Pruno

Yet when secularism peaked, we weren't a communist state (in which atheism is mandated). It doesn't take a theocracy for Christianity to flourish; it flourished in colonial America, in European monarchies, in the first republics of Latin America, and in the new African nations. Christian institutions burgeon hidden in China today, and can do the same in a democratic republic. Also, sign comments by typing four tildes.--Nathan (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
User:Pruno, look at the history of the New Atheism movement. It was launched not because of a concern of an impending theocracy, but due to anger that religious people had a significant influence in public affairs. It was also due to anger that the secularization thesis had proved to be false.
Also, there may be some good news about Richard Dawkins given his health condition of high blood pressure. He may have moved beyond anger at Muslims and he may be at the bargaining or even acceptance stage. His foundation says it is now interested in the civil rights of Muslims and that it joined an interfaith organization.[7] But who knows with Dawkins. It could just be a public relations ploy given the flack he has received about his comments about women/Muslims.
Will Richard Dawkins eat shish kabobs with his Muslim friends at their Ramadan dinners? Conservative (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
The word you're looking for is "iftar," the post-sunset mean of Ramadan.--Nathan (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
Not eating in daylight. Has science proven there's any health benefit to this? AFAIK, there's not. Whatsamatter with science? Doesn't have the cahoonies to challenge the Koran? RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 12:17, 22 May 2017 (EDT)

@Conservative: Apologies for the late reply. Aye, I'm British. Trump's implosion is inevitable because of Trump. It's hard to imagine a more perfect storm of venality, hubris and mendacity in one man, and inconceivable that he will not ultimately be exposed as unfit to be president.

History will judge that he was in fact revealed as such multiple times during the campaign, but prevailed in part because of partisan blockheads such as yourself, who pretended not to notice in the shabby, opportunistic hope he'd advance some of your legislative agenda once in office.

You've got Gorsuch and it'd better make you happy, because the conservative movement's credibility will be crippled by its cheerleading for Trump long after he's been drummed out of the White House. JohnZ (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2017 (EDT)

Trump will not be removed from office. Besides, a president's approval ratings so early in their presidency do not indicate how they will do in the next election. If we looked at Reagan or Obama's approval ratings during their first terms, we would have thought they would have lost re-election. Reagan's ratings were low as late as 1983 (they were in the mid 30s in early 1983 and remained below 50 for most of the year[8]), and in 1984 he won 49 out of 50 states.
Since you're British, I will also say that Jeremy Corban will not become Prime Minister and the Liberal Democrats and Labour will not come to power in a while at least. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
@JohnZ, People complained about their choices in 2016. However now we see the the distinction ever more clearly. You had traditional, rugged individualism, rewards for achievement, and a system built on meritocracy on one hand, and the traditional corrupted bureaucratic, leeches, liars, career opportunists, and murderers on the other. America stood at the crossroads, and it choose the path more familiar and keeping with their own values.
So it's up to Trump. Finally proving himself 'king of the hill' which is the traditional competitive ambition of every American who is not a pantywaist (83% of us). I can't see Trump sitting on his laurels having achieved this ambition, but it might happen. OTOH, I think he's dedicated to the task people have asked him to do, even if it means compromising himself - something he's not accustomed to - to make it work. He's had thirty years to think and plan. But calling him an idiot or incompetent, while I'm sure it makes you feel better, on!y discredits yourself and your own arguments. You should follow our lead, wait eight years then dump all your hatred scorn and abuse imaginable on Obama, cause now everybody knows what we say in unquestionably factual. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:58, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
Thirty years planning for the job? Are you f______ kidding me? This is the man whose briefing documents have to be liberally salted with his own name to keep him reading to the end.
Man, it's going to funny watching you lot trying to sneak the still-twitching corpse of his presidency down the RINO memory hole. JohnZ (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
Only in the wishful-thinking minds of liberals like you would you think that the Trump presidency (which is doing a much better job than you and the liberal media give him credit for, despite the end-runs and interference being done by the Democrats and RINOs) is a "still-twitching corpse". You still don't have any real interest in making worthwhile contributions to this site and would still rather just throw around insults and snarky comments on the talk pages, do you? Northwest (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
@JohnZ, we are living in an historic moment. The future of the Republic is at stake. After decades of practice and experience overthrowing governments, the US Intelligence Community has turned on itself. We, the citizens of the Republic, have created a seditious monster. There is only one man now standing between the freedom of future generations and an unelected deep state revolutionary vanguard bureaucracy. We're not going to let it happen. Just as the Pentagon is under civilian control, so to will this Intelligence Community be brought under Legislative and Executive Branch control. This is the issue. Trump, more than anyone right now, understands what is at stake. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:13, 25 May 2017 (EDT)

JohnZ, you wrote:

"@Conservative: Apologies for the late reply. Aye, I'm British. Trump's implosion is inevitable because of Trump. It's hard to imagine a more perfect storm of venality, hubris and mendacity in one man, and inconceivable that he will not ultimately be exposed as unfit to be president."

JohnZ, you have a very limited imagination if what you say is true. The whole left wing program is a lie and the economic unsustainability of generous social programs with soaring debt that chokes economic growth is proof of this. Without economic growth, generous social programs will come to end.

Next, when Trump ran he didn't try to turn himself into some messiah-like figure, but Barack "You can keep your insurance and your doctor" Obama did. He easily surpasses Trump on the hubris front and on the mendacity front.

In addition, Crooked Hillary easily surpasses Trump on the venality and mendacity front. The actions of the Clinton Foundation (a description of which was detailed in the book "Clinton Cash") and her hiding of thousands of her emails which were under court order to release are proof of this. And her irredeemable/deplorables comment is a statement with gargantuan implications when it comes to hubris. Who does she think she is to call such a sizable portion of the American electorate "irredeemable"? Who is Hillary Clinton? God Almighty? When you go to Britannica and look up its entry on "liberal elitism", don't be surprised if there is a picture of Hillary Clinton.

Trump could connect with the common man and filled his events with thousands of people without the aide of entertainers. Hillary didn't did that and couldn't do that because she is a hubristic , liberal elitist, snob. We both know this and you might as well admit this.

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton in her role as Secretary of State was a textbook example of the Dunning–Kruger effect (persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority when they mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is). When Trump was faced with data indicating things were more complicated then he initially thought when it came to healthcare, he admitted this. When the Chinese gave a decent rationale explaining they were not currently manipulating their currency to make it lower in value, Trump reevaluated his position. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, screwed up a large portion of the Middle East which was an impetus for Europe to be flooded with refugees. And then she talked about what a great job she did as Secretary of State and all the miles she traveled. Conservative (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

How many CIA agents were killed by Hillary's emails?

While Hillary used her private email server and Obama received his presidential daily briefing on a tablet computer, the Chinese slaughtered or imprisoned 18 to 20 suspected CIA sources. Whoever was responsible, this was a breach on the same level as Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen: "China killed CIA sources, hobbled U.S. spying from 2010 to 2012: NYT" PeterKa (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

Why did Hillary delete 33,000 emails? It was blatant obstruction of justice. To make a risky move like that worthwhile, it had to be something pretty incriminating. PeterKa (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Comey was fired for bringing the FBI into disrepute. We need to make clear, reopening the Clinton email & Foundation investigations is the only way the FBI will ever enjoy public confidence ever again. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 16:18, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

Lewinsky fingers Ailes

Monica Lewinsky wants us to know that she is a good liberal who understands that the Clintons know best: "Monica Lewinsky Pens Op-Ed About Being Target of Ailes' Fox News." She told twenty some odd people the story of her and Bill, but she thinks it's the fault of Ailes and Drudge that it became public. The Clintons put together a batch of witnesses to prove that she was literally crazy. If Starr's DNA test hadn't confirmed her story, she would be getting electric shock treatment at a mental institution. It's like a Simpsons episode: "It's good that Clinton molested me. Yes, we all think it was good." PeterKa (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2017 (EDT)

Manchester terror attack - Please add to Main Page News

The Manchester terror attack killed 22 people, injured about 59, and ISIS claimed responsibility for it.[9] Why in the world has no one added it yet? --1990'sguy (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2017 (EDT)

I don't know. It would certainly belong, and Conservative himself mentioned it on this talk page earlier. Was that you, blocked and coming back under the name FTorres?--Nathan (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2017 (EDT)
It has not been posted because the UK is "godless" [10][11]. It his mind it is probably deserved.--FTorres (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2017 (EDT)
Just post the story and prove you are not a heartless hatemonger.--TtSmith (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2017 (EDT)
Just who are the real hatemongers, Mr. Smith? People on this website, or those in your country who let these terrorists in to kill? Karajou (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2017 (EDT)
Neither; it's the terrorists themselves. Trick question.--Nathan (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2017 (EDT)
So folk allowing in people who have lost their homes to American aggression are hatemongers? I go for you. PS, what happened to "destroy isis in 30 days"?--TtSmith (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2017 (EDT)
So now it's "blame America" for the problems there. You need a sedative, Smitty. Karajou (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2017 (EDT)
Hey, Karajou added the Manchester bombing, and Conservative added something mentioning its influence on the election. Also, I suspect his name isn't "Smith."--Nathan (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2017 (EDT)
It's not. This guy has been trolling before, under the names TrSmith, TtSmith, ElijahT, FrankLa, and perhaps a few more, so he's pretty much the hatemonger that he tries to accuse us of being. Oh well. Karajou (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2017 (EDT)
I open the page to Conservative massively censoring something. Wonderful. The hatemongers are the terrorists, not the Americans, not the Brits. Asking whether its the 'people on this website or those in your country who let these terrorists in' is a false dichotomy, since the 'people who let these terrorists in' neither A) intentionally let them in nor B) is an opposite point to 'the people of this website'. Vive Liberté! 17:13, 23 May 2017 (EDT)
Nobody let him in. He was a Brit. Rafael (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2017 (EDT)
Technically yes, but that statement distorts the facts. His parents were Lybian refugees (and his brothers and father were arrested[12]), and he had just come home from Lybia and Syria, where he presumably trained for what he did.[13] He is more Libyan/Muslim than British. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2017 (EDT)
and just what or who are we censoring, Koi? The false accusations from liberals? The false dichotomy that comes from liberals? Saying that we should accept all these poor "refugees" and yet be called hatemongers because we've identified the fact that most of them are military-age males with killers hiding within them just Speaks volumes about your kind. This is a conservative website, Koi. You don't like it, leave. Karajou (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for updating MPR, Conservative and Karajou. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2017 (EDT)

The person I banned was someone not creating article content and who engaged in foolish behavior on the talk page. For example, he made it appear that Trump said the USA would defeat ISIS in 30 days once he was in office. Trump said no such thing. Trump said he would have his people come up with a plan to defeat ISIS and the plan would be in place within 30 days. Conservative (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2017 (EDT)
I been following BBC & other reporting on this for two days; the same people who have been expressing concern about terrorism 24/7 for 16 years the BBC and other MSM were calling 'facsist' 3 days ago. Now they talk this rot that "we all stand together". Nuh ah. No we don't. It's a new ball game. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:34, 24 May 2017 (EDT)

Trump and Alzheimer’s

The Young Turks is blaming Roger Stone for this story, so I decided to trace the genealogy:

I see David Pakman did this story back on March 30: "Is Trump Suffering from Dementia?" The video noted that Trump is more coherent when he reads a script, refuting an earlier Pakman video that claimed Trump is illiterate. (The illiteracy video is far more popular than the Alzheimer's one.) PeterKa (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2017 (EDT)
It's pretty much reached the point where the liberal media has become so desperate in their affliction with Trump Derangement Syndrome that they'll throw anything at the wall, no matter how far-fetched, outlandish or false, to see what sticks. Northwest (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
Rush Limbaugh reports that Sen. Al Franken had to send out a tweet to supporters that Donald Trump was not going to be impeached this month. I think it is time we begin resurrecting articles on the relative intelligence of liberals and conservatives again. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:39, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
"To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil." - Charles Krauthammer[14]
"Liberals believe that human nature is fundamentally good. The fact that this is contradicted by, oh, 4,000 years of human history simply tells them how urgent is the need for their next seven-point program for the social reform of everything." - Charles Krauthammer[15]
More Americans are conservatives than liberals. In addition, a sizable portion of the world's population disagrees with various Western liberal ideologies. For example, there are anti-homosexuality laws in about 70 countries of the world.
If Krauthammer is correct, this means that Western liberals have a great capacity for engaging in doublethink (Doublethink is the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination). Conservative (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
Nowhere do you see this more clearly than among American Jews who call themselves liberal and support Israel. They can recite pro-Obama or anti-Trump talking points like Sir Laurence Olivier delivering a command performance. Then when the subject turns to Bibi Netanyahu, suddenly it becomes "I agree with Obama on everything but...", or Trump "there is one good thing to say...". None of this comes from any deep-seated conviction, or even rational dissection of the issues. It is emotional, handed down by tradition, a role to play. I view it as an opening. I say "Good. Let's talk Islam and the Palestinians." It's not worth debating a philosophical outlook with somebody whose reasoning is full of holes, and their attitudes are guided by habit and emotion. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:22, 25 May 2017 (EDT)

The British Tories and Immigration

MPR and the source says the Tories are running on an anti-immigration platform. That's a half-truth.

The Tories have stated that they want to cut migration but, in their manifesto, they say its an "aim" rather than a target or a policy. In other words, they're saying they're going to do something about it but, as they did in 2010 and 2015, they are leaving themselves room for a quick U turn. In the UK, we hold the government to account on its manifesto promises.

What's more, Theresa May was Home Secretary - and responsible for immigration - between 2010 and becoming PM. Her failure to do anything is not a good sign, particularly as she has a track record of passing the buck. This is worrying as the main plank of her manifesto is managing Brexit successfully and very little else of substance - something the British people can see. She started the election campaign with a huge advantage - 28% IIRC - and was down to a 12% lead as of last weekend.

There are far more conservative parties than Theresa May and her carpetbaggers. UKIP, for all its weaknesses, is the only major party with consistently conservative policies.

Could the attack on Monday help May and the Tories. Could be. She's certain to win anyway, but she may not get the parliamentary majority she needs to drive through any significant policies. Rafael (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2017 (EDT)

I removed the article from main page right.Conservative (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2017 (EDT)
How could May not get a majority? The polls I've seen give her massive leads. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2017 (EDT)
The British system works on the number of Parliamentary seats won and the majority refers to the number of surplus MPs the government has. The larger the majority, the easier it is to pass legislation. May called the election because her majority was tiny, small enough to put her government in danger. On the back of the polls, she expected a massive parliamentary majority, enough to reduce the Labour party to political irrelevance. She's managed to squander most of that lead and could end up with a larger majority than now but still not a definitive one. The Labour party, on the other hand, has seen a resurgence.
The bottom line is that May is a cynical opportunist. Remember, she campaigned to stay in the EU and, like Marine Le Pen, changed her mind when it suited her. For all her talk, people are starting to see through her.Rafael (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
Why is the British Labor party in such sad shape? cause their globalist leaders and allies shipped all their jobs to China and there's no Labor movement left? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:33, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
In the last month, Labour has gone from 25 percent in the polls to 34 percent. The Conservatives have gone to from 40 to 45 percent. Meanwhile, UKIP and the Lib Dems are way down.[16] PeterKa (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2017 (EDT)
The Labour Party is in bad shape because it's led by an old school socialist, well to the left of Bernie Sanders. Ironically, Jeremy Corbyn is the only major party leader who isn't a globalist. Theresa May is mainly about keeping foreign capital happy and Tim Farron - an evangelical Christian - is the most pro EU of all. Very different from the US model! Rafael (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2017 (EDT)
I read about Farron, and he also supports homosexual "marriage" and the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes. I shouldn't judge his faith, but his positions are inconsistent with Scripture. Regarding May, she may be a globalist, but she's expressed a more nationalistic platform (regardless of whether she will actually follow through on it). --1990'sguy (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2017 (EDT)
So what are May:s strengths? Speaking as someone who admittedly knows nothing about it, my impression is she's a good internal party consensus builder with very clear public speaking skills. Does she have this at a national level, though? Does she have the international "vision thing"? My impression is, she's just the most articulate party spokesperson right now, but maybe I'm wrong. Is she ambitious for a program or ideology, or just a party caretaker bureaucrat? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:08, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

Liberal meltdown and desperation tactics: A look at the future

See Essay: Liberal meltdown and desperation tactics: A look at the future

In the short term and midterm, liberals will probably get more and more desperate. Conservative (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2017 (EDT)

Reporter assaulted, Trump blamed

Is there any news anywhere that can't be blamed on Trump? If the Onion ran this, people would say it was unrealistic: "Press advocates see Trump’s words behind physical attacks on journalists." The press has been egging on political violence by Black Lives Matter and anti-Trump protesters at least since Ferguson. But when it happens to them, they are incapable of self-reflection. PeterKa (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2017 (EDT)

Here is my response:
Hopefully, the dust will settle in Western politics without a lot of bloodshed. Conservative (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2017 (EDT)
  • Ah, Conservative? The Nazis were not right-wing, they were left-wing, as even Conservapedia had to take pains to stress. The Nazis were only called right-wing due to Stalin wanting to pull a CYA. We really shouldn't be adopting what the left claims about the right, so we really need to fix that bit if not get rid of that article altogether. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

I've heard the left say fight Trump supporters, allude to punch a Nazi and the media nods in agreement [17] [18]. Media attacked and it's how can you justify violence Trump supporters? I love that Gianforte won despite it all. It really shows that the media has completely lost control and is looked at as lower than pond scum. How many special elections have Democrats lost since Trump's election? All of them! --Jpatt 09:26, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

Dems are 0-3 in special elections; and if you throw in the Omaha mayoral race where the national party spent some resources, 0-4. The Resistance seems to be loosing at the ballot box.
MSM has no one to blame but themselves. They reported an alleged assault on a MSM reporter 24 hrs before an election, and nobody believes them. Innocent til proven guilty. And Montana in no sense can be considered a hardcore red state, either.
Despite all the nasty garbage the London Guardian plans to write about the GOP in Podunk, Idaho, maybe they'll think twice before failing to respect local cultural norms (like they would in Demascus or Mecca) before they bring their big city rudeness into town, chasing the Almighty dollar, and spew hate rhetoric on their pages. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:37, 26 May 2017 (EDT)
Pokeria, I didn't specifically say the Nazis were right-wing and I went out of my way to call them the National Socialist German Workers Party. Nevertheless, you were right that I should have clarified matters and so I just clarified that point in the essay. Conservative (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2017 (EDT)
Okay, fine. This line definitely threw me off, though, since it seemed to conflate the right-wing with the Nazis and Social Darwinists:
"The right-winger Anders Breivik was influenced by both right-wing politics and liberal/left-wing ideology to some extent. For example, he was influenced by contemporary European right-wing politics, evolutionism/social Darwinism and National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI) ideology (See also: Nazism and socialism and Anders Breivik—Social Darwinism leads to mass murder). Breivik gave a Nazi like salute during a recent court appearance. Adolf Hitler was also greatly influenced by Darwinist ideology (see: Social effects of the theory of evolution). "
Pokeria1 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

Pokeria, I further clarified things. Thanks. Conservative (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

Montana election: not good for Dems

Gianforte's bodyslam may have actually caused people to vote for him.[19][20] Either way, this doesn't look good for the Democrats, and they do not have the "momentum" they need. I'm glad they have nothing to gawk about so far. If the GOP is able to win 60 Senate seats in 2018, they will actually be able to pass legislation. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

Now that Gianforte won, the MSM is trying to make the case that Trump had very little to do with this election.[21] I think they would have put a different spin on the election had socialist Quist won.
Also, Dems are probably going to say that Gianforte's six-point win was small compared to Trump's 20-point win in 2016, however, that is a false comparison. Montana is not as Republican on the state level, as the Democrats try to frame themselves as more conservative (pro-gun, in particular). Democrats can win in Montana (they have a Dem governor, a U.S. Senator, and had more state positions before the two most recent election). Besides, Gianforte only won 5 points less than Trump. It was a good election result. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2017 (EDT)
Prophetic words:Watch as Gianforte goes to Washington. The media and DNC are looking to ambush him again to provoke a similar response. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:58, 26 May 2017 (EDT)