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

Trump has landed

▬▬▬.◙.▬▬▬
═▂▄▄▓▄▄▂
◢◤ █▀Trump████▄▄▄▄◢◤
█▄ █ー ███▀▀▀▀▀▀▀╬    ☻/︻╦╤─ Trump 2016
◥█████◤          /▌
══╩══╩══▬▬▬.◙.▬▬▬   / \

On top of everything else, Trump has a cool helicopter too. VargasMilan (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2016 (EST)

Love the picture. Reminds me of the 80s.
At a tangent and as an foreigner, I have a question about Trump. If he is so rattled by the Fox News presenter, how is he going to handle Putin and Merkel? Rafael (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2016 (EST)
Megyn Kelly is not Putin or Merkel. She's not even a legitimate journalist. Trump is right not to give a stage to her feminist claptrap.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2016 (EST)
Wow, Fox News is now full of liberals.
The reality is, of course, that Trump is gutless, whiny, loud-mouthsd coward terrified of opposition. No wonder he's the favorite of Andy Schlafly.20:26, 27 January 2016‎ Samuelt
That's just schoolyard taunting. But there is a more serious issue involved here. Trump's erratic behavior with regard to the debates is feeding into the narrative that he is governed by his emotions and "temperamentally unsuited" to be president.[1] PeterKa (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2016 (EST)
You have to consider the context of the interactions of the various players involved to evaluate Trump's refusal to appear at Fox's debate. Trump is something of a hipster—he may be refusing ironically. Though I hear he is being persuaded by Fox's Bill O'Reilly's argument that Christian forgiveness means being a chump. VargasMilan (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2016 (EST) [n.b.: This was written sarcastically. The actual reason for Trump's refusal, the harassment that has its source in the hidden agenda of Fox News, has nothing to do with Trump's temperament and is an agenda that has by now been exposed by Breitbart News. A link to the story is posted on Main Page Right with this link: [2]]
Main Page Right also contains this link [3] which contains this statement by Fox News on January 26: "[I]t should be clear to the American public by now that this is rooted in one thing – Megyn Kelly, whom he has viciously attacked since August and has now spent four days demanding be removed from the debate stage." That's funny, when Trump was increasing Fox's ratings, they made no mention of any vicious attacks as they delayed their New Year's Eve countdown so Trump could do it.[4] It's only when Trump cost Fox ratings and prestige that they now declare that vicious attacks occurred. VargasMilan (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2016 (EST)

Tebow Headlines?

To a conservative like me, it seems that the Tebow stories are always a bit too positive. Almost makes you think about what the administrator is really thinking. DannyMH (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2016 (EST)

What I think is that unlike normal Americans, NFL movers and shakers are pushing a bizarre political agenda by excluding Tebow while seemingly only engaged in arranging the best game and sportsmanship possible in what is essentially a leisure time (non-political) activity. VargasMilan (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2016 (EST)
Wow, how long has it taken Tebow to realise he won't cut it as a QB in the NFL?! Running back, maybe. Tight end, maybe even better. (He's big enough and fast enough to be a TE but can he catch well enough to be an RB?) StaceyT (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2016 (EST)
When the NFL quarterback Tim Tebow leads the Dallas Cowboys to a Super Bowl victory, he will get the last laugh. :) Remember, as far as his son, Abraham did not receive his promise overnight. :) Conservative (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2016 (EST)
Wow, how long will take for the NFL to 'realize' Tebow has accomplished more in his short career at quarterback than 3/4ths of current starting quarterbacks?--Jpatt (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2016 (EST)
Setting aside the fact that I'm a Green Bay fan and can look with scorn on his "accomplishments", ESPN did an excellent job showing exactly why Tebow is a terrible quarterback. He has a horrendous motion, nothing resembling a decent arm (I think I know a good arm, being the Green Bay fan I am), and a half-decent defense utterly dismantles his game every time he runs into one. Last year the team that dumped him was also the team which won the Super Bowl, in case reality has any place here. Seriously, get over this thing with Tebow and find someone who doesn't suck to gripe about. ElliottC (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2016 (EST)
Seriously, I will stop supporting a Tebow comeback until he expresses interest in giving up the sport. Instead I'll gripe about you. --Jpatt (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2016 (EST)

Silver predicts a Trump win in Iowa

Silver, the dean of election prognosticators, has shifted to Trump in his latest forecast.[5] It's still basically a dead heat though. Trump is forecast to get 26.8 percent of the vote, Cruz 25.5 percent. PeterKa (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2016 (EST)

Update Now its even closer: 26.4 to 25.7. I guess the pre-debate uproar didn't help Trump after all. PeterKa (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2016 (EST)

questions

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Cruz wins in Iowa

Despite his opposition to ethanol, Cruz took the Iowa caucus. He now has 8 delegates, Trump 7, Rubio 7, Carson 3, Paul 1, and Bush 1. As befits a historic vote of this magnitude, turnout was enormous with something like 150,000 Republican caucus goers. Anyway, it looks like clear sailing for Cruz now. "President Cruz." Get used to it. On the Democratic side, it's 22 delegates for Clinton, 21 for Sanders. That's the least convincing margin of victory imaginable, but it's probably enough. If Sanders can't break through in Iowa, there are not many states where he can. PeterKa (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2016 (EST)

You might argue that Trump can still recover since he is only one delegate behind Cruz at this point. But IMO the caucus vote suggests serious Trump weaknesses. The polls that show Trump as the front runner assume that a large number of people who have never voted before will show up just to vote for Trump. The Iowa exit polls show that a large number of first timers did show up, but only 3 in 10 voted for Trump.[6]
The result in Iowa is certainly a vindication for National Review and its anti-Trump issue, which was a risky move on their part. The magazine actually prefers Rubio to Cruz. It's at least possible that the establishment could finally get its act together, unite behind Rubio, and stop Cruz. They tried that a few weeks back and Bush got revenge by running an anti-Rubio ad campaign in Iowa. That is to say, Bush used the money establishment donors gave him last year to knock the candidate that they now favor. If Cruz is insanely conservative as far as the establishment is concerned, well, Rubio is only slightly less conservative. PeterKa (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2016 (EST)
It might be presumptive to say "in spite of his opposition to ethanol" about Cruz. Some people might appreciate the fact he is against it.
Regarding Sanders and Hillery, I thought Sanders was supposed to be a "puppet" competator--and so did the demecrat party. To bad for them that they were wrong! Hillery might win the nomination, but Sanders probably isn't giving up for quite a while. Will we have an "Operation Chaos" 2.0?--David B (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2016 (EST)
"Anyway, it looks like clear sailing for Cruz now. "President Cruz." Get used to it" I think Rubio's supporters would disagree. I think you'll see Rubio do much better in less evangelically-driven States, and I'll bet some of my Heavenly dollars that he will be in second place to Trump in NH, and the following few States. Just you watch! I don't think Cruz has long to run, he's a very shallow candidate with very little of the centrist appeal that Rubio has. Bringreaganback (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2016 (EST)

Ted Cruz's "win"

Iowa is a religious state as evidenced by the recent past Iowa caucus winners of Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.

Dr. Ben Carson says Ted Cruz used political dirty tricks in Iowa.[7] Ted Cruz apologizes to Ben Carson.[8]

Trump blasts Cruz over dirty tricks. Trump Says Cruz camp is more dishonest than New York City realty people.[9]

Evangelicals/religious people are found in many states outside of Iowa and Cruz's people will be able to do this again to scoop up more of the religious voters from the Dr. Carson camp. And Cruz may have steeled the resolve of Carson to stay in the race longer.

In addition, if you are a Republican, you definitely don't want to be associated with "dirty tricks" as it is rather Nixonian. So Cruz may have softened his more long term support from evangelicals and religious people both in the present race and beyond. Conservative (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2016 (EST)

Since Cruz has not fired anyone staff people over this incident and because Cruz mischaracterized the initial CNN report after the scandal occurred and since the Cruz camp did not publish CNN's update about Caron during the caucus, I am assuming that Cruz either hired the wrong type of people and/or fosters a somewhat unethical environment within his staff. In short, a somewhat Machiavellian (the end justifies the means) atmosphere. Conservative (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2016 (EST)
Trump Hits Cruz for 'Fraud,' Calls for Do-Over in Iowa or nullification of caucus vote. Cruz has now fired some of his staffers over this scandal. Conservative (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2016 (EST)

Does anyone listen to Rush? Cruz was just a pawn. It was someone from Rubio's campaign who started, and spread this. For goodness sake, look at all the facts before accusing. Cruz isn't doing himself any favors by being humble and apologetic, but I suppose he is trying not to engage in the classic finger-pointing.--David B (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2016 (EST)

Rush Limbaugh, February 02, 2016: "Hey, look, there's a way out of this. Senator Cruz could simply offer Dr. Carson a delegate or two as part of his apology. Maybe three. Three max. One or two delegates ought to cover it."[10] Conservative (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2016 (EST)
I don't think Limbaugh's solution is doable from a practical and/or legal point of view. So the obvious solution is nullification of the Iowa caucus vote and judicial caning for Ted Cruz administered by Donald J. Trump!Conservative (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2016 (EST)
Rush Limbaugh, February 03, 2016: "The Carson campaign mentions that they are leaving and taking some time before New Hampshire and South Carolina and so forth, but beyond that... I mean, it really did start there, and then CNN got in the game. But this website says that if you really want to find out who got this whole ball rolling, you gotta go to the Rubio campaign. Oh, yeah. Yeah, you gotta go to the Rubio campaign to find out what really happened. And Rubio is not from Canada. He's from Cuba."[11]
There are no other major news websites covering this angle, but here it is: Uh Oh, Was Marco Rubio Guilty in the Ben Carson Dropout Rumor?Conservative (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2016 (EST)

Sense of humor at play?

Democrats tossed coins twice to decide two precincts, and both went Hillary's way. Does God favor Hillary, or does He think she's easier to defeat? RyanFT (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2016 (EST)

Her margin of victory was only one delegate, so the caucus as whole would have been a Sanders win if the coin tosses had gone the other way. PeterKa (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2016 (EST)
Exactly my point. RyanFT (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2016 (EST)
There were at least seven delegates determined by coin flip. These are county convention delegates. They don't use coin flips in the presidential race.[12] PeterKa (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2016 (EST)
It was 6 coin tosses and Hilary won them all at odds of 64 to 1, if Sanders had won 3 tosses he would have beat Hilary by one point. Were the coins tested for their fairness? Sanders is a socialist who would be a disastrous president but there is something refreshingly honest about the man, similar in that respect to Donald Trump. I would love to see the race between the two.--JamieVa (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2016 (EST)
If the margin was only one delegate then Sanders would have only needed one of the six flips to go his way. Clearly God favoured Hillary, but for what reason?

Babylon, Assyria, the former Soviet Union, Richard Dawkins' dramatic loss of influence and secular left wing politics losing influence in Europe. The re-establishment of Israel as a nation. A rapid growth of global creationism which is worrying to Darwinists. The wheels of God may grind slowly at times, but they grind exceedingly finely.

Mankind's ideologies, political figures and kingdoms come and ago, but God's reign will endure forever.

Will the FBI prove be Hillary's undoing or will it be a Trump/Cruz presidency? Or will it be a failed presidency that makes Jimmy Carter's presidency look good in comparison? Conservative (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Trump vs. Cruz vs. Rubio

I don't want to get involved in political disputes among my fellow conservatives as far as Trump vs. Cruz vs. Rubio. So I will just say one last word about this matter.

Trump appears to be more serious about stopping illegal immigration and may be more serious about revamping post 1965 US immigration policy. However, I don't think he can be counted on to reduce the deficit or to uphold social conservatism. He doesn't seem very eager to cut entitlement programs. His economic program may reduce the trade deficit, but it could also ignite a trade war.

Cruz is the biggest deficit cutting hawk, but I am not sure he has the legislative skills to get his ideas through Congress. Also, a president is not a dictator and I am not sure any president can push through an aggressive deficit cutting program. Cruz is more a social conservative than Trump and Rubio. Although he may not be a natural born citizen, he nevertheless is very enamored of the US Constitution.

Rubio is soft on immigration and is largely politically to the left of Trump/Cruz. He is somewhere between a moderate Republican and a conservative Republican.

Does that sum things up? Conservative (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2016 (EST)

As far as the natural-born citizen thing goes, see this link.
Trump's problem is that he can't control his anger, as we saw in the Megyn Kelly situation. Even if that's not a fair assessment, it's what a lot of voters think. The main reason the polls were off in Iowa is that they didn't anticipate that a significant number of first timers would turn up to vote against Trump. Democrats and independents dislike Trump even more than Republicans do, so this factor would loom larger in a general election. Cruz has one of the most conservative voting records in the U.S. Senate.[13] Trump's most relevant track record is the political donations he has made, which are mostly to Democrats.[14] PeterKa (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2016 (EST)
A Trump win or a Cruz win. Either way the USA shifts politically to the right. If Hillary wins and dodges the indictment bullet, she will probably be a one term president (due to the economy, incompetence, poor foreign policy and scandals) and be replaced by a Republican.
I think Hillary has less charm than Obama and racial identity politics (and white guilt) is stronger than feminism, so her unpopularity would climb faster than Obama's should she be elected president. Almost definitely a one term president if she is elected. Conservative (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2016 (EST)
At last night's debate, it was Trump's opponents who often looked out of control, while Trump looked calm, even when provoked. VargasMilan (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2016 (EST)

Rise of right wing politics and the solution to the many problems in Europe

After all is said and done, I see the trends of: right wing politics growing/nationalism growing/increased anti-immigration due to culture clash and job competition/growing failure of governments (debt loads rising, European failure to stop illegal immigration)/increased use of fourth-generation warfare by various groups/desecularization (and growth of conservative Abrahamic religion).

I am not sure how things are going to ultimately unfold. If Europeans don't come up with and implement sustainable societal systems, fascism could be unleashed in Europe in a significant way again.

Consider this report from GQ:
"A report prepared by Germany's security and intelligence services was leaked to the newspaper Welt Am Sonntag. It stated, "We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples as well as a different societal and legal understanding." The document warned of a furious backlash waiting down the autobahn. "German security agencies will not be in the position to solve these imported security problems and thereby the arising reactions from Germany's population... Mainstream civil society is radicalising because the majority don't want migration and they are being forced by the political elite....
For the regular visitor to Germany, it was not remarkable that Merkel faced a growing chorus of criticism. What was amazing was that she was still so popular. But with more than 500 attacks on refugee centres in 2015, her no-borders policy did not feel like an act of moral goodness. All her good intentions seemed to have laid the foundations for a terrifying backlash. As the ancient forces of fascism begin to stir in Germany, it does not seem like Merkel has done something profoundly, unquestionably good."[15]
Europe has economic problems and many European countries have below replacement level birth rates which is unsustainable given their generous entitlement/pension plans. These things occurred due to their rejection of biblical Christianity (see: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Causes of the global resurgence of religion and the failure of secularism). Conservative (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2016 (EST)

There is one thing that Trump has right. The West has to do more to prevent Christian persecution. Rather than flood Europe with Muslim refugees which leads to culture clash and significant other problems (Islamic terrorism, rapes, etc.), why not allow more Christian refugees/immigrants into Europe and allow more religious freedom in the West?

Evolutionary indoctrination, socialism, barriers to homeschooling, failing public schools which feature leftist indoctrination and flooding the West with Muslim immigrants is clearly not working.

Pentecostalism and other forms of conservative Christianity is seeing explosive growth in the world so their is no shortage of Christians in the world and many of them could be productive citizens in Europe with the proper screening of immigrant applicants. In France, religious scholars said in 2012 that pentecostalism was the fastest growing religion in France.[16] Conservative (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Consider that is happening in Belgium:

"The number of Protestant churches has grown significantly over the last several decades, almost doubling since 1980.[4] In addition, some of the largest Protestant churches in Belgium today were started after 1980. Church membership statistics are more difficult to establish. In 1980, on the basis of school registration statistics and church membership rolls from 190 churches, historian Emile Braekman estimated the number of Protestants in Belgium to be between 90,000 and 100,000. By 2010, the number of Protestants in Belgium was estimated at 150,000, with the largest population percentage (6%) in Brussels.[5]"[17]

The trend of Protestantism/pentecostalism/evangelicals growing in Europe is probably going to increase in Europe. The Muslim immigration into Europe experiment is showing growing signs of failure.

Do you hear many reports of Christian immigrants engaging in terrorism or engaging in gang rapes? No! Flooding Europe with biblical Christianity and/or large scale native European repentance and Christian conversion is the answer to the growing problems in Europe. Conservative (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Barack Obama

Let’s dispel this notion that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is trying to change the country. MarcoR (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2016 (EST)

  • Sadly, I think Rubio was giving Obama too much credit. If you think about the health care debate, the man clearly knew very little about what was in his own bill, and cared less. It's all about him and how he is More Politically Correct Than Thou. Which way is history going? Let me run ahead of it. PeterKa (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2016 (EST)
    • In all fairness, the various French Enlightenment philosophers cared less if their ideas resulted in mass murder, and Karl Marx certainly didn't care if his attempts would result in mass death and destruction, being all about them, so that really does little to dissuade thoughts on whether Obama knew or cared about what was on the bill. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2016 (EST)
  • Rubio got a lot of guff for repeating his line about Obama, but the pros call that, "staying on message" or "staying focused." See this analysis by Erick Erickson. The issue should be the merits of the line itself, and not fact that he repeats it. My view is that Obama is of not-much-more-than-average intelligence. His focus is sports, family vacations, and fund raisers. He's a part-time president. Reagan was less active in later years, but he delegated. Obama is too full of himself to do that. Harvard Law School grad suggests best of the best, but he is clearly not that. Whenever he tries to speak without a teleprompter, something moronic pops outs. In 2012, he fell apart in first debate with Romney, but was stronger in the second one. So Obama is not stupid, but he is willing to work only as an absolute last resort. I assume his communist connections got him through Harvard. PeterKa (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2016 (EST)
David Frum of The Atlantic disagrees: "Politicians often repeat talking points. Friend @portraitinflesh forwards … this richly comic example of the genre. But the normal reason to adhere to talking points is determination to advance a controlled message - and to avoid an unhelpful quotation
"By contrast, Rubio’s 4x repeat was not an act of excessive message discipline. It was a display of panic at a moment of uncertainty. Faced with a genuinely new situation, Rubio could not figure out what to do….and so stumbled into doing precisely the wrong thing. The big question about Rubio is: can this untested novice cope with the demands of the presidency?"
Then Frum veers off into a wild claim of how we knew all about Obama before he was elected. VargasMilan (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2016 (EST)

Hillary -- intolerably odious to the whole nation

Hey, Hillary, why do you take so many bribes? "Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered, so um..."[18] Anderson, you meanie! She's just a girl.

  • The latest Quinnipiac national poll of Democrats is 44 Clinton, 42 Sanders.[19] Silver rates Quinnipiac a "B+" pollster.[20] Sanders also has a 99 percent chance of winning in today's New Hampshire primary.[21] As Cromwell told the Long Parliament: "Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!" PeterKa (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2016 (EST)

A beautiful day in New Hampshire!

Men and women, old and young, they all braved the snows of New Hampshire to vote against the HildaBeast by a margin of 60 to 39. The only demographic that voted for her were those over 65. Yes, "It’s Clinton Déjà Vu — New Hampshire Brings Snow and Rumors of Campaign Implosion," as the headline in the New York Times puts it. When will we finally see the back of this vile, greedy, woman, this enabler of our former rapist-in-chief? Hey Hill, if the politics thing doesn't work out for you, you can always fall back on cattle futures. PeterKa (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2016 (EST)

  • Here is the big applause line from Hillary's New Hampshire concession speech: "You're not going to find anybody more committed to aggressive campaign finance reform than me."[22] Given all the sleazy financing both she and Obama benefit from, there is only one way this statement makes any kind of sense: She and her supporters take it for granted that it is fundraising by Republicans that has to be criminalized. That's certainly the way the Obama IRS sees things. PeterKa (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2016 (EST)
  • The sad part of this situation is that Sanders supporters love Hillary too. She has an 85 percent favorable rating among Democrats. See this article by Nate Silver for a statistical breakdown. Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, "bimbo eruptions," the mishandling of classified information, Huma's connection to the Muslim Brotherhood -- none of that makes any impression on ordinary Democrats. They see politics as a way to get free stuff, and they vote for whoever they think can get them more stuff. The next contest is in Nevada on February 20, where Hillary is likely to get schlonged again. PeterKa (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2016 (EST)

Nate Silver crashes

Nate Silver may collect a lot of useful data, but he's not able to interpret it, and sometimes not even present it, in non-partisan way. John Ziegler of Mediaite recalls his predictions about Trump:

Back in November, this liberal media darling and alleged prediction guru told the world that Trump had no real chance at the GOP nomination and that his poll numbers were nothing to be concerned about because they were likely to fade before any votes were cast. I wrote a response on this website explaining exactly why he was dead wrong.
As it turns out, on the most significant question which his industry has ever faced (Is Donald Trump for real?), Silver was not just mistaken, but he was catastrophically and embarrassingly incorrect. Less than a week ago he was still laughably claiming that Trump had a 38% chance of losing New Hampshire and he was “looking like Pat Buchanan” (who once won New Hampshire by one point and never won again).
The irony of a guy who became famous by using/trusting the accuracy of other people’s polling being utterly exposed because he didn’t believe the polling on Trump (and couldn’t see the obvious differences between Trump and past GOP frontrunners who faded fast) is obviously rich.
How Silver could ever be taken seriously again as a political predictor is beyond my ability to grasp. This failure is the equivalent of an NBA analyst prognosticating that the Golden State Warriors wouldn’t win a game this year. Hopefully at least some in the moronic media which sustains the Silver myth will finally realize that he spends far more time with a calculator than speaking to any actual voters (especially conservatives).

VargasMilan (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2016 (EST)

Steady on - as they say, "it's a marathon, not a sprint". Although I was wrong about Rubio coming in second in NH, I still think that once the GOP field narrows, Trump will come under immense pressure and he's going to be completely unable to win in a debate unless he can stop with the vote-winning soundbites and get down to business. It's not enough to just keep saying he's "going to make America great again" - at some point, he's going to have to explain how he's intending to do any off this. He's all great sounding hot air, I firmly believe. So while I want Nate Silver to be wrong, I think it's way premature to be calling that one yet. Bringreaganback (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2016 (EST)
If you want policies, Trump laid down some policies at the beginning of his campaign. There's a viral tweet out now that says: "Fantastic victory speech from Trump. Will the idiots ever stop saying he has no 'policies'? That's all his victory speech was." VargasMilan (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2016 (EST)
Here are some of Trump's policy positions. VargasMilan (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2016 (EST)
Trump did give a phenomenal victory speech last night. Also, thanks for posting the insightful criticism above of Nate Silver's predictions about Trump.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2016 (EST)
  • Buchanan got 37 percent of the vote in New Hampshire Republican presidential primary compared to 35 percent for Trump. So Silver's Buchanan/Trump comparison is almost exactly on the nose. PeterKa (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2016 (EST)
Good point, Peter. But perhaps the overall protest vote against the Establishment was higher this time, if you add the votes of Trump, Cruz and Carson (about 50%). Trump will presumably gain those votes as the runners-up drop out.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2016 (EST)

The New Yorker magazine on Nate Silver:

"If you ignore a bit of volatility here and there, Trump has held a big lead in the national polls since August: that’s seven months. For a long time, many commentators persisted in describing the Trump phenomenon as a temporary one. Today, the skeptics are thin on the ground. On Wednesday, one of the last of them, Nate Silver, of FiveThirtyEight, posted a column saying that Trump was now the legitimate front-runner."[23] Conservative (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2016 (EST)

  • The results from New Hampshire were exactly what the pundits were predicting. In poll after poll, the majority of Republicans have said that they would "never" vote for Trump. New Hampshire is known as an insurgency friendly state, yet he gets only 35 percent of the vote. South Carolina is a more representative state than either Iowa or New Hampshire, so a clearer picture will emerge on February 20. As the Silver column you link to puts it, "So is Trump a genuine front-runner like Romney or more of a turbocharged Buchanan? The answer is probably a little bit of both." PeterKa (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2016 (EST)
    • Peter, you linked a poll earlier, and you said it said most Republican primary voters wouldn't vote for Trump. But I read the article it was in, and it never said whether they were Republican primary voters, it said just primary voters! And now you say in poll after poll the majority of Republicans have said that they would "never" vote for Trump. But you don't say whether this is just in their own state primaries or also in the general election against Hillary! It's fuzzy math!
    • Many voters look for the quality of "electability" in choosing a candidate to support. It seems that some people are inclined to warp these voters' judgment with ambiguous statements about just that! These people have learned how to concoct bad arguments clouding the issue. That shows if they could have presented a good argument against these electable candidates, it's not because they don't know how to make arguments! What does that say about them? VargasMilan (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2016 (EST)

Richard Dawkins et al stumped?

I've followed the link and don't see any stumping. I see Dawkins making a snarky reply and lots of his followers making jokes about it. If anything, they've laughed us out of the arena. Rafael (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2016 (EST)

I don't see Richard Dawkins or his fans replying to Conservapedia's post in his Twitter feed. Dawkins and company are obviously stumped! They have no effective rebuttal. One more piece of evidence that Dawkins' "argumentation" is exceedingly weak and that he lacks machismo! :)
By the way, have you see this video: IS RICHARD DAWKINS REALLY STUMPED? The TRUTH - In His OWN WORDS - YES...he is!? Conservative (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2016 (EST)
Could you please check the link which you have given? Under https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/693568125716004864 I cannot find anything concerning Conservapedia... --AugustO (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2016 (EST)
Scroll down the Twitter page. The Conservapedia logo next to the Twitter comment is clearly visible. Conservative (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2016 (EST)

AugustO, here is Dawkins post to a person and Conservapedia's reply:

Richy k.s ‏@RiChY_RiCcHh Jan 30 Pallakad, India: Here is a crazy question sir : What will be the first thing you ask to GOD 'IF' you get a chance to meet him?

Dawkins: .@RiChY_RiCcHh Which one are you? Zeus? Baal? Marduk? Vishnu? Wotan? Yahweh? Mithras? Ra? John Frum? The Great Juju up the Mountain?

Conservapedia: @RichardDawkins @RiChY_RiCcHh The are many varieties of atheism (New Atheism, Objectivism, etc.). Is atheism wrong? 17:35, 11 February 2016 (EST)

I see there is a typo.Conservative (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2016 (EST)
My mistake. I thought the original question was from a Conservapedian. I guess that's why the MSM didn't fully cover it. Rafael (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2016 (EST)

Slow news day?

Islam and atheism receive a blow in Germany. Evangelical Christianity ascendant in Germany. Sociologist Peter L. Berger says "Are Evangelicals Winning the World? Why are parts of Germany formerly under the enforced secularism of the Communist party rediscovering charismatic religion?".

Peter L. Berger posed this question in June 2015. User:Conservative has used this bit of news already here and here - in July 2015.

Do I have to worry about memory loss due to sleep deprivation? --AugustO (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2016 (EST)

Thanks for the constructive criticism, but the point has new meaning in light of Angela Merkel's recent stunning assertion that she will deport the Muslim migrants after peace returns to their homeland.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2016 (EST)
On March 17, 2014, the news website Deutsche Well reported that evangelical Christianity has doubled in Germany in the last 10 years.[24] If there is one thing that is not slow, it is the growth of evangelical Christianity in Germany. :) Conservative (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2016 (EST)

Campaign goes back to the evangelical states

New Hampshire, which is only 10 percent evangelical, is one of the least religious states in the nation. As the campaign goes South, it's headed back to Cruz country. Or so says the Washington Post: "Don’t sleep on Ted Cruz. The next five weeks look very, very good for him." South Carolina has more evangelicals than Iowa -- and so do six of the eleven SEC states. (The SEC states hold primaries on March 1.) PeterKa (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2016 (EST)

Your enthusiasm and insights are refreshing! Thank you. That said, Trump leads Cruz by 17 points in the South Carolina primary, which is more evangelical than even Iowa. So if Trump wins big in South Carolina, more evangelicals will switch to Trump in subsequent primaries.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2016 (EST)
When I was writing the post, I checked for relevant polls. But I didn't find any. Now there is freshly released poll from the South Carolina House Republican Caucus (Feb. 11-12) that shows Trump 19 points ahead. Before the caucus, Iowa was meticulously polled by all the most highly rated pollsters. Yet it still managed to surprise us. PeterKa (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2016 (EST)
So many political pundits have been wrong about the Democratic/Republican primaries and it is so complex on who is ultimately going to be elected president (Will Hillary be indicted, when and if will the FBI recommend Hillary be indicted, when will Ben Carson drop out of the race and free up votes for Cruz, will the Republican establishment rally around one candidate and by then will Trump have so much momentum and delegates that it will not matter, how will Cruz do among evangelicals in upcoming races, etc. etc.).
In the 2008 election, when I was less familiar with the election process, I was fooled by John Boehner who said that McCain had a strong ground game in Ohio (a RINO is unlikely to have a strong ground game). So I was still hoping that Obama would narrowly be defeated rather than believe the polls.
At this point, I have stopped guessing who will be the next president of the United States. It is too hard to predict.
Lastly, despite my aversion to gambling and given the present accuracy of pundits and polls, I would have to agree with John Stossel who says that political betting websites are more accurate than pundits and polls.[25] And frankly, on this front, the news is not good. See: Election betting odds for the 2016 presidential election and Paddy Power - 2016 election. I am just hoping that the results are somewhat skewed because conservatives are less likely to gamble. Conservative (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2016 (EST)
Gambling causes many problems to individuals, their families and society as a whole but bookmaker's odds are are very useful tool because they are largely unbiased, their sole purpose is make money which is not the case for all opinion polls. It has to be said things are looking grim. Where did Bloomburg come from? Is he going to run as an independent?--JamieVa (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2016 (EST)


Futures trading may not be gambling. On Entrade there was a person whose financial losses that they expected with a Democratic President was so great that they were willing to lose a large amount of present capital in the event of no Democrat financial obstacle to insure they would have enough capital if their Democratic-based expected financial loss occurred. That is called hedging.
Also by bidding you are performing a service: to the degree your knowledge-based pick departs from conventional wisdom, you will proportionally correct the market price for everyone; in exchange you will be rewarded with that degree less of adverse risk in your investment.
I visited one trading site, and it showed that Cruz is the real wild card in this race. His expected probability of winning the nomination ranged from twelve to twenty percent. VargasMilan (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2016 (EST)
I stand corrected. Political futures trading is not gambling. :)Conservative (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Bloomburg must have a giant ego. I don't think an independent can win. But who knows? Hillary could implode.

Who would have guessed in 2008 that a person who is probably a closet atheist and closet communist (namely Sanders) would have a 7/1 odds of being the next US president of the United States according to Paddy Power? See: Don’t be fooled by Bernie Sanders — he’s a diehard communist. Obama and other factors did change the political landscape in the last 8 years.

Given the American public's aversion to atheist candidates and millennials ignorance about socialism/communism, I think 7/1 odds for Sanders is not realistic. I think Sanders is very vulnerable to negative advertising/campaigns by the eventual Republican candidate. But who knows? Obama's leftist and Chicago politics leanings were fairly apparent in 2008. McCain should have exploited this matter, but didn't. McCain said that Obama was honorable man who he had some political disagreements with. McCain was either naive or not willing to tell the truth when he said this. Conservative (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2016 (EST)

One other thing. Given various megatrends, I think Europe is going to decline. Also, given the growth of Christianity in China, perhaps that country will eventually be able to shake off communism. There is also an global desecularization process that is expected to continue in the 21st century. Perhaps, this will reduce some of the appeal of socialism/communism and candidates like Sanders.Conservative (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2016 (EST)
An illustration of the impotence of pollsters/pundits: From the Rasmussen reports, Going Out on a Limb: Romney Beats Obama, Handily by Michael Barone. Handily! He really did go out on a limb - an exceedingly weak limb. :) Conservative (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2016 (EST)

A Canadian Donald Trump is needed

Canada's currency is falling at an accelerated rate while the U.S. dollar remains strong.[26]

Toronto's Globe and Mail declares, "To transform Canada’s economy, Trudeau needs to be a ‘bold builder’". There you have it: Trudeau needs to become a Canadian Donald Trump and dump his political correctness! :) Conservative (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2016 (EST)


Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

San Antonio News is reporting that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died. Bringreaganback (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Justice Scalia died at 79. GregG (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2016 (EST)

The Republicans may choose to run out the clock and deny Obama an opportunity to appoint another US Supreme Court Justice. If this happens, expect a ratcheting up of efforts to win the White House in the next election. The same applies to the primaries. Conservative (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2016 (EST)
Yes, we see this partisan nonsense happening already. But I don't agree with that policy - this great country has business to be done, and having the three arms of government in functioning condition is a cornerstone to our incredible democracy, No matter where you sit on the political spectrum, the country needs a full complement of Supreme Court Justices. I say get a justice in there asap - waiting a year benefits no-one. Bringreaganback (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2016 (EST)
Can we really afford to let Obama institute yet another justice? We've already got three justices who don't give a darn about our Constitution (Ginsberg even claimed she preferred the South African Constitution than our own) as well as legislating from the bench, four if we count Justice Kennedy, and even Roberts basically screwed up earlier regarding the tax bit. In other words, we've got four Justices who most likely don't give a crap about the constitution, one who is unreliable, and only three right now who actually MIGHT care about the Constitution. If we let Obama have his way, we'll have even MORE Justices who don't give a crap about the constitution and treat it as a nihilistic "living document." Heck, we had this problem since, what? The Warren Court? We can't let Obama have his way. This isn't even a matter of conservative vs. liberal, this is whether we can allow the Law of the Land to actually survive. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2016 (EST)
My point exactly - the Law of the Land dictates that we MUST select a new justice asap. Our Government is essentially functioning with only two of the three pillars of democracy upon which it was founded. Weakening any of the institutions weakens them all. Bringreaganback (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2016 (EST)
Our republic is not a "democracy", and conservatives support less government, not more.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2016 (EST)
Whatever conservatives support, we more than anything support our Constitution, the greatest political document ever written and something I believe we should never touch, and obey to the very letter of the law. Unless you want to alter the Constitution of this Greatest Nation, the role of the President is clear - for their entire term, they must nominate candidates to the Supreme Court should vacancies appear. Yes, thy need the approval of the Senate, and perhaps his candidate(s) might be stopped there, but the process absolutely must go ahead. Bringreaganback (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2016 (EST)

Given the following events: Obama's second term scandals, Obama's role in ObamaCare, John Robert's scandalous behavior in pushing ObamaCare forward, Roe vs. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges and Obama's executive actions, there is very little bipartisan respect now for Obama or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Twice in the 20th century, the president of the United States was not able to push forward a Supreme Court justice nomination during his term. Given the current partisanship and ideological divide in the USA and the current low respect for Obama/SCOTUS, I predict that Obama will not be able to push through his SCOTUS nominee.

Please are angry and disgusted with the U.S. government. That is why Trump is popular among many Republicans. Trump is the Buford Pusser in the current presidential race. Conservative (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2016 (EST)

I agree. Let Obama nominate a candidate - as he should - as soon as possible, and let the process begin. I have no problem with the idea that his candidate(s) might be blocked by the Senate, but the process must begin - our Constitution demands it, and petty political haggling over such an important matter cheapens us all. Bringreaganback (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2016 (EST)

Obama is an ideologue. And Obama is significantly left of the Senate and is not known to engage in compromise. He will never nominate a candidate who the Republicans will accept. Obama's candidates will not respect the constitution. So things will very likely be dead on arrival. The Republican Party has moved to the right since the last SCOTUS nomination. And the Democrats have moved to the left. Sanders, a communist, has a lot support from the Democrats.

The left demanding that the Constitution demands starting the process rings hollow since they have little respect for the Constitution and often see it as a roadblock to enact their leftist agenda. Conservative (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2016 (EST)

I thought Obama had very little leverage, but he has more than I thought. See: How Obama Could Win Supreme Court Battle — Even If Republicans Take the White House. Conservative (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2016 (EST)
I thought about it more. Whoever gains the White House will probably win the Senate too due to the coattail effect. I just hope a Republican wins the next presidency. It seems like it will be a close race, but Trump is a fighter (Hillary's war on women rhetoric was quickly shut down by him) and he could take the Democrats blue collar voters away from them just like Reagan did.
I think due to his nationalism and tough stance on immigration, Phyllis Schlafly is a Trump supporter. Conservative (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2016 (EST)

Trump, WMD, and Iraq

The New York Times ran a lengthy investigative story in 2014 admitting that at least 5,000 WMD were in fact found in Iraq.[27][28] Somebody needs to tell Trump.[29] Saddam's behavior at the time makes sense only if he himself believed that Iraq had WMD. Is Bush supposed to have known more about Saddam's capabilities than Saddam himself? PeterKa (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2016 (EST)

Interesting point, but it is a stretch to cite chemical weapons as a "WMD". The intent of the Bush Administration's use of the term WMD was something greater than mere chemical weapons, and nothing greater was found. That said, Trump did go overboard in blaming GWB for 9-11.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2016 (EST)
Rick Rescorla, the head of security for Morgan Stanley at the World Trade Center, predicted a plane attack on the towers. This was due to the first terrorist attack on the towers. I believe he told the Feds his concern.
Before 9/11, I had read in the USA Today about "air rage" and passengers getting in the cockpit and being disruptive and one or more even grabbed the plane "steering wheel". I said to myself, why aren't the cockpits more secure?
There were signs that Islamacists were making attacks on the USA (previous attack on a Twin Tower in the basement via explosives, attacked a warship and embassy, etc.). The US should have been better prepared.
In addition, when Bush heard the news of the attack on the first tower, Bush was like a deer in the headlights. It took awhile before he took action. Conservative (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2016 (EST)
Throughout this episode, "WMD" was understood as a shorthand for chemical weapons. Of course, chemical weapons are pretty small beer in the larger scheme of things. The invasion was in fact a response to 9/11. It was thought that the French had chemical weapons on the brain on account of their experience in WWI. Bush's emphasis on chemical weapons was a misguided attempt to get French support for the invasion on the UN Security Council. PeterKa (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2016 (EST)
I know Sadaam Hussein wanted to expand his territory and influence in the Middle East and that he was a brutal dictator. He was also anti-Israel like most Arab dictators. With that being said, I think the intent of his chemical weapons was to keep the balance of power in relation to Iran.
There is also the lesser of evils argument given that "nature abhors a vacuum" and Hussein's fall led to the rise of ISIS.
In addition, the idea that Hussein's fall would lead to a peaceful democracy in Iraq was a pipe dream given the sparsity of Islamic democracies and the battle between two sects of Islam in Iraq.
Furthermore, there was a tremendous loss of life due to George W. Bussh's war in Iraq.
I am not sure if sanctions could have been ramped up, but that might have been another option.
Lastly, there has been a considerable expense involved in the Iraq intervention and that money could have been put to better uses. In short, opportunity cost. Given the US's massive federal debt and that wars are often costly, shouldn't the USA have greater reluctance to go to war? If the US has a bad economy and/or another great depression, it will effect the whole world given the size of the US economy. Conservative (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2016 (EST)
I think you skipped a step, Conservative. It wasn't Hussein fall, vacuum, rise of ISIS. It was Hussein fall, Obama removes all troops when we still have troops in Germany from WWII, vacuum, rise of ISIS. VargasMilan (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2016 (EST)

Vargas, you make a point. But how much did the war cost and how much would it cost to keep a base of operations for many years? Given the warring factions of Islam within that country, how long would the USA have to stay in Iraq? Forever? Can the US afford to be a very active policeman with its huge deficit and Asian countries like China/India, etc. becoming more economically competitive (granted this may open new markets for US goods and have a net positive effect over time)?

Furthermore, what would the USA get out of it since leaders are accountable to the public and the public often wants to see a return on their investment? China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom. It seems to me that multiple countries benefited from increased production of oil in Iraq as an increase in global supply helps all countries, so why did the USA pay most of the table for the second Iraq intervention? If it was done, why not a more significant coalition like the first US intervention in Iraq done under Herbert Walker Bush?

It seems to me that the US was too eager to get involved in the Middle East due to 9/11. After Israel got attacked at the Munich Olympic games, they sent out assassins to kill the culprits. That is a more limited and more cost effective approach that minimizes the loss of life compared to a war. And the US did not kill Bin Laden in Iraq or Afghanistan. It did so in Pakistan.

And it seems to me that the Chinese received the biggest economic benefits of the war. How much did China give to the USA to defray the war's cost? Zero? And it seems to me that the USA borrowing more money from the Chinese so it can get involved in the Iraq war easier was a bad idea. When you have a high credit card balance, asking for multiple increases in your credit limit is a bad idea.

I think the Iraq war caused unnecessary loss of life and economically it was a bad investment for the USA. I agree with Trump that we should not have launched the second Iraq war. Conservative (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2016 (EST)

Missing information

I heard the point of originating the CIA was to prevent Pearl Harbors. After the Pearl Harbor called 9/11 happened, George Tenet, director of the CIA, appointed by Bill Clinton, admitted there were failures in information sharing. When he was found to be wrong about WMDs he resigned shortly thereafter.
I heard that Saddam Hussein would kill people who gave him bad news. It might not be because of WMDs that he was never able to use that he thought he could survive an attack by the U.S. And I heard the weapons inspections Saddam dispersed were actually being exploited to gather intelligence like Saddam claimed.
I also heard that it was not only to persuade the French that the focus of making the case for the Iraq War was on WMDs. It was because Bush's people (like many of their fellow conservatives) had many different reasons for wanting to invade Iraq, but WMDs was the one reason they all agreed on. Saying that there weren't other reasons than WMDs to invade Iraq was an example of liberals arguing from silence.
I heard that George W. Bush spent over a billion dollars searching for WMDs after the invasion, that what he found were leftovers from the Iran/Iraq war and that Saddam hadn't restarted his program like they thought.
I heard that Michael Moore made money off a movie showing Bush looking like a deer in the headlights after the 9/11 news, but that actually Bush completed a reading activity with the children that were with him so there would be no record from the video from the news broadcasters filming him of a President suddenly leaving a peaceful gathering and thus appearing alarmed.
I'm not out of missing information, but I am out of ready-to-hand descriptions to support the information. VargasMilan (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2016 (EST)

Re: the "WMD" relic material found in Iraz: "Many of the shells were empty. Others still contained mustard agent. Most showed signs of age and decay."[30] "All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them."[31]

It doesn't seem as if Sadaam Hussein restarted his WMD program. The "WMD" relic material seems largely or wholly unusable. More or equally dangerous to a potential attacker. The material seems like relics kept around by an incompetent/callous/indifferent dictator. I don't think the material can be justifiably called WMD. Conservative (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2016 (EST)

From the same NYT report: "In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act." This is in addition to the 500 mustard gas shells reported by the WMD commission in 2005. Sarin is far more deadly than mustard gas, which is WWI-era technology. According to this NYT report, there was so much WMD floating around post-liberation Iraq that the CIA could collect 400 cannisters just by offering reward money to the people who turned it in. As for the good stuff, I assume it was shipped off to Syria just before war started so as not to embarrass the French. PeterKa (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2016 (EST)

Donald Trump, truther

Here Trump spells out what he was hinting at in the debate: "Trump Says ‘Very Secret Papers’ May Show ‘The Saudis’ Knocked Down World Trade Center." That is to say, he has supposedly confirmed Michael Moore's theory given in Fahrenheit 911. OK, it's not completely impossible that the Saudis were involved. In fact, I have always thought we should have hit Mecca as well as Baghdad, just to be on the safe side. But to announce that you have "very secret papers" that backs up some movie BS is to enter conspiracyland. PeterKa (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2016 (EST)

Other than an outlier poll by the Wall Street Journal, it looks like Trump will win SC. And SC combined with NH has been a good predictor of who is going to be the Republican nominee. Winning SC will also give Trump momentum.
Unless it becomes a two way race soon, Trump will win the GOP nomination. And I don't see Jeb, Cruz or Rubio dropping out soon. All of them have name recognition and are good at fundraising. And Kasich may stay in for awhile too as he did surprisingly well in NH. Cruz's inappropriate behavior towards Carson in the IA race insures Carson will still in the race longer than he otherwise would have. And there is a number of evangelical Christian leaning states coming up which gives Carson some hope and incentive to stay in the race.
The other candidates are hoping Trump will implode due to his somewhat unpredictable nature. However, Trump supporters are very loyal and like that he is the Buford Pusser in the race who is promising to take a bat to corrupt Washington. Trump is an ultra-nationalist and populist who has a fight8ing spirit and his supporters like this. Conservative (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2016 (EST)
The outlier WSJ/NBC poll indicating Trump has lost his lead was done after the last debate.[32]. Maybe Trump saying George W. Bush lied about WMD in Iraq hurt him significantly among Republicans. ]Gingrich who is a seasoned politician doesn't put much stock in this outlier poll.[33] Conservative (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2016 (EST)
  • The establishment is consolidating behind Rubio. (See "The Party Is Deciding On Rubio") Up to now, they have been fantasizing about Jeb or playing footsie with Trump. So that will definitely shake things up. I still assume the field will narrow to Trump and an anti-Trump, either Cruz or Rubio. Trump's support seems to have stabilized at 35 percent, which suggests he can't win a two-man race. Perhaps I have too much faith in the common sense of the party, but I assume that a majority realizes that Trump would be poison as a nominee in the general election. PeterKa (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2016 (EST)

The pope said what????

I hope this turns out to be a joke of some kind: "The Pope: Trump's Not a Christian." This is like the Middle Ages, when the popes used to excommunicate kings and emperors. Please Francis, tell us if Hillary and Obama are Christians. PeterKa (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2016 (EST)

The Pope is entitled to express his opinion. His full quote was softer than the media headlines, which were eye-catching. Trump isn't Catholic, so it was not an attempt at excommunication.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2016 (EST)
Looks like we dodged the bullet this time: "Donald Trump Forgives The Pope: "He Just Got Carried Away" After Hearing Mexican Side Of The Story" Now, if this had happened to a Hohenstaufen back in the twelfth century, we'd be looking at an invasion of Italy and the creation of an anti-pope (or two). PeterKa (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2016 (EST)

This article sets the record straight: "The real Pope Francis vs the MSM pope". PeterKa (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2016 (EST)

South Carolina results

Trump has won with about 34 percent of the in South Carolina, as expected. The not-quite-final results show Cruz and Rubio tied for second with 21-22 percent of the vote each. If Cruz can't come in at least strong second in an evangelical state like South Carolina, he may be shifting to the "also ran" category with Bush, Carson, and the rest. I guess you can a throw a full Michael Moore Bush derangement tantrum and still win a Republican primary. Who would have thought? It doesn't look like Trump will ever get a majority. But he may not have to. He can collect Cruz or Rubio delegates by offering the vice presidency to one or the other. PeterKa (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2016 (EST)

This turn of events leads me to think about my experience as a delegate. The way it works in practice is a bit different from the way the media presents it. The national delegates are chosen by majority vote at the state convention. They don't necessarily support the candidates they are pledged to. They automatically vote for the candidate they are pledged to on the first ballot, but they may vote as they like on subsequent ballots. PeterKa (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2016 (EST)
Many conservatives and many evangelicals prefer Donald Trump to Ted Cruz, for good reason. Trump is the best candidate on immigration, trade, standing up against the media, standing up against the Establishment, standing up against feminists like Megyn Kelly, strengthening the military without starting new wars in the Middle East, and even unplugging the NFL. There's much to like about Donald Trump.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2016 (EST)
Conservapedia has been ahead of the main stream media in taking Trump seriously as a viable candidate with a path to victory. It is important to follow which states are "winner take all" and which states allocate delegates based on the popular vote in the state's primary. JDano (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2016 (EST)
Florida and Ohio are winner-take-all, I think, which helps Rubio and Kasich. The rest of the South, including the prize of Texas, is proportional delegate selection, which hurts Cruz.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2016 (EST)

A multiple-ballot convention?

No one has had to worry about a multiple-ballot national convention in a very long time. The last Democrat multiple-ballot convention was in 1952. For Republicans, it was 1948. But it will obviously be a big issue when state conventions meet in May and choose delegates to the national convention. For almost all the other candidates, Cruz leads as a second choice.[34] So whenever a candidate drops out, Cruz is likely to be the biggest beneficiary. Of course, the state conventions might not pick actual supporters of the candidate as that candidate's delegates. The state conventions are generally dominated by pro-lifers, although that will be less true this year. But it still leads to the possibility of pro-lifers who might prefer Cruz or Rubio will be sent as Trump delegates. Such delegates would be free to vote according to personal preference after a specified number of ballots (the rules vary from state to state).
What has prevented a convention fight in the past is that California, which has 172 delegates, has its primary on June 7 at very end of process. Media time in California is extremely expensive and by that time everyone has generally run out of money. So California primary generally confirms whoever the leader is at that point and thus heads off a convention fight. PeterKa (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2016 (EST)

A dark day in Nevada

The unbounded elation our country felt after the joyous news of New Hampshire has been cruelly crushed in Nevada. The e-mail criminal is back on track to winning Democratic nomination. Clinton won 19 delegates to Sanders 15. If she can bark like a dog and still win the Nevada caucus, the SEC primaries will be a piece of cake (or perhaps I should say, a doggie bone). Hillary wants a $12 a hour minimum wage, while Bernie will get you $15 a hour. Why are you selling yourself short, working Democrats of Nevada? Aren't you worth an extra $3 a hour? PeterKa (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2016 (EST)

Nevada Republican caucus

With a another win Nevada, Trump in on course to win a majority of the delegates, as the Washington Post headline puts it. One thing that might derail him is if Rubio dropped out and the party united behind Cruz. At this point, the Establishment is doubling down on Rubio, so nothing like that is imminent. Despite all the heavy hitters who have come out to support him, Rubio lags behind Trump even in Florida, his home state. So the Rubio strategy is not working. I don't what the Establishment has against Cruz, but they need to get over it. I don't have much hope that Trump will turn out be a good president. But today's Democrats are not like the Democrats who contested past elections. They are determined to bring in as many immigrants as possible and convert the U.S. into a Third World hellhole, as Coulter aptly puts it. If you don't like it, you're a "racist." So anyone is better than Hillary. PeterKa (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2016 (EST)

Setting aside the issue of whether Cruz is a natural born citizen, Cruz advocates small government and adherence to the US Constitution. The establishment likes big government and wants to bend the rules of the constitution. In addition, Cruz is no diplomat.
Furthermore, the establishment likes cheap labor and a post-Trump Cruz is just as hawkish as Trump in terms of what he is promising voters now as far as the immigration issue. Conservative (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2016 (EST)
I am across information on Trump vs. Cruz as far as legal immigration. Trump is more strict as far as far as legal immigration.
Trump vs. Cruz on immigration and Trump's immigration policy paper Conservative (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2016 (EST)

Rubio, your 15 minutes are up

After all the favorable publicity Rubio received for his debate performance in Texas, guess what? He is still third nationally,[35] and he is still behind in every upcoming state, including Florida.[36] Cruz has beaten Trump in Iowa, and likely to beat him again in Texas.[37] Dear Establishment: You did what you could for Rubio. Now tell him it's time to drop out. PeterKa (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2016 (EST)

Very slowly, the Establishment is coming around on this one: "Lindsey Graham: Oh God, We Might Have To Back Ted Cruz To Save Our Party". When Rubio washed out in the New Hampshire primary, it was already obvious he was a lost cause. The Establishment is supposed to be the pros. They certainly have a terrible track record, at least in this cycle. PeterKa (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2016 (EST)

Trump and tax returns

So what's in Trump's tax returns?[38] Despite Cruz's recent innuendo, I am guessing probably not ties to the mob. It's more likely that he isn't nearly as fabulously wealthy as he is claiming to be. What kind of multi-billionaire runs a nickle-and-dime scam like Trump University? Perhaps he is another Kasich, a Trojan horse candidate financed by a wealthy friend of the Clintons. PeterKa (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2016 (EST)

Trump's wealth exceeds the wealth of all the Republican/Democrat presidential candidates combined. He's really rich. :) Conservative (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2016 (EST)
There was a book that claimed that Trump has assets of only about $200 million. Trump sued for libel, but he refused to release his tax returns or otherwise document his wealth -- even though that meant losing the case. He even appealed, so the case was pretty important to him. See here. PeterKa (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2016 (EST)
The NY Times whose stock price has plunged over the years and who may face a bleak financial future given the current newspaper market, taking on Trump about his net worth is rather ironic. Conservative (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2016 (EST)
Cons, we've been through this again and again and again! Are there two NY Times newspapers? One of which had its stock price plunge and one of which didn't? And are you specifically addressing the former and not the latter? By writing "The NY Times whose stock price has plunged ...."? I think you want a non-restrictive clause here, so that you are just writing about the one NY Times newspaper, and saying (parenthetically) that its stock price has plunged. In that case you need a comma. As in "The NY Times, whose stock price has plunged ...."
I believe I also gave you some advice for avoiding this grammatical problem if you find it too difficult to handle its subtleties: If you can't take the heat use complex subordinate clauses correctly, get out of the kitchen avoid using such complex sentences. In fact, even with the comma, your sentence is too complex, and it isn't clearly constructed. Oh, and by the way, that fact that a newspaper is facing financial difficulties doesn't disqualify it from covering economic news. Though it is ironic. SamHB (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2016 (EST)

If Trump is elected to the be the next president of the United States

Gov. Kasich thinks Trump will sweep Super Tuesday. If he does that, he will be hard to stop due to having momentum.

If Trump is elected I hope his "fair trade" policies work out and don't ignite a trade war which causes a worldwide economic depression. The East Asians and Germany are a lot smarter than the USA when it comes to getting their products in other countries markets.

I also hope he puts a conservative into the Supreme Court, but I have my doubts.

Lastly, the war on drugs has been a failure. If a wall is built, maybe it will put a dent in illegal drug sales due to it raising the cost of getting illegal drugs into the USA. Conservative (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2016 (EST)

The American president is not a dictator. There is no guarantee that a GOP Congress will go along with his fair trade policy or his wall across Mexico. These two policies are a radical departure from current policies (trade deficits, high corporate taxes, US companies moving overseas and a fairly porous border).
In addition, Trump may not be serious about reducing US Federal deficit through lower spending (and in recent times Congress has shown that they are not serious about the deficit).
China owns at least 1.27 trillion dollars worth of US treasury securities, or government bonds. Perhaps, the publicly unspoken agreement is that the USA maintains the current trade policy towards China and in return China supports American overspending. Conservative (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2016 (EST)
The material on this page and on the Main Page is very interesting and should be incorporated into encyclopedia articles or essays. JDano (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2016 (EST)

RNC Rule 40

Any candidate for president “shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states” before their name is presented for nomination at the national convention. So says RNC rule 40. That's going to be a problem this year. No one is getting a majority anywhere, aside from the winner-take-all states. What happens if no one gets eight states? No one knows. There will be a Republican National Committee meeting just before the convention that will be able to amend this ridiculous rule. (It was created to prevent Ron Paul from grandstanding.) [39] PeterKa (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2016 (EST)

The rule was created by the Establishment to suppress dissent. Trump should easily have eight states because beginning March 15 most primaries are "winner take all," I think. No Establishment candidate may be able to attain the 8-state minimum, however! So their own rule is now causing them problems.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2016 (EST)

Delegate math

The current delegate math is 338 for Trump, 234 for Cruz, and 113 for Rubio.[40] Notice that a hypothetical Cruz/Rubio ticket would actually be ahead of Trump at this point. I assume Rubio will drop out rather than suffer the humiliation of losing to Trump in Florida on March 15. Then Trump and Cruz would compete one-on-one in the winner-take-all states. In short, it looks like a contested convention. The traditional solution is for the frontrunner to offer the vice presidency to the No. 2 candidate. That would suggest a Trump/Cruz ticket. PeterKa (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2016 (EST)

The establishment is still in partial denial. They are still hoping that Trump will implode or that attack ads will work. Rubio will not drop out before the Florida election. Rubio may stay in even if he loses Florida due to establishment denialism.
There is a lot of bad blood between Trump/Cruz. Trump refers to Cruz as Lying Ted. The establishment, who loathes Trump, may wind up holding their nose and backing Cruz to defeat Trump, but I doubt it. See: Limbaugh: Best Chance To Beat Trump Is To ‘Unify Behind Cruz’
But who knows? Maybe there would be a Trump/Cruz ticket.
The whole thing at this point seems semi-irrational. It doesn't seem like any of the candidates are committed to cutting the federal deficit. I think that is because the public is not committed to this matter. Conservative (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2016 (EST)
I doubt there is any chance of the establishment backing Cruz. If anything, I think they hate Cruz more than Trump. I'm not quite sure why, but I suspect it has something to do with the fact Trump has waffled before, and perhaps they can get him to do it again. Cruz, however, hasn't wavered in his opinions or convictions. It will be very hard for them to push him to change. That's why it's said that Cruz is hated in the Senate--he doesn't back down from true conservatism, and really bothers the liberals in the process.
Anyway, I agree on your main point, Conservative, Trump+Cruz=explosion. I can't see them running together. Trump belittles Rubio, too, so I'd be surprised to see them running together either. I wonder who Trump will pick, assuming he does get the chance. --David B (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2016 (EST)
When the dust clears, I think it will be a Clinton vs. Trump election. And you will not get Churchillian toil, tears and sweat speeches on what it will take to fix the USA's significant problems, but a fair degree of pandering.
Over recent years, I have seen the degree to which the human mind can engage in denialism. For example, the secular left objectively has been a disaster (about 110,000,000 people killed, a Europe which is expected to face marked decline and has started a period of decline, pseudoscientific hypotheses which have failed, Christianity seeing rapid growth in China, etc. etc.). While the secular left is now dispirited[41], it has not completely given up. It seems as if 30-100 years of desecularization via demographic changes will largely be the remedy to the secular leftist experiment. Demographic/religious/political scholars such as Eric Kaufmann rightly posit that fundamentalist/conservative religion will see a big upswing and religion will be dominant in the future.[42][43][44][45][46] Conservative (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2016 (EST)
  • If Trump-Cruz is off the table, the next most likely outcome is Cruz-Rubio. It certainly sounds like a winning ticket to me. I'm sure Trump would be upset, but neither Cruz nor Rubio have much to lose in that regard. Although it strikes me as a obvious solution, I don't see anyone promoting it. Many pundits compare Trump to Jackson. Jackson was foiled in the 1824 presidential election when the other candidates combined against him. He came back four years later bigger than ever. Trump is probably too old to do anything like that. PeterKa (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2016 (EST)

Spoke to a Cruz supporter about Trump

I like Trump's policy as far as strengthening the Mexican border and having a more intelligent legal immigration policy. If these things are not changed, the USA will keep drifting to the left.

However, I spoke to a conservative, Catholic businessman who is a Cruz supporter about Trump and he reminded me about Trump's bad points (bully, somewhat dictatorial, not a staunch conservative/constitionalist, not committed to smaller government, etc.). And although I am not a Romney fan, I listened to his anti-Trump speech.

Trump is a better choice than Hillary, but I am not very excited about the presidential race. I don't think I am going to follow it too closely and instead to attend to more important matters. Although a Trump presidency could be better than an Obama presidency, it could also be a disaster. He says he will use the very best negotiators for trade deals and he might do so, but given his bullying ways, maybe he will not.

After all is said and done, the Bible says that pride comes before the fall and Trump certainly has a big ego.

The founding fathers of the USA said that liberty was a challenging thing to keep and nations often decline and slide into tyranny. That seems to be the direction that America is going in.

Lastly, there are people predicting that a third-party will emerge in the United States. Given the current state of affairs and the general direction of the USA, this certainly could happen in the 21st century. Conservative (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2016 (EST)

It looks like the establishment's anti-Trump speech delivered by the RINO Romney further galvanized Trump supporters: Rank and File Republicans Tell Party Elites: We’re Sticking With Donald Trump
Geraldo Rivera was right though about the anti-Trump somewhat emboldening anti-Trump people. The news cycle is more anti-Trump now.
But post Super Tuesday, I don't think the anti-Trump forces will be able to stop Trump from getting the nomination. Trump has momentum. And Trump does increase profits for media outlets and he raises the profile for journalists who cover him. And although he can be a bully, he can be charming at times too. Trump is a salesman. He will keep using the media to achieve his aims. Conservative (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2016 (EST)

No wonder Trump is running for president

A Trump presidency could be even more awkward for parents than Bill Clinton's was: "Donald Trump Wants You to Know He’s Yuge." This is not the first time Trump has been, er, up front about this issue. See this headline from 2012. PeterKa (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2016 (EST)

This man is a buffoon. I've never seen anyone less statesmanlike in my life. He disgusts me, and I don't for a second think that America will vote for someone who has so debased the office - before he's even gotten into it. It is an an extraordinary election cycle, of that there is no doubt. Bringreaganback (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2016 (EST)
You were wrong then about Trump's substance, and you're wrong now about Trump's style. VargasMilan (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2016 (EST)
We'll have to agree to differ on that, I'm sorry. And I think you'll find I'm not the only conservative who finds the man's manners, sense of decorum, gravitas, political and religious positions (does he even HAVE any Faith? - I don't believe him for a second on that matter), and personal life to be unworthy of a President of our Great Nation. We should demand better Statesmen, not boors to run our nation. They are the ultimate role models for our children, and should stand up to that kind of scrutiny. Ronald Reagan was a gentleman through and through, and since him, there have been no gentlemen in that office, though I will give Obama that he has good decorum and manners. Bringreaganback (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2016 (EST)
George Patton was vulgar, and many would vote for him today as Commander-in-Chief, and rightly so.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2016 (EST)
Disagree with Trump's personality if you like, but he's getting results and a huge segment of the public likes him. I've also noticed that the same groups of liberals in the public eye who like dishing out insult after insult against conservatives start complaining whenever someone like Trump comes along who not only won't bat an eye, but can dish it right back to those same liberals. Just a straight-up case of double standards on the part of the liberal politicians and pundits. Northwest (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2016 (EST)
It's disappointing to see that you have all fallen for his Godless schtick. The man is at best a liberal Agnostic, and is lying about his Faith. He claims to be a Presbyterian, but the church he claims to attend (a Reform Protestant church) has issued a statement saying he never attends. He's also on record as saying he's never asked God for forgiveness. Vulgarity is only a part of my problem with him. Bringreaganback (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2016 (EST)
I find your attacks on Trump not being a gentleman ring hollow, when you consider the actions of your buddy Peter, whose idea of civic engagement evidently consists of probing the loins of the candidates. You say Trump said he's never asked God for forgiveness—I remember reading Trump saying he withholds himself from doing bad things to begin with rather than ask for forgiveness. So a text without a context is a pretext for a proof text. Prove it. VargasMilan (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2016 (EST)
"He withholds himself from doing bad things to begin with"? This is a man who's bankrupted himself four times, has divorced twice and is on his third marriage. This is a man who admits he never goes to church more than twice a year. This is a man who has earned most of his money from gambling. "Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase.", Proverbs 13:11. It doesn't take much to see the vanity of the man, with his name emblazoned across every building, casino and gaudy hotel he owns. He's no gentleman, that's for sure, and no example I want to see my son look up to. Bringreaganback (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2016 (EST)
Still no proof text I see, or any concessions to his positive qualities or the issues of the day. You keep harping on the fact that he doesn't go to church, too, when the irony is neither did your hero Reagan while he was president. You're awfully good at condemning Trump from the right, not so good at championing any conservative values the way Trump obviously has. VargasMilan (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2016 (EST)
Reagan was asked about that in 1984 and answered: "I have gone to church regularly all my life, and I started to here in Washington. And now, in the position I hold and in the world in which we live, where Embassies do get blown up in Beirut - I pose a threat to several hundred people if I go to church. I know the threats that are made against me. We all know the possibility of terrorism. We have seen the barricades that have had to be built around the White House. And, therefore, I don't feel -- and my minister knows this and supports me in this position -- I don't feel that I have a right to go to church, knowing that my being there could cause something of the kind that we have seen in other places, in Beirut, for example. And I miss going to church, but I think the Lord understands."[47]. Trump has no answer for it. As to condemning Trump from the right, I would have thought it was obvious that he's as far to the left as most Democrats when it comes to big government, the unborn, tax, and single-payer health care. Bringreaganback (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2016 (EST)
May 2015:
'Donald Trump was on the Reagan Finance Committee in 1979-80 when most of the New York financial elite were for George Bush or John Connally,' the former campaign aide told Daily Mail Online, on condition of anonymity.
Trump and his father Fred were in the room when Reagan announced his candidacy in New York City in 1980, he explained, adding that without Trump the 40th president might have been dead in the water.
'When the phone company said it would be 30 to 60 days before they could install our phones at the Reagan for President headquarters on 52nd street,' he recalled, 'I called Donald Trump. They installed the phones the next day.'
'Donald also let us use his helicopter to fly our delegate petitions to Albany, where we filed 15 minutes before closing at the board of elections.'
And Fred Trump 'loaned the campaign some space in a building he owned in Queens,' the Reagan veteran said. 'Donald got us space on 52nd street. They were among a handful of Reagan's earliest New York Supporters.'

Trump's already given testimony about his Christianity at a meeting of evangelical Christians. I hear they are holding a contest to see who can write the most original argument opposing Donald Trump without mentioning immigration. You win, especially because you have even included the subjects of issues in your paragraph his opponents used against him that have already been controverted.

Bring Reagan back? If it weren't for Trump, Reagan might never even have been! VargasMilan (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2016 (EST)

Interesting story! Thanks for sharing that. It seems we can't convince each other, which is fine. But I remain with my original feelings - the man is no gentleman, and he will never get my vote. Bringreaganback (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2016 (EST)

“A pretentious, showy life is an empty life; a plain and simple life is a full life.” - "Rick Warren. Bringreaganback (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2016 (EDT)

Cruz surges in the March 5 primaries

I count 64 delegates for Cruz, 49 for Trump, 13 for Rubio, and 2 for Kasich in "Super Saturday" voting. I've combined the totals for Louisiana, Kentucky, Kansas, and Maine. Notice that Rubio, favorite of the media and the Establishment, continues to falter. The big winner-take-all primaries come up next. On March 15, it's Florida (99 delegates), Illinois (69), Ohio (66), and Missouri (52). North Carolina is also on March 15, but it is proportional. PeterKa (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2016 (EST)

Thanks for the summary. Cruz and Rubio appear to be splitting the anti-Trump vote, and the upcoming winner-take-all primary system will favor Trump.
I think the Establishment wanted this winner-take-all system to make it easier for the Establishment to quell conservative dissent, and yet the effect will be the opposite this year.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:17, 6 March 2016 (EST)
Anti-Trump money is pouring in, and the movement is uniting behind Cruz, according to this New York Times story. George Will is calling it "peak Trump," although Will has announced Trump's political demise before.[48] PeterKa (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2016 (EST)

Peyton Manning to announce retirement

Link. GregG (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2016 (EST)

Nancy Reagan died

Fox News. GregG (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2016 (EST)

102 sections

Is this a record? --AugustO (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2016 (EST)

It is because it is an interesting presidential race on the Republican side of the aisle. Also, Trump and nationalism/immigration issues are sweeping across politics in the Western World - especially after the recent Muslim terror attacks in Europe/California and various rumblings in the global economy. Conservative (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2016 (EST)

Trump the fascist?

So why is Trump flirting with fascism?[49] I don't think there is any significant fascist constituency in the U.S. to cater to. At first, I thought he must have watched Borat and thought, "Is there any way I can be even more outrageous than Borat?" But now I see the pattern. This is the "Let's ban all the Muslims" episode all over again. That is to say, it is an intentionally outrageous and non-serious initiative designed to take attention away from the latest Ted Cruz surge. Trump was back on top in the March 8 primaries, so the strategy seems to have worked. He got only a minority of these delegates (71 out of 144 chosen on March 8). So he is not yet on track to a first ballot nomination. PeterKa (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2016 (EST)

Trump's original comment (in December 2015) of which you truncated the meaning after it had received a smearing by media outlets certainly seemed to strike a nerve in you. You've helped the media smear it...to make others share a feeling of pain because you have a painful memory of it? to try to further deny Trump's electability? Is your first link worth clicking to? Depends on the answers. It's Schrödinger's link! VargasMilan (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2016 (EST)
The Muslim ban involves asking potential immigrants if they are Muslims or not. The idea is that potential terrorists will answer, "Yes, I am a Muslim" and be denied entry. I use this proposal as a shorthand to refer to Trump's non-serious approach to serious issues. I see the reference to fascism is already dated. New news cycle, new outrage. PeterKa (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2016 (EST)
Well, it has certainly been one amazing week for Trump. We've found out that he is not committed to any of his policy positions, but that he is instead "flexible." The only exception to this policy of superflexibility is the Mexico wall, where he is "not very flexible." Even on that issue, "there’s always give and take. There’s always negotiation."[50] After passing smoothly through his fascism/David Duke and Islam-hates-us phases, the latest is that he supports China's 1989 Tiananmen massacre.[51] If he is elected president after all this, why shouldn't he think that he can get away with anything? PeterKa (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2016 (EST)
I wouldn't trust anything the liberal media has to say on what's basically a contrived issue. That claim was made up (and even played up at one point on Saturday Night Live) because the more popularity Trump gains (due to the public backlash against the increasing liberal imposition of their values on society), the more worried the liberals become and the more desperate they get, and the public is seeing right through that transparent desperation. Every attempt to make Trump look bad through lies, falsehoods and twisted and selectively edited news soundbites only causes the liberal media and its supporters to shoot themselves in the foot again and again. Northwest (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2016 (EST)

Screw Loose

I've never seen people on the right get so unhinged about candidates. I will vote Trump, I will vote Cruz, I will vote Rubio, I will vote for the garbage man if running on the GOP ticket. Yet, people are going insane over this election. True foam at the mouth anger. Their guy or Democrats can have it. Are you kidding me? Twitter is a giant cess pool at this stage in the election. I hope the general election works to our advantage but I have a feeling the insanity will ramp up further.--Jpatt 23:55, 9 March 2016 (EST)

People do seem more adamant about their candidate this election cycle than in prior ones.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2016 (EST)
Voter turnout in the Republican primaries are up. This suggests that the foam-at-the-mouth tweeters are also showing up at the polling place this year. Perhaps in the past, it was all talk and no vote. JDano (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2016 (EST)

Rubio fans on suicide watch. His chance ended long ago but reality set in tonight. Supporters lashing out, NeverTrump NeverCruz, hate and more hate. Painful to observe. Since Cruz lost both Ohio and Florida, I heard he needs to pick up 72% of the remaining delegates. His campaign is essentially over as well. --Jpatt 01:54, 16 March 2016 (EDT)

Neocons hate Trump. Neocons' first choice was Marco Rubio. The voters have spoken. It's time for losers to listen to the people now.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2016 (EDT)

Donald J. Trump statement on preventing Muslim immigration

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, — Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump

As you may remember, this was written after the second worst terrorist attack since 9/11 in San Bernardino (the first was the 2009 Fort Hood massacre) while the President was still in denial.
"FBI: 12 pipe bombs. Travel to Saudi Arabia & Pakistan. Body armor. Hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Obama: We don't know the motive."—Andrea Tantaros
As a class, Muslims must be the worst kind of immigrants, who only make illegal Mexican immigrants look good by comparison. 66% of Mexicans (not just those planning to cross border) say US has "no right to limit immigration." according to an August 2013 article in the American Sociological Review. How comforting that a majority don't wish to employ violence against us but, by denying us the right to make our own laws and allowing themselves unlimited free entry, only want to enslave us. VargasMilan (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2016 (EST)

Trump vs. Soros: Blood on the streets

Yes, it's a battle of the billionaires as George Soros' Black Lives Matters sends in the muscle to fight the Trumpistas on the streets of Chicago.[52] With Hillary's server dude squawking to the FBI, the Democrats have every reason to be in panic mode.[53] PeterKa (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2016 (EST)

Lookie here: Bill Ayers, Pentagon bomber and Obama ghostwriter, was at the University of Chicago doing his bit to protest Trump.[54] I guess Trump has lost the terrorist vote. PeterKa (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2016 (EST)

Unbound delegates

We haven't heard much about the 247 "unbound" national convention delegates until now, but they are said to be "anti-Trump."[55] As I understand it, they are the Republican version of superdelegates. The item on the main page suggests that they represent "the Establishment" and that as such they owe Trump a nomination. Somehow, I doubt it will work out that way. The Washington Times projects that Trump will arrive at the convention in July only 74 pledged delegates short of a majority. If Cruz and Rubio team up, they could have something close to half the delegates as well. In short, it is not hard to imagine a situation in which the obscure unbound group holds the balance of power. PeterKa (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2016 (EDT)

Very interesting insight about the "unbound" delegates, who may end up holding all the power.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2016 (EDT)

Must pledge delegates respect the primary results?

We're learning new things about the convention all the time: "RNC Rules Comm. Member: Every Delegate At GOP Convention Not Bound On First Ballot". According to this article, the RNC has no rule binding delegates to the results of the primary. The states have rules binding delegates, so a candidate can sue a faithless delegate. But as far as the RNC is concerned, the vote would still be valid. Most delegates will be selected by majority vote at the state conventions. So a significant number of delegates pledged to Trump will not be Trump supporters. If the unbound delegates abstain, it is possible no one will get a majority on the first ballot. Most states allow delegates to vote as they like on the second ballot. PeterKa (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2016 (EDT)

Obama Supreme Court Nominee

Looks like Obama has nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.[56] I sincerely hope the Senate republicans stand firm and don't give this leftist a chance to destroy our Constitution! DerekE (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2016 (EDT)

As I've said before, I'm delighted to see the nomination. Now we can try and defeat the man, about whom I know little as yet, but am looking forward to hearing his pros and cons. But at least the process has begun, and our Constitution is being observed. Bringreaganback (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2016 (EDT)
One other thought I had on this: I wonder if we Republicans/rightists would be better off with this nominee, a nominee proposed by Hillary, or one proposed by Trump? Because it seems extremely likely it's going to be one of those three options. And if it's to be Trump's choice in the end, I would take Garland in a heartbeat. I would prefer my son's pet turtle to choose a Supreme Court Justice over Trump. Bringreaganback (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2016 (EDT)

Trump and Kasich

What happens if Trump falls, "short of delegate count for nomination," as our lead item suggests? At the convention, I figure it will be Trump/Kasich vs. Cruz/Rubio. The current delegate count is 673+145 to 411+169, or 818 to 580. In other words, Romney is actually helping Trump by campaigning for Kasich. Cruz should start doing better now that Rubio has dropped out, but he obviously has ground to recover. California, which votes on June 7, polls 38 percent Trump, 22 Cruz, 20 Kasich, and 10 Rubio.[57] The Democrats have started acting like they are worried about Trump, but it is just a gimmick to scare the donors. His favorability numbers keep going down and down.[58] PeterKa (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

With 1000 delegates up for grabs, Trump needing just over 500, the possibility of a brokered convention is unrealistic. Kasich has a real problem, it's called reality. My prediction is that he goes 1-49 if he stays in. Trump unfavs are truly shattering but Hillary is just incredibly flawed in so many ways. We will see. --Jpatt 20:58, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
Trump has never had a majority of current delegates at any point in this race. That's going to change? I don't see why. It all depends on California. With 40 percent of California Republicans supporting Trump, that leaves 60 percent that could potentially vote for a "Stop Trump" candidate. Trump could still put together a majority by making deals, especially by offering the vice presidency to one of the other candidates. But that still counts as a "contested convention." PeterKa (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2016 (EDT)

Obama's involvement in '16 race

Other than fundraisers, I cannot remember a time that a president involved himself in the next presidential race. --Jpatt 20:51, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

Perhaps Obama can see now that his own reputation, in addition to Hillary's, is going to be a loser, thanks to Donald Trump.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
If you recall, Obama had a strikingly unpresidental reaction to Trump's campaign to get him to release his birth certificate back in 2011. Trump clearly gets under his skin. Perhaps he doesn't want Hillary to get all the credit for slaying the Trump dragon. The conspiracy theorists have a tough choice this year. With Hillary as president, we may finally get the bottom of what happened in Roswell. With Trump, we may get a look at Obama's transcripts. PeterKa (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2016 (EDT)

It was predictable that Obama would be active in the 2016 race. ObamaCare, his signature "achievement", was not passed with bipartisan support. Thus, it is vulnerable. Conservative (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2016 (EDT)

  • According to Obama, the rise of Trump is all the fault of Mitt Romney and the Republican Establishment: "President Obama’s brutal assessment of the rise of Donald Trump." The man is so wrapped up in own greatness that he has lost all ability to self-reflect. How can he not realize that the Trump phenomena is a consequence of the silly games he played with his birth certificate? There is another way Obama is responsible for Trump. Obama's failure to execute the law on immigration gave Trump his biggest applause line. PeterKa (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2016 (EDT)

Hillary dominates in latest poll matchups

The recent Democratic offensive against Trump certainly seems to be working. Clinton went from 4 points ahead of Trump on March 5 to 11 points ahead on March 24.[59] Soros and his sleezy puppets have come up with a strategy that works: pay numbskulls to attack Trump rallies, then blame Trump for the violence. Rinse and repeat. If Trump ever threatens Hillary in the polls again, we'll see more. Meanwhile, Trump is too busy having spats with Megan Kelly and Heidi Cruz to notice.[60] PeterKa (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2016 (EDT)

I ask, how can anyone be losing an idiot of this magnitude: "Hillary On Area 51 Secrets: ‘I Think We Ought To Share It With The Public’." PeterKa (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2016 (EDT)

Easter egg

A commentary reposted on Trump's Twitter feed preceded a startling admission by Ted Cruz. The comment, recorded here in full,

"@11phenomenon: #LyingTed blames @realDonaldTrump for so many things I am starting to think he is having a mental health crisis."

led Cruz to respond in the form of a sad song to his wife, Heidi Cruz:

"Yes It Is" by Ted Cruz

If you wear red tonight
Remember what I said tonight
For red is the color that my Donald wore,
And what's more;
It's Trump, yes it is.

Scarlet was the hat he wore
Everybody knows I'm sure
I could remember all the things we planned
Understand, it's Trump
Yes it is, it's Trump
Yes it is.

I could be happy with you by my side
If I could forget him, but it's my pride
Yes it is, Yes it is
Oh yes it is, yeah.

Please don't wear red tonight
This is what I said tonight
For red is the color that will make me blue
In spite of you, it's Trump
Yes it is, it's Trump
Yes it is.

I could be happy with you by my side
If I could forget him, but it's my pride
Yes it is, Yes it is
Oh yes it is, yeah.

Please don't wear red tonight
This is what I said tonight
For red is the color that will make me blue
In spite of you, it's Trump
Yes it is, it's Trump
Yes it is, it's Trump.

VargasMilan (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2016 (EDT)

Fidel

I saw some photos of the doppelganger. He appears to be younger than 89 and has gained a healthy weight.--Jpatt 00:06, 29 March 2016 (EDT)

To read what Reuters said in its piece, they must be thinking that Fidel Castro can speak from beyond the grave. Northwest (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2016 (EDT)

Political website directory?

I just had a bit of a crazy idea, that I was hoping to get an opinion on. We have pages on specific political websites, and even listings of conservative sites, pro-life sites, etc. However, might people benefit from some kind of master list, which lists many known political sites, and states their political stance (conservative, liberal, semi-liberal, semi-conservative, etc.)? I'm thinking it would need to be a table, and clearly would need some order to it, probably alphabetical. It could then link to pages for each specific website, if there is such a page for it, and/or link to the site itself. Is this a crazy idea? --David B (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2016 (EDT)

Conservative links is a start although it has not been updated for awhile. Maybe you could create a resource entitled Comprehensive list of conservative links. Conservative (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2016 (EDT)

Liberal double standard

Andy, It should be noted that the person who punched the Trump supporter was A: 15. B: Female. C: Was possibly sexually asaulted by a member of crowd. D: Was under severe duress by people who would never accept people treating their own daughter that way. E: Was pepper sprayed in the face.--JamieVa (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2016 (EDT)

Trump does not want to punish women for having abortions

Note his rapid flip-flopping on the issue. GerryV (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2016 (EDT)

....and he adds a double-twist to his flip-flop, saying that there should not be a federal abortion ban. GerryV (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2016 (EDT)

Cruz

Mathmatically, he's finished. Predicted he needs over 100% of the remaining delegates after April 26th. Will he get out? Doubtful and look to Kasich for that answer. Stalking horses for the Establishment. By the way, I was just told on Twitter that I am not a serious Catholic because it's a sin to support Trump. Geez-o-Pete, Cruzbots. #NeverDemocrats --Jpatt 22:58, 3 April 2016 (EDT)

Unless the FBI makes a stink about Hillary's illegal activity and/or she is indicted, I don't think the Republicans will win. Trump has problems with the women vote that probably will not be reversed and unfortunately Cruz is too politically conservative for cities and many states. The country has moved left since Reagan and since my favorite U.S. president Calvin "peace and prosperity" Coolidge (That is why Obama was elected twice).
There isn't a lot of excitement for Hillary and she has weaknesses, but she has the media and other factors which are in her favor. I really hope the email/Clinton Foundation/etc. problems sink her candidacy. I don't think Bernie is electable. I think he is too far to the left. So far he has been handled with kid gloves and Hillary has morphed into "Hillary Sanders" in some respects.
It may take larger problems with the current system before America throws the Democrats out of the White House and even then America may get a RINO.
If the U.S. government becomes broke and cannot give away freebies, then liberalism will probably lose a lot of its luster.
Hopefully, many Americans will turn to God. Americans turning away from God is at the root of many of America's problems. And it is going to take a lot more than a good president to turn America around (large government debt, many poor schools, etc. etc.). Conservative (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2016 (EDT)
The Club for Growth has endorsed Cruz for President and will spend $1 million on attack TV ads before the Wisconsin Primary. JDano (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
Actually, the reason why Obama won was because of voter fraud. There were plenty of states that indicated that there were 100% voter turnout for Obama, which even in the most LIBERAL of cities is completely impossible, not to mention all of the states the Republicans won happened to have voter ID installed. It had nothing to do with whether the country moved to the left.
As far as whether America turned away from God, to be honest, I'm not even sure if we ever were allied with God to begin with, not after reading Liberty The God that Failed and some stuff on The American Catholic, Catholicism.com, and Tradition in Action, anyways. I definitely know that at the very least Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson definitely advocated heavily for getting rid of God from the Constitution (in fact, Franklin was even the one who told Jefferson to change "sacred" to "self-evident" in the preamble since apparently the former sounded too religious for him.). Pokeria1 (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2016 (EDT)

I don't think the American Revolution was in accordance with Romans 13:1-7 and this was debated among American colonists at the time.[61] At the same time, historically America has sent out a lot of missionaries.

I wish there was better candidates on both the Republican/Democrat side. Trump has some good ideas such as selling off some US government assets to help pay off the debt, negotiating better trade deals (if he doesn't cross the line into protectionism and cause a trade war), being more proactive as far as: stopping illegal immigrants and terrorists from entering the USA, etc.

But Trump has some character issues and quickly needs to fix them. I am not confident that this will happen. And I don't entirely trust Cruz. But they are both better than Hillary who is a very corrupt, Machiavellian politician who is very thirsty for power.

The current anemic economic recovery is long in the tooth. If the economy suffers a downturn before 2020, the next president may very well be a one term president. There are indications that the next economic downturn will be worse than the one in 2007-2008. Conservative (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2016 (EDT)

Agreed there (and as a side note, I indented the first paragraph of my post a bit further than before since it was supposed to be part of my post). Let's hope we do get through this election cycle. To be honest, even if Cruz is a foreign national, based on his stand against immigration and track record (I know he heavily fought against the Gang of Eight bill), I'm pretty sure he's trustworthy enough regarding border patrol at least. I'm extremely reluctant to vote for Trump, considering he's still supporting Planned Parenthood despite claiming he wants to end all abortions. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2016 (EDT)

I think I may have been overly pessimistic about the Republicans winning the presidency in 2016. The economy could be better and Hillary has some weaknesses.

I think it is too hard to predict who will win this early. It is an especially complex race this year. Conservative (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2016 (EDT)


Religious liberty

There are many more red states than blue states. The left's banning and boycotts is going to hurt themselves the most. So half of American states will do the will of voters, liberals will be forced to rely on international business. You know, countries that kill and imprison gays.--Jpatt 20:10, 5 April 2016 (EDT)

"Setback for the homosexual agenda"

I respectfully disagree that His Holiness's statement is any sort of setback for the advocates of equal access to the institution of marriage -- which is, of course, now the law of the land in the US, Canada, much of Europe and other places in the world, and shows no signs of moving backwards -- if only because what the Catholic Church thinks is largely irrelevant to a campaign that has focused almost exclusively on marriage as an institution regulated by the state. While it would, admittedly, benefit marriage-equality campaigns in largely Catholic countries to have Papal approval of the idea as a way to build momentum, at the end of the day, because of the focus on the law, there are very few advocates for marriage equality who care one way or the other about what stance religions take. GerryV (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2016 (EDT)

In other words, I am far more encouraged by what Bruce Springsteen did today than I am discouraged by what the Pope said today. GerryV (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2016 (EDT)
If Springsteen wants to dry up his revenue from record royalties and concert tours for the sake of embracing liberal ideology, that's on him and him alone. He just shouldn't expect the majority of the public to go along with what he says, especially considering that the North Carolina "bathroom bill" he supported only would have served to endanger the public safety of women and children (particularly those who, up until this point, probably had been fans of his music) who use public facilities like washrooms and locker rooms. Northwest (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2016 (EDT)
The politically-motivated opinions of corrupt liberal activist judges (who do not have the power or the authority to make "law" themselves, despite while liberals believe otherwise) are not the "law of the land" by any stretch of the imagination. What homosexual agenda activists call "marriage equality" is really illegally-imposed special "rights" for a tiny percentage of the population based on sexual preference, and anyone claiming it to be "law" needs to get a better understanding of what law really is. Northwest (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2016 (EDT)
Gerry for gender neutral restrooms. It's the noble civil rights challenge of the 21st century. How can we help .03% of the population? Pathetic. Oh and gays are far less concerned about what stance religion takes because the fascists will punish every Christian that doesn't agree--Jpatt 18:04, 8 April 2016 (EDT)

"No signs of moving backwards"? Expect setbacks. They are coming

GerryV,

"No signs of moving backwards"?

Please see: Secular left's inability to stop the rise of anti-homosexuality laws around the world.

In addition, due to the higher fertility of religious conservatives and religious immigration to the Western World, the religious are expected to see a net gain in political power in the 21st century (see: Desecularization and politics).

Mecca, one of the holy cities of Islam, has no gay parades.

I hope you are not under the mistake impression the myriads of Muslims moving to Europe recently (and possibly into the future), are going to embrace homosexuality? And remember, many European Muslims are notoriously resistant to assimilation - especially the staunch Muslims who have high birth rates (not the sub-replacement levels of fertility of the irreligious. See: Desecularization).

Is this another case of a secular leftist rewriting history (See: Atheism and historical revisionism) or engaging in poor historical analysis (see: Atheism and historical illiteracy).

By the way, given the many diseases associated with homosexual activity and the expected growth of conservative religion in the 21st century and its expected political effect on the Western World, why do you say that being anti-homosexuality is "moving backwards"? Are you anti-medical science? Aren't you aware of what the religious/political demography experts forecast for the 21st century? Are you against sound social science? Are you stuck in the recent past and unwilling to move forward?

At a conference Eric Kaufmann said of religious demographic projections concerning the 21st century:

"Part of the reason I think demography is very important at least if we are going to speak about the future is that it is the most predictable of the social sciences.

...if you look at a population and its age structure now. You can tell a lot about the future. ...So by looking at the relative age structure of different populations you can already say a lot about the future...

...Religious fundamentalism is going to be on the increase in the future and not just out there in the developing world..., but in the developed world as well.[62]

I hope this clarifies matters. And I hope you enjoyed the political pendulum swinging to the secular left while it lasted. Because it is probably is not going to last. Conservative (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2016 (EDT)

Conservapedia in Spanish please?

I'd like to start translating pages into Spanish to do with military subjects. --Danilodicampo (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2016 (EDT)

That's an interesting idea. For the most part, this wiki is (obviously) English. I don't believe be have sub-domains for other languages, but I think I've seen pages in other languages, with that language identified in the title, like "Example Page (de)" but I don't know exactly how. If no one else responds to you, you should probably ask User:Conservative (an active and influential admin) and/or User:Aschlafly (The owner of this site). Thanks for your interest in helping! --David B (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2016 (EDT)
We had an active admin from Mexico who spoke Spanish but he is an inactive for personal reasons or because he got offended by the pro-Trump postings on the main page. Hopefully, it is the former reason and not the latter reason. I know he was very active in a personal endeavor so let's hope for the best. Feel free to contact admin User:Joaquín Martínez with your idea. He was last active in June of 2015.
Donald Trump is not a sure thing for being the next U.S. president by any means due to his longstanding spotlight in the public realm and his presently high unfavorability rating according to pollsters. Of course, Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate (using historical standards) with pretty high unfavorability ratings too so the race is hard to predict with certainty.
Absent of Mr. Martinez getting actively involved, I am not aware of Mr. Schlafly (the owner of the website) or any of the other admins fluently speaking Spanish so it probably will be a hard sell to Mr. Schlafly. Conservative (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2016 (EDT)

Dwight Kehoe is legally wrong

This article linked on MPR, by Dwight Kehoe, asserts that Ted Cruz is only a U.S. citizen if he obtained a consular report of birth abroad. Mr. Kehoe, who cites no authority, is blatantly wrong. In 1970 (the year of Ted Cruz's birth), the relevant statutory provision provided that citizenship was granted at birth to those born outside the United States to one citizen parent and one alien parent if the citizen parent lived in the United States for one year continuously at any time prior to birth or for a total of 10 years, including at least five years , 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(5), §1401(a)(7) (now 8 U.S.C. §1401(e), §1401(g)). There appears to be no statute conditioning citizenship on obtaining a CRBA. As the State Deparment's website points out, a CRBA is just a method of proving citizenship, and an unexpired U.S. passport is proof of United States citizenship. I think the article should be removed from MPR given the fundamental misunderstanding the author has about immigration law. GregG (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2016 (EDT)

ADDENDUM Also, Mr. Kehoe may want to look at 8 U.S.C. §1503(a). GregG (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2016 (EDT)
Cruz is still not a naturally born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President. There is no misunderstanding about that. VargasMilan (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2016 (EDT)
If he is not a natural-born citizen, what process did he have to go through to become a citizen? GerryV (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2016 (EDT)
Obama's case has dumbed down the popular understanding. If Obama had been found to have been born in Kenya, there would have been weeks of discussion on the matter when he was running for president. Today Cruz is known to have been born in Canada, and there's hardly a word spoken. Being not born on U.S. soil and/or being born to a parent non-allegiant to the United States, Cruz is at the mercy of whatever legislation was around then. VargasMilan (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2016 (EDT)
That doesn't really answer my question: what process, bureaucratic or otherwise, did Cruz have to go through to gain the American citizenship he was not naturally born into? GerryV (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2016 (EDT)
The naturalization process dictated by Congress. In place of being naturally born. I suppose it's more of a rational procedure than a juridicial one. VargasMilan (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

I wasn't sure that Cruz was a natural born citizen until I read this article: Some Say Ted Cruz Is Not a Natural Born Citizen: George Washington and James Madison Disagree. Conservative (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

Ann Coulter here refuted that argument over a month before that was published! VargasMilan (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2016 (EDT)
Do you expect Cruz to be ruled ineligible? If so, who's gonna do it? If not, what's the point of this argument? In terms of general election polls, Trump is now so far behind Hillary that there is no longer any plausible way he could get elected. With an 11-point lead, she could probably win campaigning from a jail cell. If Trump ever challenges her again, she can just send some more protesters into the Trump rallies, and then he's toast. It's too late to take back the clips where he appears to endorse violence at the rallies. I guarantee you that the media will blame Trump for whatever confrontations occur. PeterKa (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2016 (EDT)
Anyone here who speaks out against Trump relies on the same tired arguments that have been asked and answered, some of which on this very website! I have a question for you. Aren't you ashamed that after Phyllis Schlafly scores a coup for conservatives by swapping her endorsement of Trump for promises of nominating conservative Supreme Court Justices, promises that Trump himself made public, you go on her son's website to uninformedly talk down that same candidate? There's no downside for you! If Trump wins everyone will forget about your nay-saying. If Trump loses you were the lone voice of opposition! After jostlegate imploded do you still think "Trump the bully" stories are going to be taken seriously? And like other misguided rubes you are measuring Trump against a yardstick of an ideal conservative who isn't running! Conservatism sells, as Rush Limbaugh says, and Trump will start to sell in the swing states Romney didn't win, the same states where Hillary is losing to Bernie. VargasMilan (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2016 (EDT)
Only if you believe what the liberal polls tell you, Peter (and I place no stock in such polls because they're routinely known to lie and skew numbers in their favor; truth be told, there's no way that Hillary is more popular with the public than Trump is). You shouldn't place stock in what the mainstream media says either because, like they've done with Obama the last eight-plus years, the media will cheerlead for whoever wins the Democrat nomination (and they too have done nothing but lie about Trump and twist and selectively edit their news reports that cover him to make him and, by extension, his supporters look bad). Northwest (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2016 :(EDT)
  • I post for my own amusement and for that of my fellow conservatives. I had no idea I was effecting Phyllis' abilibility to extract promises from Trump. You make it sound like someone from the Trump campaign came by and complained about my posts. I don't support some "ideal conservative who isn't running." I am a Cruz supporter, as is Limbaugh. PeterKa (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

Outspoken Christian Stephen Curry broke Michael Jordan's record for most wins in a season

In basketball, teams, and not individuals are credited with wins; Messrs. Curry and Jordan do not hold any record for "most wins in a season." The headline should read something along the lines of "the Golden State Warruors broke the Chicago Bulls' record..." as basketball is in actuality a team sport and not an individual competition. GerryV (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

Cold Greeting for Cruz...

According to Rush Limbaugh, this is a fallacy. Apparently, someone turned off Cruz's microphone, and switch on the mics at the tables instead. Funny how "accidents" like this happen. --David B (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

In case this seems like an obscure comment, I'm referring to the main page news section. I should have been more clear. --David B (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2016 (EDT)

Hello can someone give me full access please?

I just added "Battle of Kasserine Pass" using good American and British sources to page to do with the "Afrika Korps" but I suppose when I try to add another battle tomorrow I won't have access to make any edits or post any comments or request help in this or any other talk page. I tried to create a separate page to do with "Battle of Kasserine Pass" but your bot or whatever it is wouldn't let me so I had to post my work (using proper sources of course) in your page to do with the Afrika Korps. If someone can help I'd greatly appreciate it. I want to make your online encyclopaedia popular when it comes to modern history. Thanks. BTW my email is mikestefano181@gmail.com , over and out.--Mikestefano (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

I don't think this was some kind of "hiccup", which would suggest a transient computer error. I think it was a case of the "spam filter" not letting you create articles with a certain 3-letter sequence in the name. If you had created "Battle of Kdonkeyerine Pdonkey", there probably would have been no problem. I also had this problem, and it was also attended to by an administrator creating the page for me. See this discussion
Could some admin fix this? I have noticed over the last couple of years a great reluctance on the part of the admins to address issues like this. It must make a very bad impression on new users that this sort of thing happens. SamHB (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2016 (EDT)
I have had the spam filter prevent me from doing an edit a couple of times and I am an admin. I think it was due to him having temporary access problems to the wiki which I called a "hiccup". Conservative (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2016 (EDT)
Uh, no. I just tried to create "Bottle of Kasserine Pass", and was blocked with "The title "Bottle of Kasserine Pass" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: .*(?i:ass) # <br />"
It is not a "hiccup", as anyone who looked into it would have found. It was the spam filter. Would some admin please fix that?
I'm not denying that CP experiences transient "hiccups" (server errors) frequently, though it's been pretty reliable the last couple of days. SamHB (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2016 (EDT)
Someone really needs to remove that from the spam filter, or list it in quotes with a space on each side. That word is always a problem when you try to block it. --David B (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2016 (EDT)
That wouldn't help; there are many compound words attached to that word that deserve to be filtered. I predict new users are not going to be negatively disposed to Conservapedia by similar problems unless they already share SamHB's cynical prejudices about the admins. VargasMilan (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2016 (EDT)

I just fixed the overzealous spam filter that was blocking creation of the "Bottle of Kasserine Pass." Thanks for mentioning the problem.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

Thanks, Andy, for attending to this. We've seen some very helpful things from admins lately—this "spam filter" fix, Cons's fix for the original "Battle" page, JPatt's fix for "Mersa Matruh", and JPatt's fix for Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles. I'm sure this has made a favorable impression on new user Mikestefano, and that he has no reason to have "cynical prejudices about the admins".
And no, I'm sure there are lots of bottles and jars in or near the Kasserine Pass, but none of them are noteworthy enough to have a page.  :-) SamHB (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

Can someone help with correcting misspelling of title of new article page?

The culprit is me, I created pg as "Battle of Mersa Matrtuh" when it should've been "Battle of Mersa Matruh". Thanks again, everybody.--Mikestefano (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

Done--Jpatt 13:32, 18 April 2016 (EDT)
I was about to alert you to this, but I see you got it fixed. SamHB (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

Thanks again everybody.--Mikestefano (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

Alexander Hamilton saved, Jackson gone from $20 bill soon

Looks like Harriet Tubman will replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, instead of Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill. See, Tubman replacing Jackson on the $20, Hamilton spared DerekE (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2016 (EDT)

The slave-owning founder of the Democratic Party gets replaced by a gun-totting Republican. How great is that? PeterKa (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Moral relativity and Hobbes

Mortimer Adler suggested that moral confidence and the application of morals in a general way rests on a series of narrowing set of principles like the apex of a pyramid. Trusting in God and learning and interpreting the Bible well can secure each member of the set without spelling out the principles, but may not always allow one to reinforce them in an educated way in others who are less diligent. Believing in this model of moral confidence and moral generality is the reason why I think that moral relativity did not begin with Thomas Hobbes.

For example, a skeptic like Sextus Empiricus who lived in the 3rd century AD probably promoted moral skepticism as opposed to moral confidence. If you doubt that good and evil exist at all or exist too confusedly to discern, you are unlikely to morally direct your way or advise general moral practices confidently. By extension, if any other member of the set of principles I described is unsettled, it might also lead to moral relativity. VargasMilan (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2016 (EDT)

Presidents acting like kings

Hi.

I noticed the news bulletin and read the link. I'm a bit surprised that they barely even covered Thomas Jefferson in there, because he actually DID act very much like a king during his presidency. In fact, if I recall correctly, when he ran against John Adams, he promised to stop Federalism, yet when he did get elected, he said "We're all federalists now" and actually doubled down on the federalism. I think the book Liberty: The God that Failed even covered quite a bit on how most of our founding fathers actually acted more like kings than even George III. In fact, I can even list a link: http://distributistreview.com/review-liberty-the-god-that-failed-part-i/ Should we reword the news item a bit? Pokeria1 (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

Cruz

I removed this bit of the MPR item "Cruz is a choke artist - just like Marco Rubio." First of all, Cruz has been in the race the longest of all candidates. He won his home state, unlike Marco and won more than one state. I don't support Cruz's decision to stay in the race after being mathematically eliminated.

Marco will likely see his calling as VP in the Trump administration. --Jpatt 11:57, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

You are right as far as the reversion. And I think the Trump vs. Cruz rivalry carried to far will wind up fracturing the party and prevent a unified party come election time.
In addition, Cruz doesn't have a lot of options right now. He probably felt he needed to break the news cycle of "Trump whupped Cruz in the northeast". Conservative (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Trump goes up in the polls, protesters reappear

Looks like Hillary is running scared. She was 11 points ahead of Trump as recently as April 11. Now she's only 7 points ahead. Even scarier for the Democrats is a Rasmussen poll that shows that depicts the race as a dead heat. This poll is done a little differently than a conventional matchup, which asks respondents to choose between two candidates. Rasmussen also gives respondents the options of "staying home" and voting for "some other candidate." It turns out that that a significant number of independents who express a nominal preference for Hillary may end up not voting for anyone. So guess what? More violence at the Trump rallies as left-wing protestors renew their attacks -- right on cue.[63] Who would've thunk? PeterKa (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Only 6% actually chose "stay home," while 16% said they would vote for some other candidate, probably Sanders. If Sanders doesn't run or, god forbid, climbs onto the ticket as Hillary's running mate, there's not telling how that 16% will split between staying home, Hillary, and Trump. ChrisBaker (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2016 (EDT)
Yeah, that's true. I'm not so sure these are Sanders supporters, but "some other candidate" is not a real-world option. Rasmussen should not be presenting it as if it was. If you take the Rasmussen poll out of the mix, Hillary is currently nine points ahead of Trump. PeterKa (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2016 (EDT)

The Establishment "accepts" Trump

Somehow, I don't think all the news about the establishment's "acceptance" of Trump is going to help him.[64] Just think about what happened to the people the establishment has "accepted" so far. First, there was Jeb Bush, then Rubio, then Kasich.....and now Trump. Truth be told, I think this meme is just self-generated media buzz. Reporters are going around asking Republicans something along the lines of, "If Trump is the nominee, would you accept him?" The answer is "of course." What else could they do it that situation? Jump up and down and stamp their feet?

FiveThirtyEight projects that Trump will get 97 percent of what needs to get a first ballot nomination. That works out to 1,200 delegates pledged to Trump in Cleveland, 37 short of a majority. If no one gets a majority on the first ballot, the delegates become unpledged. If a second ballot is held, it will almost certainly yield a Cruz nomination. The rules, including the ones about pledged delegates, can be rewritten by Rules Committee, which meets just before the convention. The members of that committee will be mostly Cruz supporters. PeterKa (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2016 (EDT)

Setback

Protestors: B-but we thought they admired our audacious Mexican supremacist trial balloon in Chicago–after all, Trump's poll numbers dropped! How come when we amped it up ten times in California it did the opposite? VargasMilan (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2016 (EDT)

By revealing themselves too early, the Mexican supremacist California rioters really put the left behind the "hate" ball. VargasMilan (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2016 (EDT)

Who knew the California hispanic activist community was led by miserable racists! The Mexican supremacy movement can't be for pride of political superiority - foreign nationals like Americans don't even have freedom of speech or assembly in Mexico, the very vessels of propagation they are (ab)using in America to make themselves heard! I wonder when the rank and file Mexican activists will be asked to "disavow" the racism of their leaders? (hint: never) VargasMilan (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2016 (EDT)

Good news for Trump supporters: http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/are-ted-cruz-delegates-starting-to-freak/ Conservative (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2016 (EDT)
  • Trump's poll numbers go down when he is portrayed as the aggressor in rally violence. The media is siding with Trump now because they want him to beat Cruz. PeterKa (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2016 (EDT)
Ha-ha, no Peter, that's the point–the media tried to portray Trump as the aggressor (see the New York Times' "Trump rally in California turns violent") but it was so easy for anyone to refute simply by saying "what about the dozens of Mexican flags?" that anyone who had had doubts about who was at fault for the attacks at these rallies suddenly saw what was going on. It probably clinched the nomination for Trump.VargasMilan (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

Indiana

There's been a major Trump surge in Indiana in the last few days.[65] This certainly looks like the end of the Cruz campaign. In theory, he could stage a comeback in California. But Trump is already ahead there. As time goes by, more and more people will just want this thing to be over with. I expect Hillary will be indicted next. Before long, we will all learn how to say, "President Biden" -- or possibly "Obama's third term." Indiana voters, please surprise us. PeterKa (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2016 (EDT)

John Stossel's political betting website indicates that Trump has a 22% chance of being president and Biden has a little less than 1% chance of being elected.[66]
If Trump is elected say goodbye to political correctness. I think conservatives and other opponents of liberalism will become more bold. Trump would also eat up media time as far as liberal political causes. RINOS would suffer too and maybe lose control of the GOP for years.Conservative (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2016 (EDT)
Biden's net favorables are +10.[67] Trump is at -28.[68] I'll be a walkover. PeterKa (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Biden is a goofball and weak. I don't he would have ever ran to be president. Conservative (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Biden can't tie his own shoe laces. Hillary won't be indicted. In an election season where conventional wisdom is non-existent...don't rely too much on unfavorables. Most people have their minds made up by now.--Jpatt 01:03, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
The big money donors won't be opening their wallets for Trump.[69] If he can win without money, that will definitely smash conventional wisdom. PeterKa (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
I think Ronald Reagan's unfavorables in spring 1980 were even higher than Donald Trump's today. Then, as now, fatigue with liberals will set in and people like voting for a Republican entertainer, as Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger proved by landslides.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Here is something on Reagan's favorability. In early 1980, it was 70 percent positive, 32 negative. Trump's numbers are 34 positive, 62 negative. See also this chart of Reagan vs Carter matchups. PeterKa (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
For the record, if Trump has a -29 net favorability rating before the California riots have been factored in, it should be noted that under the same time period Cruz has a -25 net favorability rating. VargasMilan (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Cruz's unfavorables went up just recently. I assume that reflects the effect of Trump's Cruz bashing on Trump supporters. Trump's numbers have been stable since September. PeterKa (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

If Trump wins the nomination, the supporters of "Lyin' Ted" may sit home in the general election. I think the "Lyin' Ted" gambit is a risky gambit that was best left unplayed. Conservative (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

Trump says:
"Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, whom Trump last month declared “is not doing a great job,” became a “great” governor. He dubbed Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) “a great guy” instead of “Little Marco.” And he called Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) – whose cellphone number he once gave out at a rally -- “a nice guy.”
“Once I defeat them, I like every one of them,” Trump said. “I don’t like Lyin’ Ted … but in about four or five weeks from now, I think he’s going to be one of my best friends.”[70]
I have my doubts that this strategy will work. Conservative (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Drudge Report has Trump considering Cruz for the Supreme Court, which would be helpful if Cruz's supporters becomes an issue. VargasMilan (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Trump is going to say that he is going to nominate "Lyin' Ted" to the US Supreme Court if we wins? I think Trump may have burned this bridge. I think he went over the line and the situation may be very difficult or impossible to repair in matter of months. Cruz's current refusal to say whether or not that he would endorse Trump if Trump were nominated is no accident. Trump's hardball campaign against Cruz virtually insures the Cruz will stay in the race as long as he possibly can. Cruz has a never back down personality.
On the other hand, Sanders, the FBI situation, and attacks on Hillary could cause Trump to win.
I think the race is going to be partly won on who is disliked the least. Trump and Hillary have high unfavorables and they have been both in the public eye a long time. To reposition a candidates longstanding brand in a matter of months is difficult.
Credible allegations of crook are a powerful brand changer though and if the FBI recommends indictment or the FBI employees do a number of leaks or the head of the FBI resigns that could cause a political firestorm. I have my doubts that Obama's DOJ will indict though given the corrupt nature of the Democrats/Obama administration.Conservative (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Dozens of FBI agents are working on it. Something will happen. "Don't be shocked … if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen." So says Boehner.[71] PeterKa (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

It's do-or-die time for Trump in Indiana, but with the momentum Fiorina as VP gives to his ticket, Cruz doesn't really need to win this time around. VargasMilan (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

Cruz should have dropped out of the race and built goodwill for the next race. He is still a young man. Maybe he will prove me wrong and win in Indiana. The pollsters were recently wrong recently with Sanders. However, it doesn't look good at this point. Given Trump's momentum, the pollsters are probably right. On the other hand, winning a contested primary at this point (with Trump so far out ahead) would probably create such a degree of ill-will that Trump supporters would stay home. Hence, he probably should have dropped out by now.
But given Cruz's strong desire to be president, his persistent personality and given Trump's hardball rhetoric towards him, I have serious doubts he will drop out even if he loses Indiana. Conservative (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
I have to admit it's beginning to dawn on me that my analysis may not have been unmixed with the quality to which one applies the word "facile"—Cruz "Trump is an 'utterly amoral' bully, narcissist, pathological liar"
Ted Cruz explodes at Donald Trump. It looks very doubtful that Cruz will endorse Donald Trump if he wins the nomination. Given his momentum, Trump should be looking ahead at the general election, but given his aggressive personality, he continues to anger Cruz and his supporters. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Conservative (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Uh, did you read the story that you linked to? Trump accused Cruz's dad of being in cahoots with JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. The only source is an article in the National Enquirer. This is after a series of Trump attacks on Cruz's wife. What sort of reaction should Cruz have had? PeterKa (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
You said a mouthful. I tried to look at that picture of Cruz's wife that Trump retweeted but had to close the browser window. Chauvinistic, sexist stuff. Even in the heat of the campaign where Cruz allowed his surrogates to use Trump's wife's modeling photos to make political hits, what kind of candidate would be so misogynistic as to share a photo of his opponent's wife that's not only unflattering but unmistakably awkward as well? Who can forget the outrage that ensued across the board, leading even Ann Coulter to utter "I didn't like the Heidi retweet." Trump's disproportionate response to Rafael Cruz was just the icing on Trump's bullying cake. It's almost as if Trump actually resented being denounced from the pulpit by Cruz's father! VargasMilan (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
I think it's that Cruz has been one election away from being susceptible to a knockout blow by Trump for a long time now, and when he picked a running mate it was like he was playing it cool. So when Cruz was scrambling to do well that next election carrying four sacks of groceries at once, as it were, Trump gave him a fifth bag. It wasn't very nice, but maybe in his way he was trying to evoke a response that would show something about the suitability of Cruz's temperament for the presidency. VargasMilan (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

Another news pick

[72]. Thanks, GregG (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

Ben Rhodes

Here's the best indication yet that Hillary ain't gonna be president: Ben Rhodes, the Obama advisor who has been a principle architect of U.S. foriegn policy for the last four years or so, oozes contempt toward her in an incredibly cynical NYT interview. The man literally boasts of the all the lies he concocted to get the Iran deal through. Multiple sources describe Rhodes as having a "mind meld" with Obama. What qualifications does Rhodes have to be a foriegn policy guru? Why, he has a master's degree in creative writing. PeterKa (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2016 (EDT)

If Hillary was going to be indicted by the DOJ, then why has Obama done fundraising for her campaign? It seems like the fix is in.
How much control Obama has over the FBI is another question. The FBI has a solid reputation that they may not want to tarnish so they can recommend indictment and/or their employees can leak to the press. Conservative (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2016 (EDT)
It was Valerie Jarrett who took the email issue to The New York Times in the first place.[73] So Obama has been pulling the strings all along. The hacker Guccifer has been extradited from Romania -- and he is ready to testify that breaking into Hillary's email server was as easy as entering "an open orchid on the Internet."[74] PeterKa (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2016 (EDT)

The Donald Trump insult generator

With so many losers and dummies to deal with, Trump hasn't had the opportunity to insult me personally just yet. But thanks to the magic of the Internet, that's a situation we can remedy using the Donald Trump insult generator. So let's give Trump the last laugh:

When will PeterKa start to apologize to me?
I hear that sleepy eyes PeterKa will be fired like a dog? I can't imagine what is taking so long!
PeterKa graduated last in his class--dummy!
Love watching PeterKa fail!
Uncomfortable looking PeterKa calls me to ask for favors and then mockingly smiles.

That last one hurt, Donald. I didn't realize you could see me smiling on the other side of the phone. PeterKa (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2016 (EDT)

Leave it to a liberal company to come up with this. Still, that is funny! Whether he be incessantly calling Cruz a liar, or be implying that Cruz's father or perhaps Cruz himself was the the zodiac killer based only on a photo conatining someone who looked something like Cruz's dad, he just keeps farming the insults, doesn't he? We do need someone who is not afraid to bruise a few egos to get the job done, but this seems over-board. --David B (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2016 (EDT)