Talk:Main Page/Archive index/143

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

"Pay to play" at Hillary's State Department

How much was face time with Secretary Clinton worth? For Bahrain, it was $100,000 from the government plus another “$25,000 to $50,000” from the state oil company.[5] Get this: "Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain wanted to reach the secretary of State, he was told to call the Clinton Foundation to make an appointment." The prince had already donated $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative -- and they were still shaking him for money! See, the prince made a rookie mistake, which is the only reason we know about his travails. Dealing with the State Department leaves a paper trail, which has been uncovered thanks to the magnificent work of Judicial Watch. What he should have done is go directly to Huma. Huma turns out to be the link between Clinton and wealthy Arab donors -- the epicenter of corruption. This level of corruption sounds less like modern times and more like the stuff Jefferson's diplomats had to deal with when they visited less civilized regions such as Paris or the Barbary Coast. Someone needs to ask Clinton which donor paid how much to cancel the Benghazi rescue mission. See "E-mail: Military Offered to Send Rescue Team to Benghazi During Attack." PeterKa (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2016 (EDT)

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

Trump reverses immigration stance

We all saw this one a mile off, didn't we? "Krauthammer: Trump Immigration Stance Exactly What He Denounced Bush, Soft-Liners For Taking." The only surprise is, Why didn't Trump reverse himself right after clinching the nomination? That's what pundit after pundit predicted during the primaries. As long as the alternative is a woman who is determined to sell America out to the Gulf Arabs, he's got my vote. As Hillary's health declines, Huma will become the real president. Huma's mom wrote an article defending the 9/11 attack.[6] If either Hillary or Huma disagree, they haven't said anything. Really, you might as well vote for ISIS. PeterKa (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2016 (EDT)

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

Hillary on women and children

From a recent Hillary Clinton speech: "During the raid to kill bin Laden, when every second counted, our SEALs took the time to move the women and children in the compound to safely. Donald Trump may not get it, but that's what honor looks like."[7] Yeah, and Obama also ordered that all the men in the compound be shot on sight. Why was it so important to end bin Laden's life? Because Obama had already promised to close Guantanamo. Quick! Get the man another Nobel Peace Prize. I think a few Branch Davidian children may have survived the Waco raid. So Bill deserves a silver star, at least.
"Take no prisoners" was once a metaphor for extreme ruthlessness. Yet it is Obama's literal policy toward Jihadis. Don't get me wrong. I'm happy bin Laden got what was coming to him. But don't let Hillary convince you that Republicans are ruthless while Democrats have "honor." PeterKa (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2016 (EDT)

Trump comes roaring back

Just a few days ago, the pundits were telling us Trump was finished and the election was over. Now, Trump is tied in Ohio,[8] tied in the national tracking polls, and a mere three points behind in Pennsylvania, the state most likely to be the pivot of this election.[9] Judging from rally attendance, Trump's supporters are likely to turn out at a significantly higher rate than Hillary supporters. I assume the turnaround is due to the "pay-to-play" allegations against Hillary that I detail above. With legendary consultant Roger Ailes advising Trump on debate strategy, there may be more good news in the pipeline. PeterKa (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2016 (EDT)

Hillary's convention bump has dissapated, the pay for play scandal has had more light shown on it and she continues to hide from the press.
And Trump is now more disciplined and has all be erased her fundraising edge.
I hope he makes gains in the battleground states and is able to win in those states.
In addition, most of the press's lack of objectively is apparent to most people I would think. I rarely buy newspapers as I don't want to reward incompetence and malevolence towards people of goodwill (Also, why buy newspapers when you can get the news free online or at libraries for free). Conservative (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2016 (EDT)

Kerry: "The people wouldn't know what's going on."

The problem is not that Obama pays out enormous amounts in ransom or refuses to allow the Navy to defend itself from Iranian attacks. It's that the press still occasionally tells people what's going on. And that's straight from our esteemed Secretary of State Bob Kerry: "Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover [terrorism] quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on." Like Orwell wrote in 1984, "ignorance is strength." If the American people would just mind their own business, the Jihadis could get back to work "tightening their fetters," as the Koran puts it. PeterKa (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2016 (EDT)

Trump! Trump leads in Rasmussen Poll!

Even though I wanted Trump to win over Hillary Clinton, I had some big doubts that he could win even though I did agree with Newt Gingrich that Trump was not trying to win to the best of his ability.

But now Trump appears to be focused and on message, more disciplined and closing the fundraising gap.

He's also pruning away some of his "New York attitude" and so he's nicer/humbler and subsequently gained a wider appeal. I had some big doubts that the "Trump dog" would want to learn some tricks as far as his personality/character goes, but he appears to making some changes.

The big reason I wanted Trump to win is I think "Crooked Hillary" would make an even worse president than Barack Obama. Conservative (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2016 (EDT)

I just read one of the most humorous statements I have ever seen on the internet. They were not meaning to be humorous, but nonetheless it was a humorous statement. It's from the Vox news website. Here it is: "It’s unclear exactly why Clinton is getting less popular."[10] Unclear? Crooked Hillary! The crooked Hillary meme is reaching critical mass.
"Hillary Clinton Mirrors Richard Nixon in 1972, Donald Trump Mirrors Andrew Jackson".[11] Conservative (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2016 (EDT)
  • Fivethirtyeight rates Rasmussen a C+ pollster. LA Times, rated A-, has a new survey out that shows Trump ahead by 3 points. The other current top-rated poll is Ipsos (A-). It shows Clinton ahead by 2 points one point.[12] In short, after weeks of pundits sputtering that Trump was toast, the race is all tied up. For me, the hope of seeing the drive-by media humiliated is the No. 1 reason to vote for Trump.
    I found this headline at the Huffington Post amusing: "So Donald Trump Can Criticize America, But Colin Kaepernick Can’t?" After having invested so much into the "Trump is satan" storyline, the drive-bys now wants to use their own caricature of Trump as the gold standard of acceptable behavior. I do not follow sports news and I do not know what this Kaepernick fellow might have done to merit a comparison with Trump. But I have to wonder, is he a racist of some kind? PeterKa (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2016 (EDT)

Fivethirtyeight is run by Nate Silver at the New York Times. And if memory serves, and I think it does, he totally flubbed on the issue of the rise of Trump in the Republican primaries. I believe this was pointed out by User:VargasMilan in a previous main page talk post. Conservative (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2016 (EDT)

I do try to be a realist and in 2012, Rasmussen was near the bottom of the heap as far as presidential polling accuracy. Ipsos/Reuters was number #1.[13]
Pew Research who is quoted in several of Conservapedia's atheism articles was ranked #6.
Anyways, Trump is closing the gap and I hope the clock does not run out on him. We will see what develops in terms of: the economy, the presidential debates, the Clinton Foundation scandal, Hillary Clinton's health in light of the grueling schedule that is often required in presidential elections in the home stretch, Islamic terrorism, Wikileaks revelations, ObamaCare failures and Middle East politics. Conservative (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2016 (EDT)
And the debates. There's probably a record number of people who will not decide til the October debates. And so far it appears Johnson and Stein hurt Hillary more than Trump.RobS#NeverHillary 22:23, 1 September 2016 (EDT)
  • Nate Silver makes lots of predictions, and some will be wrong. You only listen to people who never make mistakes? Silver doesn't work for the New York Times anymore. He's at ESPN. PeterKa (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2016 (EDT)
Post Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the USA has drifted more to the left because much of the world is to the left of the USA politically. As a result, GOP candidates have a tougher and tougher electoral map to tackle. Hillary has this built in advantage.
At the same time, Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate. Even if she wins, she may be a one term. However, Anne Coulter thinks Clinton will attempt to flood the USA with even more immigrants plus push amnestry though and if the GOP doesn't win in 2016, they may never win again. But who knows, maybe Trump-Breitbart News-Roger Ailes may launch a news network to the right of Fox News which becomes more popular than Fox News (Some leftist are worried about this). If Trump runs again in 2020 (since he is in excellent health now), that could help his campaign.
I have my doubts about Coulter's prediction as it usually takes at least 3-5 years to become a citizen of the USA even if you get your green card (permanent residency). My guess is that any amnesty would be a political compromise and go into effect slowly. And amnesty could be hard to push through in the USA's present day polarized/gridlocked politics.
I think it is tough to make 2016 presidential predictions at this point due to the fact that Hillary is a weak candidate. Conservative (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2016 (EDT)
The three most recent A-rated polls are Ipsos (Clinton +1), IBD/TPP (tie) and Fox (Clinton +2).[14] Trump does better in polls that ask about Johnson. The A-rated pollsters do this, but many less carefully done polls just ask about Trump and Hillary. A lot of Blacks turned out to vote for Obama in 2008 and 2012. But otherwise Republican turnout is higher, so you can add 2.5 points to Trump's numbers on that basis. Then there's the "Trump effect." Trump's rallies are so much better attended that Hillary has stopped holding rallies to avoid being embarrassed. Finally, if Ailes is coaching Trump on debates, we can anticipate that his performance will improve in that area. PeterKa (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2016 (EDT)

My condolences

Here is the obit in the New York Times: "Phyllis Schlafly, Conservative Leader and Foe of E.R.A., Dies at 92." PeterKa (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2016 (EDT)

Aye. Sorry to hear of your loss. JohnZ (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2016 (EDT)
I'm so sorry. BrianKay (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2016 (EDT)
My condolences as well, Andy, and best wishes to you and your family.--Whizkid (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2016 (EDT)
And mine Andy. Alan Evans AlanE (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2016 (EDT)
Appreciate the condolences!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2016 (EDT)

Proof that Bill Clinton is a racist

Bill Clinton used the slogan, "Make America great again" back in 2008. Now he admits that this was racist and a fraud on the American people.[15] “Saying I’d like to Make America Great again is like me saying I’d like to be 20 again." Obamanomics is the new normal. The Clintons have no solution, so get used to it. PeterKa (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

No, it wasn't just a one time thing. "WATCH: Four Times Bill Clinton Promised to Make America Great Again. If I can believe what I am seeing in this video, he both inhaled and exhaled. PeterKa (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
I've watched over and over again this 'proud to be a Goldwater girl speech' by Hillary in 1993. But guess what? it begins with the fear-mongering and scare tactics that were second nature to the Man From Hope, "...if this country is gonna make it...". RobS#NeverHillary 01:36, 10 September 2016 (EDT)

Wikileaks refutes Clinton/FBI lies

Hillary's favorite lie these days is that none of the email on her private server was marked classified. FBI Director Comey almost agreed, but not quite. He told us that a very small number of her messages were marked "(C)" for classified. Wikileaks has busted these lies and come up with thousands of examples.[16] It seems the FBI didn't bother to analyze email that was "only" confidential. This is the lowest level of classification, but Private Manning is in prison for leaking this type of material. PeterKa (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

Duh, the most obvious thing: she was Secretary of State. Anything she wrote was classified. Sheesh, anything that came out any oriface was automatically classified, RobS#NeverHillary 01:26, 10 September 2016 (EDT)

Chinese disrespect Obama

Obama's reaction to Iranian attacks on U.S. naval ships has shown the world that the man is a joke. Now the Chinese disrespect him at the G20 summit. Here's Krauthammer: "Incident in Hangzhou." I guess we should have seen this coming a long time ago. When Obama started bowing to royalty -- not to mention the mayor of Tampa -- it was already obvious that diplomacy was not really his thing. After Mexico City, Trump is the one who looks presidential these days.PeterKa (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2016 (EDT)

Couldn't have happened to a nicer person - Susan Rice - another White House flunky who thinks her crap don't stink. RobS#NeverHillary 01:20, 10 September 2016 (EDT)

Guess who's a woman

At The Atlantic, Peter Beinart has come out with a much discussed article accusing Hillary Clinton being a woman: "Fear of a Female President." Although she is a "highly conventional presidential candidate" in most ways, one detail gives her away: "The percentage of Americans who hold a “strongly unfavorable” view of her substantially exceeds the percentage for any other Democratic nominee since 1980." The logical conclusion is that she must be a woman. For myself, I try not to notice invidious distinctions of this kind. Dividing humanity serves only to lessen each and every one of us. I won't get into the "is she or isn't she" question. What I want to know is, Where was Beinart during the primaries? His keen observational skills could have prevented the Democrats from making this costly mistake. Here is a reply at NR: "Peter Beinart Can’t Imagine Any Reason But Sexism For Disliking Hillary Clinton." PeterKa (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2016 (EDT)

We're just a nation of bigots, I guess. Thank God for the liberal media to tell us that. RobS#NeverHillary 01:16, 10 September 2016 (EDT)
Of the scores of reasons for people to hate her, it clearly must be sexism--what else? Deceit? Breaching security? Giving comfort and aid to our enemies? Racism? Betraying U.S. representatives under attack (in Benghazi)? Pushing oppressive socialism? Other treasonous acts? Of course not! IT'S JUST BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN!!!
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
-Joseph Goebbels

...This is why I rarely engage in such conversation--it gets me all riled up. I'll get off my soap box now. --David B (TALK) 03:12, 10 September 2016 (EDT)
  • It seems that Beinart is a stalking horse for Clinton herself, who followed up by calling Trump supporters, "deplorable...racist, sexist, xenophobic, Islamophobic - you name it".[17] If Democrats actually believed any of this, it would have come up in the primaries. But I don't recall any commentary along the lines of, "It might be better if we didn't nominate a woman. It could provoke a backlash." Up to now, being a woman was touted as Hillary's greatness asset. Suddenly, it's a reason to feel sorry for her. It's all about creating a useful tool to bash opposition with. Global warming is the same way. It's a reason to bash non-believers, but not a reason to ding Obama's enormous motorcades or personal use of the fuel-inefficient Air Force One. PeterKa (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2016 (EDT)
    • Now that Hillary has identified the American voter as the problem, the next logical step is to see if we can be replaced by refugees from Latin America and the Mideast. They can do the voting that Americans just won't do. Wouldn't it be simpler if Hillary could leave us alone and move to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, or some other country where people appreciate her more? PeterKa (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2016 (EDT)
Sounds about right. I do wish that all those who hate America so much would just go to a different country they like more, instead of trashing this one. Also, you can't forget about the illegal Mexican immigrants being used to substitute for Americans. Some conservative election polling moderators have observed buses of Mexicans being brought in, one bus after another, with few, if any, having photo ID. Luckily, "Anti-discrimination" laws allow them to vote anyway, as I'm sure you already know. Ick! Before I melt down, maybe I'll go write a riveting article on paperclips. --David B (TALK) 21:54, 12 September 2016 (EDT)

NAVY!

I would like to send flowers for Mrs Schlafly, however given I'm the over side of the world in Burma, I don't think that is possible. Does the Eagle Forum accept donations from foreign citizens? CarlosS (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2016 (EDT)

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Cinton has another medical episode at 9/11 ceremony. Video. RobS#NeverHillary 12:40, 11 September 2016 (EDT)

I still feel like this could go sideways. Rather than potentially seeing her as "unfit," ignorant voters might give her sympathy votes, due to her alleged illness. After all, she's just a suffering, persecuted woman, worn ragged by the patriarchal system. Boo-hoo! The least we can do is give the poor dear our votes... --David B (TALK) 22:50, 12 September 2016 (EDT)
Nearly every election has a point in time in the days and weeks leading up to it where, retrospectively, people say that was the moment the election was decided. We may have just seen it, although there still is so much time left. It is up to Trump now to build trust with the American people. Hillary's supporters, who never were that enthusiastic and supported her grudgingly, have no trust or confidence in her anymore. A week ago, the election was Hillary's to loose; as of now it is Trump's to loose. She cannot afford another episode in her deteriorating condition, which seem to be coming in greater frequency.RobS#NeverHillary 23:40, 12 September 2016 (EDT)
Perhaps so--I hope that's true. I do find in encouraging that a few of my liberal (Sanders supporting) friends and disgusted with Hillary, and are thinking of just refusing to vote at all. We'll see in November, I guess. --David B (TALK) 23:49, 12 September 2016 (EDT)
This is where s third-party candidacy hurts Hillary snd helps Trump.RobS#NeverHillary 23:53, 12 September 2016 (EDT)
What I find interesting, for 30 years now since Hillarycare Democrats have lectured us on the need for universal healthcare and mandatory coversge because young people in their 20s are so foolish, they think they are invincible and will live forever and don t realize in their senior years they are mere mortals and will need more intensive, costly care. Yet Hillary, who began preaching this 30 years ago, has displayed throughout what is known of her medical history, and we see and hear daily on the campaign trail, is an atttude of a juvenile with emotionally arrested development who wanted to grow up to be the first woman president, and thinks she's invincible at the age of 68 and can't accept the reality of her own mortality.
I have nothing but compassion for her at this point. Don't lock her up, get her the intensive care she needs.RobS#NeverHillary 00:10, 13 September 2016 (EDT)

Question

Just so I know for sure, my account request for CreationWiki was just accepted, so am I allowed to copy material that I wrote here to that site? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2016 (EDT)

If you wrote it, it should be fine to copy it. Also, CP's content licensing is much more generous than WP's in that, if I understand correctly, it is permitted for users to copy text not authored by them for use elsewhere as well. Here are the official rules..--David B (TALK) 23:21, 11 September 2016 (EDT)

Is it time to put together a Trump Transition Team?

You know Team Clinton is in deep trouble when you see headlines like this one: "Clinton raising money on media 'bias,' a new rallying cry on the left." Didn't we all just see how the media covered up her health problems?
So what do the polls say? The king of the national polls is the Google Consumer Surveys with nearly 23,000 respondents. It gives Clinton a one point lead.[18] Fivethirtyeight puts Clinton 1.6 points ahead in the "tipping point" state of Florida.[19] Trump's Florida rallies blow Hillary's away with ten times the attendance.[20] Most polls model turnout based on the 2008 and 2012 exit polls, when Black voters got excited about Obama. One of the few polls with a more realistic turnout model is CNN/ORC, which shows Trump two points ahead.[21] PeterKa (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2016 (EDT)

Here's what we got so far:
  • Chief of Staff - Chris Christie
  • Secretary of State - Newt Gingrich
  • National Security Adviser - Mike Flynn
  • Rudy Guiliani - Homeland Security
  • Ted Cruz - Attorney General

RobS#NeverHillary 11:18, 12 September 2016 (EDT)

  • I doubt that Gingrich would work out as a secretary of state. My choice for the job is John Bolton. PeterKa (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2016 (EDT)
Gingrich wants the job. There's the Director of National Intelligence, the next most important national security post. DNI requires a guy with extensive Executive branch experience which Bolton has. Gingrich has none.RobS#NeverHillary 21:56, 15 September 2016 (EDT)
Gingrich's big accomplishment was balancing the federal budget. That would suggest he might make a good director for the Office of Management and Budget. PeterKa (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2016 (EDT)

"Frequently"

The latest Hillary health revelation is that she faints "frequently," according to Bill.[22] This is in addition to the pneumonia issue. It's obviously true, even though Bill immediately walked it back. She has been mysteriously out of public view for months -- and suddenly it's clear why. A Clinton telling the truth was such a shock that CBS deleted this section from the televised version of the interview. A candidate's health has always been a huge factor in a presidential election. The fact that Kennedy looked healthier than Nixon in their televised debate loomed large in the 1960 election. Dole never overcame the torrent of late night jokes about how old he was. Now the media tells us that we must elected this "head on a stick" or we're a bunch of sexists. This headline may look like a joke, but it represents Eleanor Clift's for-real opinion: "Hillary Clinton Isn’t Sick. You Are.." Once liberals make it through this type of denial, the Democratic National Committee will have to pick a replacement. I assume Obama will tell them what to do. We could be back to Biden vs Warren. PeterKa (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2016 (EDT)

There is no pneumonia. And in the remote chance there is, all it will do is weaken and complicate her ability to cope with the underlying nuerological condition (most likely Stage 3 Parkinson's).
This has already forced Hillary into making her closing arguments 8 weeks in advance with the added excuse she may not return to the campaign trail til late October. IOW, they want to keep her cloistered, ala Brezhnev and Andropov.RobS#NeverHillary 11:39, 15 September 2016 (EDT)
None of headlines on CNN today relate to Hillary's health. Today's top story: Obama may have been born in America.[23] How long can they avoid dealing with the obvious? Well, they didn't report Hillary's 1998 "life-threatening" blood clot until 2012. At that rate, it could take until 2030 before we get some straight talk. Obama presumably knows that her collapse is due to advanced Parkinson's rather than pneumonia. Yet he's on the campaign trail telling us that she, "Has more qualifications than any candidate in history." (See "Obama: 'I really, really, really want to elect Hillary Clinton') She told the FBI that she can hardly remember anything due the concussion and blood clots. If it's not true, she's a criminal. PeterKa (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2016 (EDT)
Perhaps I misspoke. If it is pnuemonia, it is Aspiratiion pnuemonia, a complication of Stage 3 Parkinson's and the leading cause if death in Parkinson's suffererrs. The nuerologicsl disorder causes difficulty in swallowing, food and liquids get caught in the windpipe, and eventually the lung. RobS#NeverHillary 12:30, 16 September 2016 (EDT)
The Atlantic has a full-length article on all the "wild speculation" concerning Hillary's health.[24] The amazing part is that they don't even mention Parkinson's! Hillary lies, changes her story, and then lies some more. You don't buy today's official line? What are you, some kind of conspiracy theorist? When they can no longer hide it, we'll start hearing about how Hillary "powered through" Parkinson's because "that's what women do." I tell you, the MSM has become a bad joke. PeterKa (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2016 (EDT)

Steph Curry

It seems he can reconcile his Christian faith and support Hillary Clinton for president. [25] In addition, he says he will 'most likely' stand for the National Anthem. Huge disappointment and I expected much better. --Jpatt 07:12, 15 September 2016 (EDT)

Curry's generally been non-political, but Hillary is leading among African-Americans regardless of how religious they are, so I don't know that it's particularly surprising he'd support her over Trump. Why are you disappointed he'll likely stand for the National Anthem, though?--Whizkid (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2016 (EDT)
Democrats have traditional led with black Americans. That wasn't the point. Somebody who is considered a strong Christ follower doesn't endorse, certainly not publicly, a corrupt lying abortion loving sinner. Likely is not a full-throated endorsement of American patriotism. Would you like to hear that our military will defend our nation if attacked or would you be ok if they said they'll likely defend us? It's almost a maybe and it doesn't sit well. --Jpatt 21:47, 16 September 2016 (EDT)
Except it's not like Trump is any different. Trump was pro-choice, even saying he wouldn't ban partial birth abortion, until he decided he was going to run for president as a Republican, he's publicly boasted about buying politicians, and he lies all the time. If Christians can manage to endorse Trump, in spite of his record and in spite of a lot of the frankly un-Christian things he's said and believed in, they can endorse Hillary too. --Whizkid (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2016 (EDT)
When Trump brought up the birth certificate issue in 2011, he was being a good Hillary supporter and paving the way for a 2012 Hillary/Obama rematch that never happened. The Dems went berserk over this issue; It forced him to become a Republican. We need to see Trump's tax returns, but not Obama's birth certificate? Somehow that position makes sense in MSM-land. Since Trump hired Roger Ailes a few weeks ago, he has been running as a conventional Republican. The new strategy has sent his poll numbers soaring, so perhaps he has found his groove. PeterKa (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2016 (EDT)
It's an apples and oranges argument Whiz. What Trump said in the past and what he says today. He lies all the time?? No person is a perfect angel. Lies all the time is just slinging it out there whereas Hillary has a extensive résumé of lies. The vast majority of Christians reject Hillary for reasons I have mentioned. Hillary is beyond un-Christian. You can be wrong once and a while, it's not so bad.--Jpatt 21:04, 17 September 2016 (EDT)

What percentage of Muslims are deplorable?

Ann Coulter has the perfect response to Hillary's "deplorable" comment.[26] PeterKa (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2016 (EDT)

Gen. Colin Powell on Hillary Clinton

From Colin Powell's hacked emails:

  • "You know, I'd rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect. She's a 70-year-old person, long track record. She's hampered by being greedy, not transformational, with a husband still dicking bimbos at home." (This is a reference to Clinton mistress Julie McMahon, aka "The Energizer")
  • "Clinton is always trying to use you."
  • "They are going to [screw] up the legitimate and necessary use of emails with friggin record rules. I saw email more like a telephone than a cable machine. As long as the stuff is unclassified. I had a secure State.gov machine. Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris."
  • "I told you about the [speaking] gig I lost at a University because she so overcharged them they came under heat and couldn't [pay] any fees for awhile."[27] PeterKa (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2016 (EDT)

Hillary needs a bigger basket

Reality is just beginning to intruded into mainstream medialand. Here is Nate Silver: "Election Update: Democrats Should Panic … If The Polls Still Look Like This In A Week." Ha! Ha! and more Ha! The USC/LAT poll showed Trump and Hillary tied as recently as September 12. Now Trump is 6.4 points ahead nationally.[28] The USC/LAT poll asks respondents various questions to gauge turnout. The other major pollsters build turnout models based on exit polls conducted in past elections, so they miss the uniqueness of this cycle. No longer swing states, Florida and Ohio are firmly in the Trump column. That means the battleground has shifted to Pennsylvannia. Hillary is so far behind among independents that we get headlines like this: "Independent Voters Are Overrated." If Democrats think the future is theirs, note that Hillary is only 2.1 points ahead in the 18-34 age group, according to USC/LAT. That makes the Millenials the most conservative generation in a very long time. This election is going to be a tsunami. PeterKa (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2016 (EDT)

I misread the LA Times poll. Trump is actually 8.4 points ahead among 18-34 year olds. That's even bigger than his lead among oldsters. Fancy that: The young prefer to be American rather than Muslim. Trump's overall national lead has increased to 6.7 points. This can no longer be dismissed as a short-term response to Hillary's "bad weekend." It's a game changer. PeterKa (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
I read that maybe 3% of the population won't publicly say they'll for vote Trump but are going to. More than enough to cause a landslide. --Jpatt 10:44, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
There is way more than 3% who for the better part of a decade now, if they dared exercise their First Amendment right to criticize either Barack Obama's policies, or Hillary Clinton's policy positions, have been called bigots. So of course they'll keep their mouths shut til the election booth.RobS#NeverHillary 11:20, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
The LAT survey tries to avoid that problem by using scales rather than asking respondents to give binary yes/no answers. The "shy Trump voter" issue could explain why Trump does better in the LAT survey than in other surveys. PeterKa (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
There is almost always a 4-5 pt. hidden conservative vote in sny election -- a group smong Trump's weakest supporters. That group could be as high ad 8% right now. The 'shy Trump voters' are probably very strong among moderates and undecideds.
The questions also is crossover and turnout. While several high profile conservatives express their intention to crossover, we don't see it at the grassroots. A few may be likely to stay home than crossover. Hillary has the same problem; in talking to people, I am amazed at the demographic profile of traditional Democrats I meet here in New Mexico who very quietly say they intend to vote for Trump - blacks and Native Americans included. Turnout is the key. Hillary does not have 90% of the African American vote - this is why she's hammering birtherism so hard at the moment - still trying to claim that the voter's concern about fraud & constitutionality is racist. Go ahead, I say, hang yourself, bitch. RobS#NeverHillary 13:10, 18 September 2016 (EDT)

Life under feminist-Muslim rule

The Germans were kind enough to provide a preview of life under a Hillary/Huma dictatorship: "German TV ad cosponsored by UNESCO exhorts German women to wear the hijab." PeterKa (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2016 (EDT)

Page needs archiving

but I can't access the Archive index.RobS#NeverHillary 14:00, 17 September 2016 (EDT)

Several templates need to be updated

Would someone take a look at Template:Rome, Template:Australian Prime Ministers, and their respective talk pages? Both templates need to be fixed or updated, but as they are protected, only admins can edit them. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2016 (EDT)

In overnite news...

Since they are reportedly 3 'unrelated' incidents as of now, let's report them as such.

New York bombing with 'international' connections injures 29

[29]

New Jersey bombing disrupts Marine Corp charity event

[30]

Security guard referencing Allah stabs 8 at Minnesota mall

[31]

RobS#NeverHillary 10:58, 18 September 2016 (EDT)

I take it Allah isn't too pleased with either Hillary or Obama. PeterKa (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
Thank God Allah a security guard was present...wait a minute... oh, gotta love how he was referecing Allah in a loud voice, not screaming. Think Google will deep-six these videos the way they did Innocence of the Muslims 60 days prior to presidential election? RobS#NeverHillary 12:48, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
So we 're not reporting these terrorist attacks as terrorist attacks on election eve? What, do we have Susan Rice running MPR?RobS#NeverHillary 18:59, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
Maybe the radical Islamacists are spoiling for a fight with the West and want a anti-Islam hardliner like Trump to be elected rather than Hillary Clinton.
On the other hand, maybe they are feeling the pressure of the West clamping down on them.
Alternatively, maybe ISIS is going after the weak targets and with the Obama Administration bringing in a lot of Muslim immigrants into the USA, they could see the USA as a weak target. It's possible that France is on high alert and they see the USA as being more complacent at this time.
It's tough to say.
Why do you think the attacks against America are happening now? Conservative (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
Why now? De Blasio dismantled the NYPD's anti-terrorism program about a year ago. Comey's FBI has plenty of resources, but is too politically correct to take action against potential jihadis. So they can. That's all the reason they need. This is a long war. It began when Thomas Jefferson hit the Barbary pirates. It ends when the U.S. Marines enter the Grand Mosque in Mecca, roast pork, and pop open some beers. PeterKa (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
Ok, ignore the attack. And remember next time you walk into a shopping mall, you're protected. They have security guards there. RobS#NeverHillary 00:17, 19 September 2016 (EDT)

Here's a link for MPL

Blacks for Trump

Can these guys get some visibility on the Main page.RobS#NeverHillary 12:03, 20 September 2016 (EDT)

Skittles

The Donald Trump Jr./Skittles/Nazi bruhaha is at this hour the Internet's top trending meme, dominating Memeorandum. See "Nazi Who Originated Donald Trump Jr.’s Skittles Analogy Was Hanged at Nuremberg", "Trump Jr’s ‘Skittles’ tweet is based on two different white supremacist memes — and Nazi propaganda", and literally hundreds of similar stories. Is any further proof required that liberals are idiots? Who hasn't heard, "One bad apple spoils the whole barrel"? It's an analogy used by people of all political stripes. Suppose Chelsea described her mother as "healthy as a horse." Suppose further that it is discovered that a minor Nazi official once used a similar analogy about his mother. What made the Nazis notorious is that they murdered Jews, not that they made bad analogies. PeterKa (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2016 (EDT)

The Democrats are a four trick pony: racism, sexism, homophobia and class warfare. If the economy is considerably down in 2020, I don't think those tricks are going to work. Conservative (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2016 (EDT)
Just when you thought the story couldn't get any sillier: "Donald Trump Jr.’s Skittles Comparison Used to Be a Feminist Meme." Here is the feminist version: "You say not all men are monsters? Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned. Go ahead. Eat a handful." PeterKa (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2016 (EDT)

Egyptian leader prefers Trump

The top leader in the Muslim world prefers Trump to Clinton.[32] U.S.-Egypt -- the axis that the Middle East will rotate on. PeterKa (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2016 (EDT)

U.S. military backs Trump

A Military Times poll shows that 37.6 percent of U.S. troops back Trump, compared to 36.5 percent for Johnson, and 16.3 percent for Clinton.[33] PeterKa (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2016 (EDT)

Millennials switch back to Hillary

Those volatile Millennials have switched back to Hillary by a margin of 44-39, according to the Daybreak poll by the LA Times. That cuts Trump's overall lead to 2.4 points. Trump's lead among those over 65, who probably have a better understanding of Parkinson's, is actually increasing. No, Millennials, she won't get better. It only gets worse. She bobbed her head over four hundred times when Bernie endorsed her.[34] In a year or two, she could be a vegetable. Then who runs the country? Bill? Blumenthal? Huma? PeterKa (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2016 (EDT)

If it's of any consolation, this millennial won't be swayed to Hillary Clinton, even without her having Parkinsons (points to self). Pokeria1 (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2016 (EDT)
Parkinson's disease is hard to diagnose. I think it is premature to say she has Parkinson's disease. Perhaps, she may have post traumatic concussion syndrome, but without detailed medical records indicating how she was examined after her concussion and the medical followup documentation, it is speculation. The problem for Hillary as far as her health is that she a reputation for lacking transparency. Conservative (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2016 (EDT)
She has abnormal eye movements, which is definately not due to pneumonia. Here is the latest: "Clinton's eyes — a window into her health issues." Ted Noel's video convinced me she has Parkinson's -- although this video claims he's full of it. PeterKa (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

Riots are the new normal in Obama's America

Seventy percent of the rioters arrested in Charlotte aren't even local residents: "Judge Jeanine on Charlotte: 'Dems Need This Narrative, It's All About the Election'Judge Jeanine on Charlotte: '." It's a barbarian invasion as roving bands of BLM supporters go on razzias. Your town could be next. To Obama, burning down a city is just another way of getting out the black vote. The insurance companies should bill the Clinton campaign. PeterKa (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

I don't think there's any relationship betwen BLM & the Clinton campaign, and let's not make that mistake. BLM was formed because of the New Jim Crow of the Clintons. Trump is their only hope. RobS#NeverHillary 16:48, 23 September 2016 (EDT)
BLM is a Soros project. The leaders of the group have only the opinions that they are paid to have by a billioniare white dude. I hope the Trump DOJ brings them up on racketeering charges. Glenn Reynolds lost his Twitter account for disrespecting the rioters in Charlotte.[35] Notice that it's never the rioters who are deplorable, but only those who object to riots. Or did I miss the pro-Trump riots of 2016? PeterKa (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2016 (EDT)
Don't take the bait. This is obviously an Obama organized GOTV project for Hillary, but Trump right now stands to win more black votes than any Republican has in a lifetime and break the monolith. If anything, Republicans need to hijack Obama's initiative and be sympathetic, or shut up. RobS#NeverHillary 16:33, 24 September 2016 (EDT)
If you're a community organizer, organizing nationwide riots has got to be the ne plus ultra. Obama's mother taught him of the glories of 1968 and he wants to be a part of it. When he proclaimed that Trayvon Martin looked like his son back in 2012, he was already blowing the riot dog whistle. If Obamacare was about topping Bill Clinton, the riots are about topping Martin Luther King. The 1968 riots gave us the Nixon presidency, so the Dems may want to think again before following Obama over this cliff. PeterKa (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2016 (EDT)
Riots are one issue. Race relations are another. Which is more important? Which sould Republicans this very instant be more focused on and discussing?RobS#NeverHillary 01:51, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
I don't think people who support anti-white riots (or anti-police riots) are a potential Republican constituency. It's not like the black community was a tinder box ready to ignite. Obama, Soros, Holder, and the MSM had to push this issue for four or five years before they got results. In the 1980s and 1990s, the Congressional Black Caucus led the charge for mandatory minimum sentencing. At that time, it was a way to deal with the crack epidemic. PeterKa (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
ok. You answered my question. Don't be surprised or come crying when you are called a racist scum. 03:03, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
If Hillary wins, BLM supporters will conclude that riots work. In Alinskyite terms, they aren't a drag like stuffing envelopes or making cold calls. Every white person in America will be called racist scum and worse before its over. PeterKa (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
You just don't seem to be hearing what I'm saying: The rioters can be seen as rioting AGAINST Hillary Clinton. Best to just shut up about this issue until you educate yourself about what is being said on African-American internet forums. You are only doing damage to the Republican party with the track you are pursuing.RobS#NeverHillary 15:00, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
Trump's lead over Hillary has jumped from 1.4 points to 4.1 points, according to the LA Times tracking poll. I interpret that as a response to the Charlotte riots. The LA Times tries to factor in likely turnout. In other words, the shift could represent Trump supporters expressing greater determination to vote rather than anyone's opinion being flipped. So if the riots are a tactic to increase black turnout for Hillary, they aren't working. That probably doesn't matter to Obama -- His policies are always about himself. The various recent terrorist incidents, including the New York/New Jersey bombings, had no noticeable effect on the polls. The riots are clearly Trump's best issue yet. PeterKa (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2016 (EDT)

The great debate

Trump's lead in the national polls dipped after the debate, but today he's four points ahead of Hillary once again.[36] In the debate's most dramatic moment, Hillary ambushed Trump with a sob story about former Miss Universe Alicia Machado. It turns out that Machado once threatened to kill a Venezuelan judge and drove a getaway car for her boyfriend after a murder attempt.[37] Ah, those hot-headed Latin gals. Clinton financed an advertising campaign to find Trump victims. David Brock is offering reward money. This is the best they could come up with?
Hillary successfully baited Trump with allegations about old lawsuits and whatnot. He needs to focus on issues that help him: immigration, the BLM riots, and the need to profile potential terrorists. The next time a moderator tries to make it a three way, we need to hear, "Ex-CUSE me, but I believe the audience is tuning in to listen to me and not to you." PeterKa (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2016 (EDT)

The Daily Mail is a UK tabloid. Is that a reliable source? BrianKay (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2016 (EDT)
Here is the corresponding story on Fox News. The Daily Mail does have a lot of celebrity gossip, but it also has a track record of breaking major news stories. The New York Times has a similar split personality: outstanding journalism side-by-side with left-wing propaganda. PeterKa (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2016 (EDT)

Meet Alicia Machado, the Quemoy and Matsu of 2016

What the Taiwanese islands of Quemoy and Matsu were to the 1960 election, former Miss Universe Alicia Machado is to the 2016 election. Meet the new face of Hillary's campaign, the woman they are featuring in the TV ads: "Oh Dear, Clinton’s Latest Campaign Surrogate is a: Murder Accomplice, Hard Core Porn Star and Drug Lord Concubine."
I thought "fat shaming" involved bashing the appearance of a female doctor, lawyer, accountant, or someone like that. It's a beauty contestant's job to stay thin, isn't it? PeterKa (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

NYT publishes Trump's 1995 tax returns

This gambit is breaking new ground, as far as I know. If it works, it won't be long before publishing the tax returns of notable Republicans is standard practice: "Trump Tax Records Obtained by The Times Reveal He Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes for Nearly Two Decades." PeterKa (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2016 (EDT)

Frankly, I am surprised Obama hasn't leaked all his tax returns yet. Nobody would hold him accountable. The release today is a non-issue because everything he did was perfectly legal. Besides the multi-thousands of people he employed paying taxes, thanks to him, he has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes [38] --Jpatt 16:43, 2 October 2016 (EDT)
The NYT published the first page of Trump's state returns for New Jersey and Connecticut. So far nothing from the feds. Remember Climategate? That was all about hacking and privacy, according to the liberal media. To discuss the information the emails contained would only be compounding the privacy violation. The revelation that the "scientists" behind the global warming scare are just ignorant activists trying to "hid the decline" wasn't considered newsworthy. PeterKa (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2016 (EDT)
Publishing a federal tax return is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.[39] The Times published only the state returns in the hope of getting around this law. The figures on the state return are copied from the federal return, so I don't think this dodge should make any difference. I guess The Times is betting the farm on a Clinton victory in November. PeterKa (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2016 (EDT)
How did Hillary know during the debate about Trump's taxes before the New York Times did?RobS#NeverHillary 03:20, 3 October 2016 (EDT)
The Times said that they received the returns in the mail on Sept. 23. Here is the tick-tock. PeterKa (talk)
  • Why do presidential candidates "voluntarily" release copies of their returns? Because a former McGovern campaign worker joined the IRS and leaked Nixon's tax return in 1973.[40] The reporter he leaked the return to won a Pulitzer. PeterKa (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2016 (EDT)

Secular left is collapsing

I just read that a pro-immigration German official was beaten unconscious which for the authority respecting Germans is unusual and reflects seething anger that could explode in 2017. [41]

Second, ObamaCare is in an emergency situation in Minnesota.[42]

Even if Hillary Clinton is elected, it is just a matter of time before secular leftism collapses. The West is in decline. In the short term and midterm, this could cause global economic decline given China's dependence of exporting.

The political paradigm that best predicts the future is Samuel Huntington's classic book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World which already has been prescient. There is a growing conflict between the West and Islam and we live in a complex, multipolar, muliticivilizational world. I just hope the Christianization of China causes there to be less conflict between China and the USA as this will help bridge the cultural gap between our nations (see: Growth of Christianity in China). Conservative (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2016 (EDT)

Blacks stop showing up to Clinton events

Empty pews greet Clinton when she visits black churches, or so says American Thinker. That shows you just how excited Clinton's core constituency really is. At the last debate, Trump promised to restore to law and order and bring back stop and frisk, while Clinton promised to do what she could for overweight beauty queens. Trump's lead in the Dornsife poll now stands at 4.6 points, slightly higher than it was before the debate.[43] Trump is ahead with all age groups. Among 18-35 year olds, he is ahead 43-41. This makes Millennials an astonishingly conservative generation. Clinton has named Merkel, Germany's Islamifying chancellor, as her favorite world leader.[44] If she gets to name a fifth leftist to the U.S. Supreme Court, Clinton will have more power than Obama ever did. In November, Americans have one last chance to support the U.S. Constitution and avoid the tyranny of Islamic law. PeterKa (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2016 (EDT)

Time to impeach Comey

I don't want to sound like a RINO or anything, but there is some major news that Trump probably should be talking about. (No, not the Clinton love child.) The stench from James Comey's FBI has just gotten a lot stronger. Here is the latest: "Corrupt: FBI Agreed to Destroy Laptops of Clinton's Top Aides in Immunity Deal." See also "How did Cheryl Mills get immunity if she was also acting as Clinton's lawyer? GOP lodges formal complaint with D.C. bar." Well, what did you expect from the guy who triggered the Valerie Plame investigation?[45] Comey is definitely a Democrat's kind of Republican. PeterKa (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2016 (EDT)

Bill Clinton bashes Obamacare

Obamacare is a "crazy system" that "doesn't make any sense," according to Bill Clinton.[46][47] Clinton comprehensively trashed of every aspect of the program: “the insurance model doesn’t work here” and "Premiums doubled and coverage cut in half." Obamacare is notoriously Obama's "signature program." Unless Obama hits back hard in the next few days, we can assume he approved this. Obamacare was a "Cloward-Piven." It was always supposed to fail. The purpose was to bankrupt the insurance companies and thus pave the way for the great left-wing dream, a single payer system. PeterKa (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2016 (EDT)

Bill Clinton's purported illegitimate son Danney Williams

"Corrupt US Media TOTALLY IGNORES Story on Bill Clinton’s Illegitimate Son."??? The media are not ignoring this. A simple Google search for "Danney Williams" gets a lot of interesting info. The best summary can be found at http://www.snopes.com/bill-clinton-illegitimate-son/. You may not think Snopes is reliable, but the article has a bunch of interesting links to other pages. Like this one: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/21/my-quest-to-find-bill-clinton-s-love-child.html. There is also a reference to Time magazine, 18 July 1999:

Using the Starr Report's FBI analysis of Clinton's DNA as its reference, Star paid former prostitute Bobbie Ann Williams, the source for the Globe article, and her 13-year-old son for their story and blood samples. And the result: "There was no match. Not even close," says a Star source. (The Starr Report contains sufficient data to make a valid DNA comparison to rule out paternity.) But if the tabloid was disappointed by the results, it's putting up a good, Brill's Content-ready front. Says editor in chief Phil Bunton: "We investigate dozens of stories every week, and if they don't prove to be true, we don't run them."

"If the story were false, a paternity test would have easily proven it."? Yes. A paternity test did prove it. SamHB (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2016 (EDT)

It seems implausible that the tabloid Star would have access to DNA held by the independent prosecutor Ken Starr. Starr didn't work for Star.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2016 (EDT)
You gotta love this one: According to Wikipedia, the tabloid Star totally exonerates Bill Clinton from Danny Williams and his mother's charge, but the same tabloid Star totally discredits Gennifer Flowers story since it first appeared in the Star. Maybe somebody can add this to Bias in WP.RobS#NeverHillary 21:43, 9 October 2016 (EDT)
Not to mention, if I recall correctly, Clinton couldn't have had an illegitimate son, illegitimate daughter, or, heck, any offspring for that matter, since he pretty much made it clear that he "shot blanks" due to being exposed to the measles as an adult. Even Chelsea Clinton was strongly rumored to the extent of being an open secret in Arkansas was fathered by someone else, specifically

Webster Hubbell. I don't like either Bill or Hillary Clinton by any stretch, but I really think that this current Conservapedia news bit should be removed, since it's pretty clear Mr. Clinton can't have children, legitimate or illegitimate. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2016 (EDT)

  • This tabloid trash was on Drudge back in 1999! The Daily Mail article has nothing new in it, aside from the fact that Williams is now 30. Grover Cleveland had an illegitimate child and was an outstanding president and a fine conservative all the same. There's news from this decade that needs to be covered. We have nothing about the Cheryl Mill side deal or Bill throwing Obamacare under the bus. PeterKa (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2016 (EDT)
So its not true but the story won't go away why? Maybe it is relevant because Bill has a dozen other sexual predator instances including a trip(s) with a known pedophile to partake in underage relations. He and his wife live in the spotlight and he is not held to any standard for his actions. Fair game on any conspiracy theories. --Jpatt 21:16, 4 October 2016 (EDT)
In other words, it's not true, but you don't care, because iot fits with your deep-seated hatred of Bill Clinton. User:Jpatt, you're a repulsive excuse for a human being, Now, banhammer me, coward. WLoman (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2016 (EDT)
I don't ban people for being a pathetic loser. It's not true but I'm repulsive and Bill Clinton's actions are not. Classic bi-polar you exhibit.--Jpatt 05:33, 5 October 2016 (EDT)
There's always going to be someone doing some goldigging against someone else, in this case Bill Clinton's alleged love child. And the keyboard here is "alleged", so until proof comes along, we have to use that word. But the hate lies with trolls like the apply-named WLoman above, who just has to have his licks in defending his favorite presidential rapist. Karajou (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2016 (EDT)

Sinners should criticize other sinners

Why is Trump talking about the Clinton's marriage? Bill is a scumbag who cheated on Hillary multiple times, but Trump is on his third marriage and has been accused of infidelity in the past as well. What moral high ground does he have? MatthewT (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2016 (EDT)

  • Honestly, even though I can't say Trump is a stellar example of someone who is faithful in marriage, I'm personally glad that at least SOMEONE is actually speaking out on Bill Clinton's infidelity and sordid past which might include rape, even if that someone is a person who isn't much better regarding the moral highground either. Clinton's gotten away with far too much on that front if you ask me, so the more exposure, the better. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2016 (EDT)
I replaced the apocryphal quote from the Bible in the heading. Sinners obviously should criticize other sinners. It's long overdue for the Clintons to be criticized.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2016 (EDT)
Gotten away with far too much? He was impeached over his infidelity! The whole world knew what he did. Do we need to rehash a 20 year old affair? He's not the candidate, you know. BrianKay (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2016 (EDT)

Hillary enabled Bill Clinton's infidelities by helping her husband go on the attack to villify the women. See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-haunted-by-efforts-to-destroy-bill/ .

She also beaned the Secret Service (who probably abetted Bill and warned him when Hillary was coming near) with a Bible/books and a lamp. See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/4/hillary-clintons-hired-thugs-quieted-bill-clintons/

Trump has issues, but he is the lesser of two evils. Hillary goes beyond sometimes being callous and often being self-centered and goes into vicious territory.

I think Trump's main reason for running for president is he wants to see America great again and he likes the spotlight/adulation. He is probably losing money by running to be president.

Hillary wants to be president because: 1) She wants more and bigger bribes 2) Lust for power. 3) She wants to the USA to go left of her husband's policies.

At least Trump wants to stem the tide of illegal immigrants, have a sensible legal immigration policy, wants to do the things to spur job growth and investment money back into the USA and wants to balance trade and not run a perpetual trade deficit.

And the Clinton Foundation is one big bribery machine. Like one of the biggest hubs of bribery at the federal level. Hillary is not the champion of woman she pretends to be. She is the champion of lining her pockets with bribes.Conservative (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2016 (EDT)

  • When the Trump campaign was in free fall back in August, the donors intervened to get Conway and Bannon appointed managers. That put Trump back on track, at least for a while. I'd hate to see him get sucked back into Roger Stone's tabloidy vortex. PeterKa (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2016 (EDT)

Hacker finds "Pay to Play" folder at Clinton Foundation

Hey, New York Times why don't you publish this: "Guccifer 2.0 Hacks Clinton Foundation." It turns out that the foundation functions as a kind of corruption headquarters. If Guccifer 2.0 is to be believed, they maintain a folder labeled "Pay to Play." It includes an astonishing spreadsheet that links TARP money to kickbacks that were paid to various politicians. The big money went to Barney Frank, Carolyn Mahoney, and the DCCC, the political committee for the House Democrats. Eight years too late, we find out the real reason for the 2008 bailout craze. When George W. Bush said he'd chucked his principles, he wasn't kidding. PeterKa (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2016 (EDT)

It turns out that the "pay to play" spreadsheet is public information that was originally collected by a watchdog group back in 2009. It's not clear that the Clinton Foundation was actually hacked. Guccifer 2.0 has also hacked the DNC and DCCC, so the documents could have been taken from either of those two data bases.[48] PeterKa (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2016 (EDT)

Kaine interrupted 39 times

As liberals often do. And Donald Trump interrupted Clinton 25 times in the first 26 minutes [49] and apparently 51 times in all during their debate. I must be honest I have always thought Donald Trump isn't really a conservative and now I guess this proves it. Davidspencer (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2016 (EDT)

Pence was not smearing Kaine when Kaine interrupted, as Hillary was smearing Trump when he said something. Also, Trump's so-called interruptions were not really disruptive. Finally, Kaine repeatedly interrupted the woman moderator.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2016 (EDT)

The other candidates are so rude this year that Pence can make waves just by being a gentleman. Some pundits are complaining that Pence promoted himself rather than Trump. Traditionally, the presidential candidate tries to be likeable while the running mate plays attack dog. Between Trump himself, Gingrich and Giuliani, the Trump campaign has more than enough attack dogs. So having Pence play good cop was logical as campaign strategy -- although Pence certainly helped himself as well. PeterKa (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2016 (EDT)

Pence may have planned to be more aggressive. Each time he brought up Clinton's email or the Clinton Foundation, the moderator cut him off. PeterKa (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2016 (EDT)
Indeed. As usual, it was democrat and moderator vs. republican. Why do the republicans take this kind of abuse? If they put their foot down and say "NO!" they could have a significant influence. To Trump's credit, he did this once, but whether they be liberals from Fox, or the AP driven CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN team, they all have the same goal. Surely if the republican candidates tried, they could arrange something more neutral. --David B (TALK) 15:33, 7 October 2016 (EDT)
I agree. The Republican Party is weak. It holds record majorities in both the House and Senate, but it still cannot stop the leftist agenda of Obama. How in the world did the Iran deal pass, by the way? If only the GOP would pick better leaders than John Boehner or Mitch McConnell. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2016 (EDT)

Trump and the taxman

Trump's lead over Hillary has been cut by two points in the last week. The mainstream media is once again filled with obituaries for the Trump campaign. Everyone noticed he was unprepared for the debate, but there was no immediate reaction in the polls. The image of him tweeting about Machado and sex tapes at 3 am probably hurt him more. But the biggest issue is his tax returns. At very least, Trump is making too much news and allowing the media to downplay the continuing stream of damaging reports about the Clintons. Giuliani and Christie called Trump a "genius" at tax avoidance. That is definitely not helping. Trump's accountant has taken responsibility and claims Trump isn't involved in tax preparation at all: "Trump's Tax Accountant Claims He's the Loophole-Exploiting Genius, Not Trump." That's what Trump and his spokesmen need to be emphasizing. PeterKa (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2016 (EDT)

Popular articles

Hi all. Just noticed that the article "Evolution syndrome" appears twice in the "popular articles" section. Frankly I'm surprised such editorialised nonsense made it through quality control in the first place. It's not Conservapedia's best work!

In Obama's world, it's always the fault of U.S. conservatives

Did you think that the Syrian Civil War was Obama's fault because he failed to arm non-jihadist rebels before ISIS muscled in? Or perhaps you thought it was the fault of Syria's Baathist government? Putin and the Russians? Wrong, wrong, and wrong! It's all the fault of climate denying Americans, according to Obama.[50] “Droughts that happened in Syria contributed to the unrest and the Syrian civil war,” as Obama told Leo DiCaprio recently. Sadly, this was possible because “members of Congress...scoff at climate change," the president explained. Uh, Mr. President, Syria is a country with a very long history and that history includes many droughts. Climate Deport has something on the 1933 Syrian drought. Here is something about the droughts around 1200 BC (linked to the collapse of Bronze Age civilization). PeterKa (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2016 (EDT)

Trump Tapes

I said it a long, long time ago. This man Trump needs to go. He disgusts me and every decent thinking American who loves their wives, their daughters, their womenfolk. Referring to women as "it". Basically what he was saying he could do was an actual crime of sexual assault. All of us on the Right need to stop supporting this monster. Does he honor us? Bringreaganback (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2016 (EDT)

Who is the better alternative person to vote for who has a chance of winning? Hillary?
Trump is not going anywhere. He isn't dropping out of the race. Conservative (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2016 (EDT)
Don't blame me, I voted for Cruz. However, now that our options are limited, I'll give Trump my next vote. Conservative is right, it's him or Clinton, and we know which of the two will destroy this country. --David B (TALK) 00:17, 8 October 2016 (EDT)
Well, I'm just not going to vote - much simpler. I just won't support a man so base, My friends are walking away in spades too. Bringreaganback (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2016 (EDT)
I know that's a popular tactic, but by doing so, you are making it much more likely for the greater of two evils to win. It's one or the other, so it's a good idea to pick the one you believe to be the better choice. I even voted for Romney last time (insert retching sounds here) because I knew Obama would be worse. --David B (TALK) 02:06, 8 October 2016 (EDT)
Drudge has several Hillary-the-lesbian items today. See here and here. I hope Trump isn't going there. There are plenty of bloggers and Twitter ragers prepared to handle Bill's bastards and Hillary's "soulmates." If Trump could just get his act together for a few weeks, he'd be elected in a landslide. But somehow that's just not his thing. In any case, I'll vote for Mike Pence and try not to notice Trump's name on the ballot. PeterKa (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2016 (EDT)
Clearly none of you have daughters. Imagine your daughter, working somewhere, dealing with a boss like Trump. Position of power, leering at her, knowing he can do as he wish because otherwise he'll fire her. Moves in, touches her forcefully and inappropriately in the privates. Would you like her to tell you the story? Would you think she should stay in her job? As the evening has developed, I know where I stand, and it's with my daughters. Bringreaganback (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2016 (EDT)
Not a bad strategy, PeterKa. Why is it they keep giving us mediocre candidates, then tossing in a good V.P. as if that's going to make us happy? It's not working, but I'll vote anyway. If I must stab myself with a knife, I'd rather do it in my leg than in my chest.
Someone really needs to flush all the RINOs though. The liberals have given a whole new meaning to the saying, "if you can't beat them, join them."
Bringreaganback, I'll agree that he lacks discretion and respect, but you should take a lot of what the AP reports with a grain of salt. (Actually, take it with a block of salt--maybe we should just buy salt mines.) They desperately want to destroy him, and for this reason keep misrepresenting him and taking things far out of proportion. I know he's not innocent, but it's very hard to know how much of what he is accused of is actually true. Many of their accusations can (and have been) disproven, but some simply cannot be, so there's no way to know for sure. Where is the proof for most of these claims? The recent video of course does prove a small portion of the accusations, but it's amazing how many people will lie just to destroy someone they hate. When that doesn't work, they resort to distorting and mutilating their opponent's words. --David B (TALK) 02:34, 8 October 2016 (EDT)
I'm sorry DavidB4, but didn't you hear him call a women an "it"? Or did you hear him say that his fame allows him to assault women by grabbing them in the wherever? I mean, I'm not even going to refer to any other single thing he's done or said. This video is appalling enough. There's no need to believe in media bias - it's all right there, unless you're suggesting that's not his voice, which perhaps you are? I'm not saying I'm supporting Hillary, but for any of us Christian conservatives to support the words we heard today from this man (who was 59 at the time), we should know we can't support Trump. The very LAST thing he represents is our values. Even Hillary is closer to our values that him, frankly, though I can't vote for her. Bringreaganback (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2016 (EDT)

The key line was " even Hillary is closer to our values...". As if corruption, bribery, theft, rape and murder are wholesome values. Seen for what he was: Hillary supporter, agent provocateur. Karajou (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2016 (EDT)

When Joe Biden creeps women, it's Joe being Joe. When Bill Clinton is accused of rape, nothing to see there. Let's face it, women hate to be objectified but they sure made Fifty Shades of Grey a smashing success. --Jpatt 06:35, 8 October 2016 (EDT)

The Trump response:


I’ve never said I’m a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not. I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me, know these words don’t reflect who I am.

I said it, it was wrong, and I apologize.

I’ve travelled the country talking about change for America. But my travels have also changed me. I’ve spent time with grieving mothers who’ve lost their children, laid off workers whose jobs have gone to other countries, and people from all walks of life who just want a better future. I have gotten to know the great people of our country, and I’ve been humbled by the faith they’ve placed in me. I pledge to be a better man tomorrow, and will never, ever let you down.

Let’s be honest. We’re living in the real world. This is nothing more than a distraction from the important issues we are facing today. We are losing our jobs, we are less safe than we were 8 years ago and Washington is broken.

Hillary Clinton, and her kind, have run our country into the ground.

I’ve said some foolish things, but there is a big difference between words and actions. Bill Clinton has actually abused women and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated his victims. We will discuss this more in the coming days.

See you at the debate on Sunday

--Jpatt 07:03, 8 October 2016 (EDT)


When Trumps words offend more than Bill Clinton's actions. Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender's jet much more than previously known [51]--Jpatt 11:16, 8 October 2016 (EDT)

Let's not forget that when the Democrats cry foul over all those mean things Trump said...they elected Obama, and pretty-much hid the same thing: [52] Karajou (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2016 (EDT)

Tebow/Manziel

The MPR item is misleading. The NFL did not "let Johnny Manziel back in". His league-imposed suspension has expired, meaning he is eligible (but unlikely) to sign with a team again, just as the revered Tim Tebow is. The length of the suspension was set long ago and the timing of its end is merely coincidence, having absolutely nothing to do with the NFL's declining television ratings. Eg (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2016 (EDT)

Boxing and football are not very good sports as they have high rates of brain injuries.
God permitting Tebow to be excluded from the NFL was a blessing in disguise and part of His divine plan. :) When will Tebow show his appreciation for this blessing in disguise by engaging in Tebowing after each and every home run? I realize that baseball is not as flashy of a sport as football and public displays of triumph/thankfulness are not as common. But Tim Tebow merely pointing up to the sky after he crosses the home plate disappoints his many fans. He needs to engage in full-blown Tebowing after he cross the home plate! Conservative (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2016 (EDT)

What's next for Trump?

I suppose we'll all have to wait for Sunday's debate and see what Trump has to say for himself. It is at least possible that he could pull off a "Checkers speech" of some kind. He's currently three points ahead of Hillary in the Dornsife poll, although it's too early for reaction to the 2005 tape to be factored in.[53] But he still hasn't practiced for any kind of debate. This debate will be in townhall format, so he'll have to answer questions from audience members, including women angry about the tape. His natural inclination is to hit back, which is not acceptable in this situation. All it took to fluster him in the first debate was for Holt, the alleged moderator, to turn on him. In short, it's hard to see the next debate as anything other than a looming disaster. In fact, Trump might want to cut his loses and skip it. Either way, it would give the RNC a basis to declare a vacancy and name someone else as the nominee. It's too late to take Trump off the ballot in most states, but the Republican electors can vote for the RNC-approved nominee when the Electoral College meets in December. Of course, the electors are free agents and can vote as they like. PeterKa (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2016 (EDT))

If not Trump, who? There is really only one option: Mike Pence. He has by far the best favorability numbers of anyone who could be considered a possibility. Pence's net favorability is +7,[54] Kasich 0, Cruz -31,[55] Rubio -11,[56] and Walker -15. For comparison, Trump has -31 and Hillary -10. Since Pence is currently the vice presidential candidate, Republicans have already gotten used to the idea of voting for him. PeterKa (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2016 (EDT)
It may be too late to change candidates, as the ballots are already printed, at least in some states, and many people have already voted absentee. BrianKay (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2016 (EDT)
Despite what the ballots say, you never vote directly for a presidential candidate. You vote for a slate of electors chosen by the state party. They have never substituted a presidential candidate before, but it's been done for vice presidential candidates. In principle, the process would be no different. PeterKa (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2016 (EDT)

Trump gave a strong performance during the first half hour of the third debate. He went downhill from there and did not pivot to his points well. The goal is to move to promoting your own viewpoint rather than spending more time on what your opponent wants to talk about. In the case of the Clinton Foundation, it is conflict of interest and "pay to play" rather than all of the nice things that the Foundation has done. Trump's strongest argument is that HRC had 30 years to deliver on what she has been promising -- why should the public expect any change? The question about "accept the results of the election" was unfair. The best answer should have been "We are going to win with the help of the American voters that support me." JDano (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2016 (EDT)

I do think that Trump had a very strong closing statement. It was powerful, possibly even more than Reagan's in 1980. I can't say how much of an effect it had, but I was very impressed by it. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2016 (EDT)

Even Bill Clinton thinks Hillary may have really done it this time.

Okay, recently, during a rally, Hillary Clinton made a joking reference to Emailgate when she mentioned how she loved snapchat because her emails disappeared. Bill Clinton apparently thought upon hearing this that Hillary may have actually crossed a line this time around, since he yelled, and I quote, "Hillary is 'F***ing over the FBI! How stupid is that?" You can read more here: [57] Granted, it may be more the fact that Hillary may have just shot herself in the foot than any moral elements, but even still... Pokeria1 (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2016 (EDT)

The hypocrisy of the GOP establishment

Even though Trump is the most conservative major candidate, the Establishment is clearly against him and going for socially liberal, globalist candidates like Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin. While what Trump has said recently really was terrible and stupid, if they really want conservative policies and avoid the leftist, globalist, and anti-Christian policies of HRC and her Supreme Court, they should get behind Trump.

If the establishment really supported conservative principles, they would either support Trump or get behind the Constitution Party. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

The long knives are out. This attack by WaPo has many of the same characteristics as Romney's 47%. I believe the new twist is that a bipartisan group of Establishment-types, Bush loyalists, helped try to take him out. If you want to kill off the white Evangelic support for Trump, hit him with his own crude talk. It didn't work and the result has been to shine a giant spotlight on every seedy Clinton sexual episode. --Jpatt 20:59, 10 October 2016 (EDT)
The establishment is now against Trump because he is not one of them. The media is always against anybody who even leans conservative. I wonder how long that tape was sitting on their shelves. With all his flaws and with everything I'm concerned with him, I have much more faith in Trump to lead our country and fight to policies of Obama/Clinton than I would have with Romney. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2016 (EDT)
Agreed. What Trump did was wrong, but if the 19 year age of that tape means nothing, than why do all the Clintons' offenses all seem to "expire"? Bill was having a constant adulterous affair in the white house, Hillary covered it up, and then someone "mysteriously" turned up dead. Add to that the many other criminal acts, plus the many more deceptive ones and you get.... nothing? Of course, that means nothing, but how dare the evil, vile, bombastic, outrageous, insane, anti-everyone Trump say such a thing?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!? Sheesh people... --David B (TALK) 23:21, 10 October 2016 (EDT)
  • McCain won the Arizona primary as a good Trump-supporting Republican.[58] Now he walks it back.[59] Can we pull our McCain votes back? PeterKa (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2016 (EDT)

Breaking news

Did you see the giant fly land on Hillary's face? What attracts fly's? Is this an omen? or a harbinger of things to come? This is too good to pass up. Top five Google Trends all right now are on this. RobS#NeverHillary 21:11, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

Maybe it was to see how many couldn't spell "flies". AlanE (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2016 (EDT)
You have some colorful comments lately. Everything ok down under Alan? Has Hillary blamed the Russians for that fly? --Jpatt 09:52, 11 October 2016 (EDT)
Good that you have noticed, John. Actually, those of us who thank God are thanking God for not giving us the blight of the US voting system.
AlanE (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
Her subcortical vascular dementia has turned her brainstem to Swiss cheese and it's now attracting flies. RobS#NeverHillary 13:51, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

Why I'll vote for Trump

I consider this to be a single issue election. That issue is: Do Muslims have a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States? The implication of Khan's speech to the DNC is that they do. As far as Democrats are concerned, the man's a saint and they are way past being able to think rationally about this.[60] Hillary has told us that she favors "open borders" and has called German Chancellor Angela Merkel Europe’s "greatest leader."[61] In one case after another, U.S. citizens and police looked the other way while terrorism was being prepared because they feared being accused of "Islamophobia" or "profiling." Is there any Muslim country that the Hillaryistas want to move to? If not, perhaps they can understand why Trump supporters might not be thrilled about the idea of unlimited Muslim immigration. The Koran is clear: "all nations who should not have acknowledged [the Islamic] authorities were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them," as a Muslim ambassador told Jefferson and Adams.[62] PeterKa (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2016 (EDT)

Islam and actually having borders are very important issues, but there is much more at stake in this election than just that. If Clinton's elected, not only will we see the end of real border control and unrestricted, imprudent Muslim immigration, but with the Clinton Court, we will see the end of any religious freedom for Christians, as well as unrestricted abortion (HRC supports ending the Hyde Amendment, btw [63]) and even more "rights" for homosexuals and transgender people. Under Clinton, U.S. sovereignty in world affairs will decline even more (liberals love the EU; expect American liberals to follow suit) and America will likely become subservient to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Agenda 21 (depending on who is in control of Congress). For this and for many other reasons, I will vote for Trump in November. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2016 (EDT)
Your second link is a great NR article that lays out the case for Trump very well. Sadly, Trump himself doesn't seem to be fully persuaded. Today's headline is that he is at last "unshackled."[64] He is happier attacking Ryan, Machado or whoever has his goat today than in making the case against Hillary. With a left-wing Supreme Court, a President Clinton could be even more powerful than Obama is. The left has a dream agenda, and it's been waiting for this moment. PeterKa (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2016 (EDT)
Yes, unfortunately Trump is far from perfect. It might be wise for him to be more careful. However, criticizing the establishment may not be a completely bad thing. They are part of the problem, as they are oftentimes more concerned about winning the next election than instituting real conservative change. Many people are so fed up with the establishment that with Trump's attacks they will be even more motivated to vote for him. However, you are right: Trump needs to focus on Clinton and her problems, not get carried away by a petty feud. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2016 (EDT)
I'll vote for Trump, though only because the alternative is Clinton, and I have absolutely no intention of letting her win the presidency, not after all the things she did. Besides, Trump's VP is staunchly pro-life, so I could use that as a reason as well. And hopefully Trump knows what he's doing regarding his being unshackled, because he still has one more debate to go (possibly two more if one counts the Boulder, Colorado debate on October 25th helmed by Free and Equal), and I'd hate to see him blow it when he's this close. I'm not entirely sure the Establishment were the only ones who had a problem, though. Even the newcoming Republicans who got elected such as Mark Rubio who got elected back in 2012 proved themselves to be RINOs anyways, and they were far from being the Establishment due to being newcomers. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2016 (EDT)
Fair points. Trump (or Clinton) probably will not attend the Free and Equal debate. When I mentioned the establishment, I didn't necessarily mean just longtime incumbents, but any politician who supports the agenda of the establishment, including Rubio. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2016 (EDT)

Second debate post-mortem

Trump was unprepared for the first debate, but the result was a wash. For the second debate, he clearly did prepare. Yet his poll numbers fell by a catastrophic four to five points. So what happened? If you know anything about Hillary's history, you know that the pity of the American people has been a major force driving her forward for many years. When everyone else had abandoned Bill, she came out swinging and shamed the leadership of the Democratic Party. Liberals thought, "Poor little Hillary has to the defend the president all by herself. Even though she is also a victim, she puts beating the evil Republicans first." And then there was the famous "crying jag" that helped put her over the top in New Hampshire. Trump's "You'd be in jail" comment must have resurrected the pity impulse. From a legalistic point of view, it is improper for a president to prejudge the result of a trial. So he should have said something more along lines of, "My attorney general will appoint a prosecutor who will make you miss Ken Starr." Bringing Gennifer Flowers along was also a mistake. The filmmaker Hillary blamed for Benghazi is a much better Clinton victim. More to the point, Trumps needs to focus on policy reasons why he'd be a better president, things like restricting immigration, stop-and-frisk, profiling, etc. PeterKa (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2016 (EDT)

Some article move requests

There are some articles that I would like to move:

  • Every article concerning Creationism, replacing the word "creationism" with "creation"
    • My reasoning here follows what Dr. Walt Brown writes in In the Beginning. The reason for this is because "-isms" generally have a negative connotation to most people ("communism", "fascism", "nationalism", "scientism", etc.). "-isms" give the impression (oftentimes accurately) of simply being a belief system. However, creationism is substantiated with strong evidence, so a more appropriate term is necessary, like "creation". This is similar to "estate tax" vs death tax.
  • Move Same-sex marriage to "Same-sex "marriage""
    • The Bible makes it clear that marriage between a man and a woman, and I don't think Conservapedia has bought into the homosexual agenda
  • Also, would someone please respond to my edit request at the talk page on Double standard? Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2016 (EDT)
"Creation" implies the Biblical account, so we should move Biblical creation account to Creation. At present, the "creation" article gives the word an unfortunate multicultural spin. Creationism is a related, but different, thing. It's "the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect."[65] PeterKa (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2016 (EDT)
While "isms" do tend to have bad associations, I don't know what kind of confusion it might cause if we try replacing it with "creation". Creationism refers to the concept or belief that everything was designed by an intelligent being (God), while creation is a noun which can be used in many ways, such as "this ship-in-a-bottle is my own creation" or "have you seen my creation?" To swap the terms now might cause more harm than good. Do you have thoughts on how to structure the statements so that ti could work?
The on Same-sex "marriage", I agree completely. However, i don't know how likely someone is to search for same-sex "marriage". This could be resolved using redirects, but I don't know if it is worth while for the page name. I'm for it, but I don't know if it would be pointless. --David B (TALK) 00:38, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
I understand your points. For both same-sex "marriage" and creationism, redirects would definitely be good. There actually is a redirect Same-sex "marriage" right now, and when I search, that is the term that shows up in the suggestions. As I obviously stated above, it would be nice if that redirect title became the title for the actual article.
As for creationism, it is true that the theory/belief is commonly referred to as "creationism". I think that Young earth creationism should be moved to "Young earth creation", and possibly the same for the old earth view, even though it is more of a compromise/synthesis with the evolutionary pseudoscience. It might be a good idea to move some of the other articles that mention "creationism". If we would move these articles, the current titles should definitely be kept as redirects.
If moving Creationism causes too many problems, I wouldn't mind leaving it, as long as some of the others are moved, but I would suggest moving it to something like "Creation (belief)" or "Creation (theory)", keeping the current title as a redirect. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
I guess that makes sense. However, I don't have delete privileges, so I can't move these unless someone else deletes the redirects which already exist. --David B (TALK) 23:26, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
It is true that invented "-ism" words are often pejorative, but not always. Some wonderful "-ism" words are activism, altruism, and capitalism. Creationism can attain that positive connotation.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2016 (EDT)
True--I'm torn on the topic. I've always figured that there are bigger fish to fry so I'd leave it alone. And speaking of which, it probably doesn't matter, but the term capitalism isn't even all that friendly. There is dispute whether Marx created the term (I personally doubt it), but it has been used in a purgative way for at least a century. Even ignoring this, it implies the system is focused on the capitol. For this reason, many people prefer the term "free market." Anyway, it's a recognized word, and I'm not going to set out on a one-man conquest to swap the terms. Now I'm rabbit trailing...I probably shouldn't still be writing at this time of night. --David B (TALK) 01:45, 14 October 2016 (EDT)
  • The encyclopedic meaning that readers are most likely to be looking up is not necessarily the same as the most common meaning. We should follow the lead of existing reference works. According to New Catholic Encyclopedia, "creationism is an ideological stance adopted by the fundamentalist movement in opposition to evolutionary theories of life that favors a literal reading of the book of Genesis." Their "creation" article discusses Genesis 1.1-2.4a and related material. PeterKa (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2016 (EDT)
The quoted definition is poorly worded, and a bit biased. Some prefer the term "creation science." But here we need to use terminology that people are likely to look for.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2016 (EDT)
That's why redirects are necessary. I see the word "creationism" used a lot, but not "evolutionism", its grammatical equivalent. Of course there's creation science, which is more fairly worded, but I still think the bias against creationism is seen in the wording. However, if everyone prefers the current naming scheme, that is OK; I won't fight it—nor is it that important. It just would be nice if we could set the terms ourselves rather than having the secular and liberal media do it for us. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2016 (EDT)
I still think that Same-sex marriage should be moved to "Same-sex "marriage"", however. It would match the article intro and clearly show that we don't accept leftist vocabulary. If an admin would make this move, that would be great! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2016 (EDT)
I don't think as many people would find an entry on same-sex "marriage" with the unusual use of quotation marks. While I wholeheartedly agree with the substance of your point, if no one sees entry then it might as well be deleted.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2016 (EDT)
I understand your point, but wouldn't redirects fix that problem? People would still be able to find the article and still see that leftist vocabulary is not final. Am I wrong? --1990'sguy (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2016 (EDT)
Redirects are useful, but not a perfect solution to this issue for several reasons. Search engines may not recognize the redirects, for example, and when someone is redirected it may confuse or irritate them that the entry does not match what they typed in. Clarity is preferable to confusion or irritation when seeking to persuade. But thanks for your insightful comments, with which I agree as to substance.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2016 (EDT)
I understand, and you're welcome. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2016 (EDT)
The primary purpose of a title is to tell the reader the name of the article's subject. The reader should be able to look up at the title and think either, "Yup, I'm at the right place" or "No, this is not what I am looking for." Redirects don't allow readers to do this. PeterKa (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2016 (EDT)
Fair enough. If it makes more sense to keep the same titles, as you and Andy have persuasively argued, than I will accept it. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2016 (EDT)

Liberals are pigs, hidden camera shows

At the time of the "hot mic" tape in 2005, Trump was a Hillary-supporting liberal Democratic.[66] It doesn't seem that things have improved among Hillary supporters: "James O'Keefe: Is Hillary's Campaign More Of A Locker Room Than The Access Hollywood Bus?" "I think the bar of acceptable conduct on this campaign is pretty low," one staffer says. "They are not going to fire me, not for like grabbing Emma's ass twice," says another. Bill Maher likes to say that Trump, "raised the bar on lowering the bar." I'd say that Bill Clinton did this quite dramatically when he was president. PeterKa (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

Anonymous' video on Bill Clinton

Hi.

I have a question regarding Anonymous' claims. If they have the video of Bill Clinton raping that 13 year old while he was president, why haven't they released it by now? If they claim they have the video, the very second they have the video, they'd make it public the exact same second they announced it exists. I would if I were in their situation. Not that I don't believe that Clinton's capable of doing that, considering how much he's proven to do everything else that was a moral travesty, but unless they actually release the video, we can't say that Anonymous is telling the truth. Pokeria1 (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

It does seem a little fishy. And now that they have started this, all of Bill Clinton's opposition will look like fools if they fail to deliver. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to make fools of all of us. Anonymous seems generally liberal, but they also sometimes they take a libertarian stance, which is somewhat surprising. It's hard to say yet what they are up to, but if nothing else, their initial goal has been accomplished--everyone is talking about it, and them. --David B (TALK) 13:04, 14 October 2016 (EDT)
Timing. There are a lot of shoes to drop on each side yet. And you have to wait 3-4 days to monitor impact on polls. Plus the risk of a wildcard or some other foreign news dominating the news cycle when it's released. Early voting has started, however. It's like a came of poker, " I'll see your tax return allegations and raise you a sex tape".RobS#NeverHillary 14:25, 14 October 2016 (EDT)
Rubbish, and you know it. This is the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape all over again. JohnZ (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2016 (EDT)
There are a lot of shoes to drop yet. Putin is giving Wikileaks consistent drips of emails to damage her campaign. It not only effects voters but keeps pressure/dissension in the Clinton supporters/staff. It is classic Russian PSYOP (psychological warfare). Putin is ex-KGB and he is not going along with Hillary's "Russian reset".
The main questions left are: 1) How much change in public opinion will there be in this race which swings back a forth quite a bit. 2) How responsive are Trump voters to phone surveys. See: You can't trust polls: Clinton leads, but our polling methods are bunk. The USA has never had a candidate like Trump and the political landscape is in transition right now in a significant way so making predictions is difficult. 3) Since the USA has separation of powers to a certain degree (Obama and the Supreme Court have acted in lawless ways), what is going to happen in the non-presidential races. Conservative (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2016 (EDT)
Eh, me personally, I'd prefer releasing everything all at once, swarming everyone with the details. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2016 (EDT)
Hillary 's a cold blooded killer with no conscience, do you need more details on that? And it's not encouraging when you have a lying POS like Tim Kaine who "opposes" capital punishment but whacked 11 people anyway for the fun of it, evidently.RobS#NeverHillary 12:38, 17 October 2016 (EDT)
I don't personally need more details to come to that conclusion, but I know a whole lot of other people who clearly do need it, and swarming them with all the details available all at once would in fact force them to turn against Hillary. I know it would with me if I were a Hillary supporter. Pokeria1 (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2016 (EDT)
That's not how it works. Deny deny deny then dismiss it as old news. On the Anonymous video, that substance of it probably will not amount to anymore than the anti-Zionist message they already released. RobS#NeverHillary 18:13, 17 October 2016 (EDT)

They want constant pressure. And more importantly, digestible news stories on specific issues. Also, they want to put pressure on specific people. If they dumped it all at once, there would not be as an intense spotlight on particular people for a time. The Russians are old hands in terms of hard ball politics and fomenting instability/dissent/rebellion. Conservative (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2016 (EDT)

Michelle Obama, liar

According to Michelle Obama, "the men in my life do not talk about women like this,” i.e. how Trump talked about women on the Access Hollywood tape. The media is hammering away at the claim that Trump was talking about assault. Trump says, "They let you do it," so this spin is clearly wrong. Trump's sins are foul language and celebrity privilege. Michelle really doesn't know anyone else like that? Hey Michelle, meet Ted Kennedy, a crucial backer of Obama's 2008 presidential bid. Rush Limbaugh has other examples, including a lewd video of Barack parading, uh, himself on the campaign jet. PeterKa (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2016 (EDT)

Trump has been one of America's best-known celebrities for thirty years. We all knew he was the "short-fingered vulgarian," but there were no sexual harassment or assault accusations until a week ago. The New York Times had two reporters investigate this issue during the primaries. The article they wrote has no incidents in it worth mentioning. You can't compare a stage performance to a private conversation. But Michelle brought Sasha to a Jay-Z/Beyoncé concert in Chicago in 2014.[67] If Jay-Z played "Party Life," she has definitely heard men talk about women this way before. Many have asked, "How can we explain support for Trump to our daughters?" I want to know how Michelle explained Beyoncé to her daughters. Historically, the first lady has tried to be above partisan politics. It's a new low to have her lead a smear campaign. PeterKa (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2016 (EDT)
I've actually heard that in private, HRC uses language just as filthy as Trump did in that tape. Politicians like to present themselves as perfect in all aspects, but if we were able to look into their private lives, we would be shocked at what we would see. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2016 (EDT)
Heard from what source? BrianKay (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2016 (EDT)
This one: "She’s also as personally repugnant as Trump is—read any behind-the-scenes account, from Bob Woodward’s books on the Clinton years to interviews with Secret Service agents, who universally despise her. Her temperament, which is even-keeled in public from years of practice, is explosive and profane behind closed doors." --1990'sguy (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2016 (EDT)
You do have a good point about the Beyoncé/Jay-Z example. This is hypocrisy on the part of the leftists. A conservative-leaning politician (who wasn't even a politician at the time) cannot use this stupid language, but it is still OK for leftists and leftist "role-models" to use it. It is very unfortunate, but many people use this type of language and consider Beyoncé to be a role model. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2016 (EDT)
Michelle Obama can eat my shorts. It would be different if Michelle Obama actually was a woman. RobS#NeverHillary 23:10, 16 October 2016 (EDT)
Not what I'd call a reliable source. BrianKay (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2016 (EDT)
The only way we'll know, is for "Michelle" Obama to release her original, long form birth certificate. Why hasn't 'she'? It's been eight years now. RobS#NeverHillary 14:22, 18 October 2016 (EDT)
  • Ann Coulter makes some excellent points, as usual. When Trump talked about grabbing a woman by the genitals, it was a vulgar metaphor for how much he could get away with as a celebrity. It's the sexual equivalent of "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody." The media reacted as if he actually went around grabbing women this way. Meanwhile, sexual assault machines like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy get a pass. PeterKa (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2016 (EDT)

"I'll keep you in suspense"

I remember when I was involved in politics. Democrats would ask, "Will you accept the result of the election if you lose?" It was often the only question they were interested in. I would say, "I have no idea. I plan to win." That always got quite a response, like they weren't expecting anything like that. Did they assumed I had a secret plan to lose? My advise to Trump: It's bad strategy to talk about losing. Period. Gore still insists that he won the 2000 election -- and no Democrat would dare to tell him that it's time to get over it. See "Last Week Hillary Agreed Gore 'Won' 2000 Election." PeterKa (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2016 (EDT)

Let's hope he actually wins this election. We're already in a rut as it is under Obama, and we've already got a taste of what a Hillary presidency will be like under both Obama and Bill Clinton. We cannot afford to have Hillary win. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2016 (EDT)
Well, everyone knows the selection of Hillary as nominee was rigged, as the firing of Wasserman-Schultz openly admitted. If she wins the general, there is no possible way to say her victory was not rigged. Further, the FBI whitewash of emails destroyed the American peoples confidence in government, not Trump saying her election is rigged.
What we 're seeing is Clintonism taking root, and she hasn't even been elected or sworn in yet.RobS#NeverHillary 19:51, 20 October 2016 (EDT)
Trump's performance earlier in the debate was outstanding, far better than in other debates. But then he fell for this old gag at the very end. Guess what today's headlines are about? They're about what Trump will do if he loses. They make it sound like he already lost. What's more, they make him sound self centered, even though the question he was responding to was specifically about him. Say one word about losing and that's what happens. PeterKa (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2016 (EDT)
To be honest, if Clinton gets a victory, that as well as Obama cheating in 2012 by stuffing the Ballot Box would probably be grounds for trying to make sure that we get an amendment passed that makes it a national requirement for Voter ID, specifically to ensure that the Democrats can't ever use that tactic again. And while we're at it, we might need biometrics for any future voting cycle that locks anyone out who casts a ballot for the remainder of the election cycle until the next time the elections come up, specifically to ensure they can't just do repeat votes under a different identity. Let's just hope it doesn't have to come to a Clinton victory. Even if Trump wins, however, we really need to make sure that what happened back in 2012 never happens again. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2016 (EDT)
The thing is, in this race, I don't think Hillary needs to cheat. Trump is going to get hammered. The problem isn't that the election is going to be rigged. The problem is that Trump is a terrible candidate. He's crude, he's offensive, his campaign has no organization, his mouth has not filter, and he's willing to embrace the most racist and offensive parts of the alt-right. The lesson to take away from this election is that the Republicans have to actually nominate a conservative candidate instead of a RIM like Trump.--Whizkid (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2016 (EDT)
Don't be too sure about that. I heard he actually did pretty well among reviews regarding the debates. Plus, if he was a horrible candidate, why choose him over other candidates? It's clear the people chose Trump. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2016 (EDT)
During Obama's first term, ACORN was the focus of Democratic election rigging efforts. Now they have Bob Creamer doing it. There's a school in Chicago called the Midwest Academy where you can receive training in dirty politics.[68]
As far as who's winning, the polls are all over the map at this point. The media was able to bias the debate moderators against Trump by bashing Matt Lauer's performance. Why wouldn't they try to do the same thing with the pollsters? The New York Times ran an unusual article bashing a poll by the LA Times the shows Trump ahead.[69] "Skewing" turned out to be a fallacy in 2012, but the meme may have given pollsters the idea to do it for real this time around. Trump's rallies are enormously larger than Hillary's. That's hard to square with the claim that Hillary is really 11 points ahead, as the media's favorite poll currently indicates. PeterKa (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2016 (EDT)
Speaking about the media, this has got to be the most biased article I have every seen (unless I'm mistaken). They've been doing this for a while now. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2016 (EDT)
"The polls are all over the map." Um, no they are not. The *vast* majority of polls show HRC ahead, most by quite large margins. There are occasional polls showing a closer race, but the overall polling average makes it abundantly clear that Trump is losing very badly. Your claim is akin to someone's saying that, since some smokers are healthy, the data on whether smoking is bad for you is "all over the map." We often correctly draw generalizations when the facts are overwhelmingly on one side. The conclusion that Trump is getting crushed is such a reasonable generalization. Mmmmmkaaaaay 1:21, 21 October 2016 (EDT)
This is what the sports people call "trash talk." From the very beginning of this election cycle until now, the media has been telling us loudly and almost continuously that Trump's a loser and just about to fade away. I don't have a crystal ball and even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I can tell you that this meme is just a tactic. Here's Creamer, the White House's favorite Alinskyite election fixer: "In general our strategic goal with people who have become conservative activists is not to convert them—that isn’t going to happen. It is to demoralize them—to ‘deactivate’ them....We need to make them feel that they are not mainstream, to make them feel isolated."[70] The media complains that Trump is a threat to democracy. What bigger threat to democracy is there than to tell people that the election has been decided before they vote? PeterKa (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2016 (EDT)
Your response to my pointing out that what you said was false is that the media is undermining our democracy by reporting on the results of polls. Interesting. In effect, you acknowledge that what you said is false, and that you can't even pretend to defend it, and so you just change the subject. Is it not at all important to you, when you write things, to check that they be at least reasonably likely to be true, rather than simply in line with your preconceived worldview? And, in answer to your question about what could be worse for democracy than reporting facts about scientific polls, I guess I'd say threatening to declare the entire process of selecting leaders illegitimate in the event that one loses would be a solid example. Mmmmmkaaaaay 1:46, 22 October 2016 (EDT)
Whizkid, which candidate would you prefer to Trump? I just checked, and every conservative candidate, like Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Ben Carson and several others endorsed Trump. The RINOs, like Kasich and Bush have not endorsed him. Trump is clearly not a perfect candidate, but I have more faith in him to make conservative decisions than Bush and Kasich, and the people that I have more faith in than Trump are behind Trump. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2016 (EDT)
As an out-and-out populist who is more than happy to pander to some of the worst, most atavistic instincts of the American electorate, Donald J. Trump deserves every last bit of the electoral kicking he's about to receive. JohnZ (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2016 (EDT)
Look, JohnZ, Trump's not my ideal candidate either. In fact, if anything, during the primaries I voted for Ben Carson. However, if given a choice between Trump and Clinton, I'd choose Trump any day, especially now that he's got a pro-life VP and has made promises to undo Roe v. Wade and make sure conservative pro-life justices are put on the Supreme Court. I'm not sure what you're exact politics are, but at this point, anyone would be better than Clinton. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2016 (EDT)
I agree, and just for the record, I too did not vote for Trump in the primaries (I voted for Cruz). On the issues, Trump has been strongly conservative, even if he is not the ideal candidate or leader. I honestly have more faith in him than in a RINO like Romney of Kasich. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2016 (EDT)
Read this. It's pretty much all you need to know about the abject cretin you currently think is fit to serve as President. You can thank me tomorrow. Good night. JohnZ (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2016 (EDT)
Either way, Trump's still our one shot against Hillary Clinton getting the presidency, even you have to agree there. And like I said, I don't think he's my ideal candidate either, but I'm being pragmatic. What's worse? A guy with an ego who has occasionally made politically incorrect statements and some things that were shameful, or a woman who orchestrated several foreign policy disasters as well as so many scandals that her eight years as FLOTUS alone would outclass the worst of the Coolidge and Nixon scandals, and who is still mired in criminal charges even now? I'd say the latter's worse. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2016 (EDT)
The New Yorker article cited above did not persuade me of anything anti-Trump. It shows how generous Trump is (splitting the profits 50/50 on the book that he made so famous), and how much he welcomes criticism (lavishly praising a negative article about him). The New Yorker article did convince me that the magazine does not know what a "ghostwriter" is. If someone has a byline then he's not a "ghostwriter".--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2016 (EDT)
Whilst you're obviously entitled to your opinion on the merits of the article, the teacher in you must surely concede that, as a student, you'd fail miserably if you offered up the above as a precis of its key points. JohnZ (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2016 (EDT)
The New Yorker just revealed its true anti-Trump colors, with a childish rant against Donald Trump in order to endorse Hillary Clinton. [71] So we can look for a more intelligent magazine on politics in the future.

Poll roundup

IBD/TIPP shows Trump one point ahead. LA Times -- Trump is one point ahead. Rasmussen -- Trump is two points ahead. Those poll results were all released Friday. When they finally go to the polls, Republicans tend to Republican and Democrats tend to vote Democrat. So the generic ballot is often a better predictor than polls that ask about candidates. By that standard the Dems are five points ahead.[72] It's common for Republicans to do two to three points better than the polls based on turnout. Judging from turnout at rallies, there are obviously people who are excited about Trump who don't normally vote -- and no excitement for Hillary. PeterKa (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2016 (EDT)

In the last 3 presidential elections, the IBD/TIPP poll was the most accurate of all polling organizations. They are very meticulous and sophisticated in terms of putting together a representative sample.
In addition, you have the Brexit polling debacle and the fact that the media has been relentlessly bashing Trump so people being polled may not admit to intending to vote for Trump.
In a normal election Trump would never be elected, but people are so fed up with the status quo and crooked Hillary has so much baggage that Trump is still electable. Conservative (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2016 (EDT)
The LA Times uses a cutting edge methodology to figure who is most likely to caste a vote. We will have to wait for election results to see if they are on right track. PeterKa (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2016 (EDT)
Yeah, which is unfortunately three weeks away... Stupid CPD, why did they have to make the final debate a full month before the debate? Why couldn't they have done it on October 25 or even November 1? Pokeria1 (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2016 (EDT)

Three Effects Will Boost Trump

Three effects will boost Trump:

  • Brexit effect - 5 point error by polls due to media bias causing people be afraid to be candid with pollsters
  • Arnold Schwarzenegger/Reagan effect - 8-10 points better than polling,[73] due to media bias and also advantage enjoyed by Republican entertainers
  • Scott Brown effect - many points due to much greater enthusiasm

--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2016 (EDT)

Andy, you should use your wisdom to make a handsome profit. At present, betting markets have Trump with only about a 16% chance of winning. Your uncanny clairvoyance, of which the above three infallible points are but one small part, could yield a massive windfall, allowing you to better fund conservative candidates in the future. I suggest borrowing a considerable sum of money (especially as interest rates are low) to maximally cash in on your prescience. This is too good an opportunity for a man of your acumen to pass up. Mmmmmkaaaaay 2:00, 22 October 2016 (EDT)
I obviously oppose gambling, but cannot help pointing out the double standard. Your recommendation is directed at me, but your same recommendation could be made with equal enthusiasm to those who predict a Hillary victory, as they could "bet the house" on a Hillary win and then earn a handsome profit if their prediction comes true. Yet most of the Hillary cheerleaders don't bet the house on her winning after all, despite their claims of certainty.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2016 (EDT)
Unfortunately, your "obvious" opposition to gambling has apparently prevented your understanding how odds and payoffs work, and thus to assert the existence of a "double standard" when no such thing exists.
Begin with the betting odds, which give Trump a 16.4% chance of winning as of this writing, and Clinton an 82.3% chance (and other candidates negligible chances). This means that a correct bet on Trump would pay out approximately 6 times the amount of the wager (100/16.4), whereas a bet on Clinton would pay out a far less handsome 1.2 times the bet amount. For example, a successful $100 bet on Trump would pay out over $600, for a profit of over $500, whereas a similar bet on Clinton would give a profit of only about $20. So in fact it would not make sense to recommend betting as enthusiastically on an overwhelming favorite as on an underdog about whom one has special insights.
Additionally, you claim that "most of the Hillary cheerleaders don't bet the house on her winning after all," which is only partly true, and is misleading. Far more people are betting on HRC than on Trump, as evidenced by the fact that the odds are what they are. If more people believed that Trump were going to win, and were prepared to put their money where their mouths are, the odds would change. Since the current odds are determined by the degrees of confidence of bettors, we know that people are betting on HRC to win, even if the aren't "betting the house."
Finally, since you "obviously" oppose gambling, I certainly hope for the sake of your soul, not to mention consistency, that you don't invest in any stocks; doing so is itself a form of gambling, given that you hope to profit from an uncertain future event, and given that inevitably some people who play the stock market will lose money. If you do invest in stocks, though, and thus gamble already, you really should consider cashing in on your great confidence that Trump will win on the basis of such flawless insights as his ability to harness the "advantage enjoyed by Republican entertainers." This observation on the basis of two data points certainly has no imaginable counterexamples and is in no way a hasty generalization (see: Fallacy_of_extrapolation). Mmmmmkaaaaay 12:17, 23 October 2016 (EDT)
Apparently gamblers were even more confident in a Brexit defeat than they are in a Trump defeat. Then Brexit won by 4 points.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2016 (EDT)
Indeed. And in the equally unlikely event of a Trump victory, you can look forward to an equally precipitous slide in the value of the dollar as the markets wake up to the possibility of the US economy being run like one of Trump's failed casinos. JohnZ (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2016 (EDT)
So the form of your argument is "in one case this summer, people betting on an election were wrong, therefore we should assume they are wrong this time, and Trump will win." Interesting. Once, a few years ago, my backdoor was jammed due to very high humidity, and I tried to push it open so hard that my arm unfortunately went through the glass pane and shattered it. Amazingly, I somehow wasn't cut at all! I guess I should have assumed going forward that, since I didn't get cut that time, I probably wouldn't get cut the next time I shattered a glass pane with my arm either, and that people who insisted that one usually does get injured when one does such a thing were just liberal fools. --Mmmmmkaaaaay 11:5, 27 October 2016 (EDT)


There is also the Samson/Rachel the harlot effect. Sometimes God unexpectedly uses people very rough around the edges to carry out his divine plan.

I just received an email which declared:

Donald Trump is a sinner. Donald Trump is not perfect. Donald Trump is not a great spiritual role model. Check, check and check.

Now let’s look at his policies: Appoint conservative Supreme Court justices; Destroy radical Islamic terrorism; Secure our country’s borders; Restore law and order; Negotiate fair trade deals; Lower taxes on the middle class; Repeal and replace Obamacare; Bring back American jobs from overseas; Make America energy independent; Get rid of political correctness; Protect the Second Amendment; Balance our federal budget; Preserve Social Security; Repeal the “Johnson Amendment"; Bring education back to the states (abolish Common Core) Take care of American veterans.

As voters, we should cast our vote for the individual who is most capable of improving and protecting our country. As Christians, we should be out on the streets spreading the good message to those lost in sin. As we accomplish our task, Lord willing, society will draw closer to God. As society improves, so will our presidential nominees.

Trump will not infringe on our rights to worship and peaceably assemble. (Hillary has said: "Evangelicals and Catholics need to change the way they think"). Trump will appoint Supreme Court justices “in the mold of Justice Scalia.” As Christians, this should comfort us. And yet, while the Supreme Court does have great authority over the law of the land, Christians should not put all of their faith in man. Our faith should be in God." Conservative (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2016 (EDT)

That is a great and encouraging email. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2016 (EDT)
The entertainer Jesse Ventura, who was an independent, defied the pollsters predictions too.[74] Conservative (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
Sorry to bump, but I have a significant problem with voting for someone who, as President, (to cite just one example) proposes murdering families of terrorists and "wip[ing] out their homes where they came from". I will probably vote for a conservative third party candidate. GregG (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2016 (EDT)

Three effects will boost Trump and battleground states

Trump is complaining about the negative ads run against him by Hillary. She has raised a lot more money than Trump. And Hillary is probably focusing her negative ads against Trump in the battle ground states.

On the other hand, Jeb Bush's adverts didn't really help him. And Trump has social media and earned media coverage.

See: Clinton is vastly outspending Trump on ads. Is it hurting him? Conservative (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2016 (EDT)

Eric Cantor ran many, many negative ads against unknown David Brat. Then Brat won in a landslide. Afterwards, some felt the negative ads actually helped Brat by giving him free publicity.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2016 (EDT)

The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion, a Ray Comfort film, will premiere at the Ark Encounter tomorrow at 7 pm EDT. It can be viewed on Daystar TV and will be livestreamed on YouTube later. I've heard really good things about this film and that it is the best film by Comfort, which says a lot as all of his films are great. https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter-host-film-premiere-atheist-delusion-live-daystar-tv/ --1990'sguy (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2016 (EDT)

Early voting

Early and absentee voting is heavily Democratic this year.[75] The reason? Liberal women are afraid of confronting all those "deplorable" Trump supporters when they go to vote! Isn't it beautiful when the media's own propaganda comes back and bites them? PeterKa (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2016 (EDT)

Not a good sign, but perhaps not that significant a difference either. The percentage of women voting early is not that much higher than their overall voting percentage.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2016 (EDT)

More tales of dumb leftists

Check it out: "Drunk Moonbat Mistakes Environmentalist Meeting for Trump Rally, Vandalizes 30 Cars" PeterKa (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2016 (EDT)

And liberals wonder why a lot of folks consider liberalism a mental disorder. Northwest (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2016 (EDT)

Breaking News...

Prof. Gavin Macfayden, Director of Wikileaks, dead after "a short illness" (probably ricin); this is the third death of a Wikileaks' associate this year. Hillary Clinton wanted to drone Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, as discovered in an email.

No doubt yet another victim of Hillary-hired goons. This is way too suspicious to think otherwise. Northwest (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2016 (EDT)

Trump and the media

No one expected Trump in 2016. So how did it happen? You can begin the story with the missing Malaysian jetliner of 2014. CNN learned from that incident that it could achieve ratings success by giving a story wall-to-wall coverage, even one that you would not necessarily expect to be of great interest to the American public. Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide, played a key role. (See "Jeff Zucker’s singular role in promoting Donald Trump’s rise.") Zucker had been Trump's boss at NBC, the guy who approved production for both The Apprentice in 2004 and Celebrity Apprentice in 2008.
CNN is center-left politically. So if it was about politics, you would expect them to back Hillary. Winning the Iowa caucus is usually a pretty big deal. But Cruz's victory this year never distracted the media from covering whatever Trump happened to be doing. Not so long ago, the FCC had a "fairness doctrine" that made this type of coverage unthinkable. As an executive for NBC's Today Show, Zucker covered the Ross Perot campaign in 1992.[76] IMO, the plan was for Trump to be new Perot. In Art of the Deal, Trump explains that even "bad" publicity is often good for business. This report suggests he may now be getting too much publicity. So actually being president may not be in his interests from a business point of view.
Trump has been a Democrat most of his life and he is running as a Republican simply because there was a vacancy on the Republican side. Trump is a big fan of Citizen Kane. This movie's theme is staying true to your "Rosebud" self. The title character in Kane runs for governor. His only campaign promise: To indict his corrupt opponent. Kane is then knocked out of the race by a sex scandal. So the movie's ideal is not so much winning as running for office without sacrificing your true self. This may explain Trump's recent decision to "unshackle" himself from his political advisers. Trump's speech in Gettysburg today has an anti-corruption focus, so he is continuing to channel Kane. PeterKa (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2016 (EDT)

I'm thinking that like Ronald Reagan before him, Trump learned the true nature of the Democrats and decided he wanted nothing to do with them anymore, hence his decision to walk out on them, swing right for the most part (as much for personal reasons as political) and go GOP. Seeing the true colors of Hillary may have also convinced him to do the right thing in dumping the Dems some time back. Northwest (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2016 (EDT)
Trump ran against Buchanan for the Reform Party nomination in 2000. So it's clear the Perot perspective appeals to him. He became a Republican in 2009, presumably in anticipation of a 2012 run for the White House. Running as a trans-partisan Perotista would have made sense from the standpoint of promoting his business interests. But Trump's Mexico-bashing put him on the far right of the political spectrum. So why did he do it? As a Democrat, he knew about Republicans primarily from the criticisms that Democrats make of us, i.e. that we do "dog whistle" racial politics and so forth. The focus on Mexico has to do with his business interests. He settled a lawsuit concerning a proposed resort in Tijuana in 2013, apparently on terms he wasn't satisfied with. At this point, the Dems think he is Satan. I guess there is no going back. PeterKa (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
Why did Trump engage in immigrant bashing to form a political base? Personally, here's my theory: Bill Clinton baited him to do it. A novice like Trump, whom an experienced old pro like Clinton, probably advised him that any politician who did that was guaranteed an automatic 40% base, but nobody had the cahoonies to do it. RobS#NeverHillary 15:03, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
Why would you think it was Bill Clinton? I assume Bill was backing Kasich, the Jon Huntsman of 2016. The idea that conservatives are thinly veiled racists is conventional wisdom among liberals. Trump's Mexican bashing is the logical conclusion of this line of thinking. Cruz had a plan to bring immigration under control using modern technology like E-Verify, but CNN kept the focus on Trump and his proposals. From the beginning, there was plenty of anti-Trump coverage. That coverage was also Trump-focused. It implied support for Hillary and it did nothing for any other Republican candidate. PeterKa (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2016 (EDT)
This was widely cited at the time. Jeb Bush even mentioned it in the debates.[77] Knowing how their minds work, the Clinton's probably fed Trump's ego and vanity, telling him it would be easy to pickup the additional 10-11% he'd need after he secured the 40% base of "deplorables" - never explaining the political risks a more experienced candidate would know of going after them. Knowing how Trump's mind works, he doesn't take advice from anybody, and on those rare occassions he does, very selectively of what they tell him. The Clinton's surveyed the field of 16 GOP candidates and felt they had the best chance agsinst Trump, especially when you add their influence in the media.
The Clintons learned all this from Nixon. How do you think it was possible for Nixon to basically choose McGovern from a wide field of candidates of a party in chaos, as the Democrat he wanted to run against in 1972? RobS#NeverHillary 16:00, 25 October 2016 (EDT)
The links you give are about Bill encouraging Trump to run. I don't see anyone claiming he advised Trump on strategy. Even the idea that Bubba "encouraged" Trump is misleading. The phone call was just a few days before Trump announced. I'm sure Trump had already made up his mind by that time. Not only that, but Bill presumably knew Trump was about to announce, regardless of what advise he might give. PeterKa (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2016 (EDT)

O'Keefe

You got one shot at this. According to Conservaledia's link from the Main Page, James O'Keefe uses deceit. O'Keefe may be Trump's only prayer, and CP is caught fighting a rear-guard action. Quit your dilly-dallying around with nonsense and get to work.RobS#NeverHillary 16:08, 23 October 2016 (EDT)

How Dems rig the opinion polls

The Dems have created a manual on how to rig an opinion poll. "The Atlas Project," as the manual is called, recommends a technique called "oversampling." See "New Podesta Email Exposes Dem Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples"." The manual is recommended in this message on Wikileaks, hacked from Podesta's account. The message is from 2008, but the technique is still being used by Reuters, CBS, and NBC.[78] PeterKa (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2016 (EDT)

I believe it, but would that really be an effective way to win the election? You can skew the polls so they say that you win, but then you still lose in the end. It seems almost as dumb as Watergate. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2016 (EDT)
Dumb seems to be the intended norm, and it's working. I used to think surveys, yard signs, advertisements, and bumper stickers were all pointless...after all, who will vote for your candidate because they saw a sticker with his name on it? However, a surprising number of people seem to be very easily influenced by what they perceive to be popular opinion. I've even known a few people who know how they should vote, but refuse to do so because they see it as pointless. If those few can be so easily swayed by liberals, than I have no doubt that the liberals can defeat many less determined voters by simply declaring they have lost. --David B (TALK) 23:09, 23 October 2016 (EDT)
Trash talk is what liberals know how to do, so that's what they are doing. The idea is to discourage conservatives from voting, which I'm sure it does. But it also makes liberals overconfident, so it may not be an effective tactic. The LA Times and other pollsters that show the race as competitive are being bludgeoned into submission. Looking at the political news in the last few days, its hard to find anything that isn't trash talk. Does the media plan to spend the next two weeks telling us the election is over? One can only hope that voters will revolt against the tsunami of manipulation. If Trump wins, the liberal media will say it was Russian hacking. PeterKa (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
Frankly (and this is probably not a popular viewpoint here), Trump's only chance of winning will be if Hilary's supporters are so complacent about assured victory that they don't bother to vote. The opinion polls are not helping from this perspective. Saying they are rigged is a cop-out RyanFT (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
PS. I say that from an (Australian) outsider's perspective. I'm not sure that some Americans are aware of what a laughing stock this election has become, especially given what a weak candidate Hillary is. Despite that she seems destined almost certainly for victory against this buffoon who somehow won the Republican nomination! Politics!!
I don't need a reminder about how this election cycle isn't exactly anyone's cup of tea. Personally, I would have preferred Ben Carson be the person who runs against Hillary Clinton, but Trump's still our one shot against her, so I'm backing him, at least until after the election. Also, I really wouldn't call it a cop-out regarding rigged elections. The MRC pointed out that the media manipulated the 2012 elections to ensure Obama won, as if the high probability of voter fraud wasn't enough of a hint. And BTW, I voted for Romney, only because it was either him or Obama, and I certainly wasn't going to vote for Obama (personally, I would have gone with Rick Santorum, and in fact, I voted for Santorum for the primaries). Pokeria1 (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
Saw a bumpersticker yesterday that read, 'Everbody Sucks 2016'. RobS#NeverHillary 16:18, 25 October 2016 (EDT)

Religious liberty

As Chuck Norris pointed out, the topic of religious liberty has not been mentioned at all during the debates, and not even really during the election so far either. Interesting link confirming that attacks on religious liberty really are increasing at a dramatic rate, even in some surprising areas:

--1990'sguy (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2016 (EDT)

Early voting is a dead heat

In previous elections, Republicans generally led in early voting. Absentee voting was mostly soldiers stationed overseas. This year, lots of liberals are voting early because the Democrats have a campaign to use early voting as a test of strength.[79] Despite that, Republicans retain the edge in all important Ohio and Florida.[80] Not only that, but a significant number of registered Democrats could be voting third party this year. PeterKa (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2016 (EDT)

Well, voter fraud is easier by mail, so it's not a surprise that democrats are catching up. Besides, there's also the possibility of mail tampering, such as one worker who was on the news recently, and has since been suspended. Every step of the way, the democrats will be fighting this. We'll see if they succeed. --David B (TALK) 23:47, 26 October 2016 (EDT)

opinion polls vs popular vote: A brief history

In 2000, the polls showed Bush cruising to victory, ahead by three points. With the help of Bush's DWI conviction, released at the last minute, Gore took the popular vote by 0.5 points. In 2004, the polls showed Bush 1.6 points ahead. He actually won by 2.4 points. In 2008, the polls showed Obama ahead by 7.6. His actual margin of victory: 7.2. The 2012 election is remembered as one where the polls were right. But they weren't. The polls showed Obama winning by 1.2 percent. His actual margin was 3.9 percent. See "Election Update: The Polls Disagree, And That’s OK." As far as this year goes, the polling average currently shows Hillary five points ahead. Compared to previous years, polling results vary widely and the standard deviation is huge. So taking an average is less meaningful.
IBD, the pollster with the best track record, shows Hillary 1.2 points ahead.[81] Nate Silver says the polls are tightening, as is traditional at the end of a campaign. If the popular vote is actually as tight as IBD suggests, then the Electoral College gives Trump an edge.[82] PeterKa (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2016 (EDT)

The polling/political expert Pat Caddell says the polls are all over. He doesn't trust them.
In addition, Trump is a fairly unique candidate. A blend of a mega-businessman and celebrity. Unique situations are generally harder to predict in terms of their future impact.
On top of this, you have various scandals playing out at the present time.
Regardless, "Trumpism" in one form or another is going to be an issue in coming elections (Immigration, trade, populism, etc.). Conservative (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2016 (EDT)
I have to wonder about IBD's math skills. They "round off" Hillary's 1.2 lead off to 2, which is the number Drudge uses. The USC/LA Times poll shows Trump ahead by 0.7 points. PeterKa (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2016 (EDT)

Great October

The October surprise has arrived. What would make Comey turn on Hillary and reopen the case against her? Incriminating email was supposedly found on Wiener's computer. But under the nonsensical legal standard Comey announced in July, it's hard to imagine any email that would incriminate her. IMO, what happened is that lower ranking agents threatened to revolt and expose Comey as a "dirty cop." If the polls were tied before (in line with what I argue above), even the smallest nudge would mean a Trump victory. In short, it's time to for Hillary to pack her bags for a nice long vacation to Qatar, where she supposedly deposited $1.8 billion a week or two back. She must have been warned in advanced. PeterKa (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2016 (EDT)

Hopefully, Comey also uncovered evidence on Obama as well, so that he can have his feet to the fire as well (and I doubt he'll pull a Nixon and resign, he doesn't even have that kind of character, as at least Nixon was honorable enough to resign regarding his crimes). Pokeria1 (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2016 (EDT)
Butch Clinton would do better at Alderson. With the $1.8 million she'd be a big wheel there.RobS#NeverHillary 00:54, 29 October 2016 (EDT)
They only prayer Hillary has, and this would have to be done very very very quickly, is to fire Huma Abedin and let her be the fall guy fall person. Perhaps the FBI is flexing its muscle and showing the power they over her staff and appointments. RobS#NeverHillary 01:19, 29 October 2016 (EDT)
I doubt she'll have much of a prayer there. We've got nearly eleven days as of now before the election is over. She'd REALLY have to work overtime to pull that off, and I'm pretty sure that she knows if she fires Huma Abedin, she'll probably squeal to the FBI in turn due to being one of her closest allies. I'm personally hoping more for whether the FBI will nail Obama as well, especially when, if there's irrevocable evidence that Obama is aiding and abetting Hillary with her crimes, he'd probably be brought down as well, with his last remaining weeks in office being at the very least an impeachment trial if not a criminal trial. And I doubt Obama will be able to get himself out of that one once irrevocable evidence comes to light of his crimes, and since he's gone and the elections will be over by that point anyways, I doubt the Republicans will have any concerns over the left-wing media having any sway over the populace in the near future. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2016 (EDT)
Fire Huma liks they did Wasserman-Schultz, and if she talks too much she'll end up dead like Vince Foster. The Clinton's are old hands at this. There not about to let Weiner's weiner spoil 40 years of ambition.
Their only other prayer is to get Obama to say Russian hackers put it on Weiner's laptap.RobS#NeverHillary 09:50, 29 October 2016 (EDT)

Clinton attack machine

Right now they are trying to do to Comey what they did to Ken Starr. Just read down the list of title entries and their sources here and you can see the Clinton attack machine in action in real time. RobS#NeverHillary 16:59, 30 October 2016 (EDT)

Two days ago anyone who questioned Comey's judgement was a paranoid conspiracy freak and hatemonger.RobS#NeverHillary 17:05, 30 October 2016 (EDT)

It's hard out there for a dirty cop. "Is This Why Comey Broke: A Stack Of Resignation Letters From Furious FBI Agents." PeterKa (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2016 (EDT)

Quick question

Does anyone who whether it's OK to upload this image? --1990'sguy (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2016 (EDT)

Looks copyrighted in my opinion. JDano (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2016 (EDT)

Trib asks Hillary to step aside

After endorsing Hillary, the Chicago Tribune has asked Hillary to step aside. We should get this out on the Main Page.RobS#NeverHillary 17:16, 29 October 2016 (EDT)

Well, actually the Tribune endorsed Gary Johnson for president. Also, this article was written by John Kass, who is a conservative-leaning columnist. It was not written by the editorial board. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2016 (EDT)

Doug Schoen dumps Hillary

Even if he ends up in a body bag, it's too late to undo this damage. Read his reasons. He cuts to the quick.RobS#NeverHillary 23:37, 30 October 2016 (EDT)

7/7/2016 - Wash. Post Editorial Board: Republicans Are Damaging Rule Of Law By Attacking FBI Director Comey

MEDIA MATTERS STAFFRobS#NeverHillary 01:50, 31 October 2016 (EDT)

Now the Democrats are claiming that Comey violated a rule about not announcing legal actions in the 90 days before the election. This argument is so shameless! Walsh indicted Weinberger four days before the 1992 election. The charges were just headline-grabbing nonsense and they were thrown out by a judge soon after the election.[83] PeterKa (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2016 (EDT)
All I can say regarding the Republicans at WaPo are... whose side are they on?! And honestly, even if it IS true that Comey violated campaign rules regarding legal actions, we really should let it slide since Clinton violated a whole lot worse than that. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2016 (EDT)
EDIT: Never mind, didn't realize that was from July. My mistake, the Republicans were actually right to criticize Comey for not investigating Clinton back then and indicting her. And it's a good thing Comey is actually investigating Clinton again (and this time, probably won't chicken out this time around). Justice has long been overdue for the Clintons. It's time they actually face the heat. Only thing that would be even better is if Comey also uncovers irrefutable evidence of Obama's crimes as well so he can face impeachment from the Republicans as well should they win reelections. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2016 (EDT)
As near as I can piece it together, various FBI agents were outraged by Comey's July whitewash of Clinton. They continued to investigate her in defiance of Comey. This group was in contact with Wall Street Journal reporter Devlin Barrett. They leaked some material to him and threatened to leak more. The FBI seized Weiner's laptop several weeks ago. So why didn't they get a search warrant and open it up right away? I assume the renegade agents pressed for a warrant while Comey procrastinated for as long as he could. In this interpretation, Comey's letter to Congress was a last ditch move to head off a mutiny. According to the story in the Daily Mail, Comey's wife and several senior FBI people were also demanding action. Hillary is already counterattacking, as she used to do with Ken Starr -- and the liberal press is siding with her. It's still a really tight race, with the LAT poll showing Trump only two points ahead. If Hillary strategy works, she will have every reason to think of herself as above the law. PeterKa (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2016 (EDT)
This is typical Clintonism. We've seen it a thousand times. Hillary's attack dogs are out. She'll continue to campaign and pose for pictures with children. When she eventually allows the press close enough to ask, she'll say, "That's old news". See here for example how Hillary and the media handled it when the FBI LITERALLY found her fingerprints on evidence in a two-year obstruction of justice investigation. She was never charged, and went on to be elected to the Senate. RobS#NeverHillary 12:51, 31 October 2016 (EDT)
The White House has sided with Comey against Hillary. They are calling him a "man of integrity," although I don't know how anyone can say that with straight face at this point. [84] Trump's lead is up to 3.4 points, which Drudge has fake rounded to four. The so-far-anonymous FBI hero who has been driving this affair could use a big promotion and a presidential medal sometime around January 21. As I understand it, they will have a vacancy at the director level. PeterKa (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2016 (EDT)
Obama is being very consistent. I suspect he will keep silent from now to election, meaning no more campaigning for Hillary, no more free rides on Air Force One, and may affect the planned GOTV campaign among blacks. Obama's showing he is a man of integrity.RobS#NeverHillary 21:45, 31 October 2016 (EDT)
It looks like Barrett has already taken this game to the next level: "FBI Investigation Into Bribery With Clinton Foundation Spans Nation, Multiple Field Offices, Says WSJ." PeterKa (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2016 (EDT)
BINGO! Good find! That's the same Assistant Director McCabe referenced here. We're on this one. RobS#NeverHillary 23:40, 31 October 2016 (EDT)

BREAKING BOMBSHELL: NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails: Money Laundering, Sex Crimes with Children, Child Exploitation, Pay to Play, Perjury

"Enough to put Hillary and her crew away for life,” NYPD sources said. Clinton’s “crew” also included several unnamed yet implicated members of Congress.

The NYPD seized the computer from Weiner during a search warrant and detectives discovered a trove of over 500,000 emails to and from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and other insiders during her tenure as secretary of state. The content of those emails sparked the FBI to reopen its defunct email investigation into Clinton on Friday.

But new revelations on the contents of that laptop, according to law enforcement sources, implicate the Democratic presidential candidate, her subordinates, and even select elected officials in far more alleged serious crimes than mishandling classified and top secret emails, sources said. NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:

  • Money laundering
  • Child exploitation
  • Sex crimes with minors (children)
  • Perjury
  • Pay to play through Clinton Foundation
  • Obstruction of justice
  • Other felony crimes

NYPD detectives and a NYPD Chief, the department’s highest rank under Commissioner, said openly that if the FBI and Justice Department fail to garner timely indictments against Clinton and co- conspirators, NYPD will go public with the damaging emails now in the hands of FBI Director James Comey and many FBI field offices.

“What’s in the emails is staggering and as a father, it turned my stomach,” the NYPD Chief said. “There is not going to be any Houdini-like escape from what we found....People are going to prison.
RobS#NeverHillary 06:04, 3 November 2016 (EDT)

We can now officially say that this is far bigger and worse than Watergate. In fact, this actually may... well, pardon the pun of her political opponent, but, trump even Benghazi in sheer magnitude. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2016 (EDT)

Doug Schoen nailed it. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Constitutional Crisis beginning November 9, 2016 (notice on that list, between 1876 and now there has only been one - Watergate). That is the only issue now. RobS#NeverHillary 11:34, 3 November 2016 (EDT)
Cool story, Rob. This just in: according to reputable (but unnamed) NYPD sources, they've just cracked an encrypted cache of emails on Weiner's laptop in which Clinton boasts of seducing her underage victims with her reptilian hypno-stare and then dispatching them by secreting a milky white venom from beneath her clawlike fingernails. FBI lab tests on this fluid have confirmed that it's over 9000 times more deadly than ricin. One senior source remarked, "If terrorists ever get their hands on this stuff, it's game over. One drop in the water supply and we're talking entire cities ... millions of people."
Investigators have speculated that the continued existence of marine life as we know it can only be explained by the fact that Secretary Clinton never bathes or even washes her hands after visiting the bathroom.
Click this link now to read the shocking truth about the Clinton Foundation & Chemtrails!
JohnZ (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2016 (EDT)
RickRolling? And I thought you had an actual contribution to give. Well, can't say I'm surprised you'd go that route considering your constant Trump bashing, and your going for the Liberal position. That reminds me, why hasn't anyone banned you yet for trying to subvert Conservative principles? Pokeria1 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2016 (EDT)
Beats me. Admit it, though, Astley's got a fine soul voice for a white boy from Lancashire. JohnZ (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2016 (EDT)

Clinton Foundation linked to child sex trafficing in Haiti

[85] RobS#NeverHillary 15:24, 4 November 2016 (EDT)

The Establishment breaks a promise (again)

In the first debate, every Republican except Trump said they would support the nominee, whoever it was. Apparently, some of them assumed the nominee would be a squishy moderate again. Now that Trump is the nominee, Jeb Bush and John Kasich are still refusing to endorse Trump, even though conservative Republicans (even Cruz) have done so. What do these people have against Trump that they didn't have against Romney or McCain? Is Trump too conservative for them? Too politically incorrect or risky? I have to wonder about the establishment. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2016 (EDT)

They see him as, well, all of the above. He's a threat to them, since he will fight the corruption they are entangled with, but he is also politically incorrect--so much so that they are terrified they might loose support if they show and support for Trump. If Trump wins, I very much hope that we can flush some of these traitors once and for all get our party back. --David B (TALK) 17:36, 1 November 2016 (EDT)
I hope that as well. I really wish those people didn't care so much about advancing their political careers but rather on getting things done. I've heard so many times of Republicans having complete control over a state government but doing nothing because they are worried they will3 be voted out in the next election (and then eventually they are voted out anyway). Hopefully Trump will be different. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2016 (EDT)
I think we know enougn about Trump to say what kinda president he'd make. He'll be very hands off, much like Reagan or FDR. So which faction of the GOP will he use to staff positions? My guess, it'll be Rudy Guilliani and Chris Christie running the country, while he's out mainly on the golf coarse.RobS#NeverHillary 22:24, 1 November 2016 (EDT)
He'll be very hands off... right. OK then. That's a relief. AlanE (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2016 (EDT)

Manly greatness beats Clintonian corruption

How can we be sure Trump has won? "Is this any way to have an election?" stories are trending. It's a protocol the media follows whenever a Democrat loses.[86] PeterKa (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2016 (EDT)

When Trump wins, watch, they'll be screaming its rigged.RobS#NeverHillary 22:27, 1 November 2016 (EDT)

Pathological lying

Seems like an appropriate illustration for pathological lying: [87] However, the Wikipedians thought otherwise [88]. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2016 (EDT)

voter fraud

Longtime viewer, first time member. Just a question about voter fraud in America, apart from the usual things like dead people voting (doing early voting then passing before election day, which could also be argued to be a valid vote as they where alive when they did vote) and anarchists doing multiple votes just to be annoying, what major voter frauds are there in US elections, given your system is so disparate, with many different people running it (rather than one centralized commission like the AEC here in Australia, how do people illegally vote ? The biggest problem here in Australia is people not voting, which is against the law and punished by a $20 fine!

Some of it begins weeks in advance with voter registration. Then there' s the inside jobs, people working in state and local government, padding the rolls or involved in the count itself. For example, there were precincts in 2012 where Obama recieved 100%, which not only is highly improbable statistically, should have been recounted. Those precincts lacked volunteer Republican poll watchers and civil servants. But when its known in advance an independent recount of one precinct won't affect the overall outcome in the state, and the cost and time considerations, no reform measures take place leaving the machine intact for the next go-round.
Anothet example involving Obama. Carolyn Mosley Braun was the Cook County (Chicago) Registrar of Deeds, the office issuing birth and death certificates. She collected enough birth certificates, and held back death certificates to get herself on the ballot, stuff ballot boxes in Cook County not only to beat an incumbant of her own party in a primary, but to carry a statewide general election. But she needed a community organizer to register thousands of dead people so the living could do multiple voting. Whom did she pick? 30 year old Barack Obama. The rest is history.
So mastering voter fraud is a career path. The real danger of it is two-fold: (1) it almost exclusively occurs in precincts and districts that are heavily single-party where there is no opposition to cry foul (the dangers of a one party system); (2) the candidates it produces, such as Bill Clinton of Arkansas or Barack Obama of Chicago, lack experience dealing with an opposition, are highly partisan, believe in winning at any cost, and lack respect for opposing views.RobS#NeverHillary 10:24, 2 November 2016 (EDT)
That pretty much sums it up, Rob. I would just like to add that the new electronic voting machines are notorious for being abused. For example, there are many stories of people selecting one candidate, then the confirmation question asks if they are sure they want to vote for the opposite candidate (the democrat). Other times, the modification is complete so votes appear on screen to counted correctly, but and actually recorded in a fraudulent manner. In these cases, they need only one or two people to perform and conceal incredible voter fraud. Since there is no paper, to there in way to prove that fraud took place.
In the case of electronic readers for paper ballots, my understanding is that in most cases, the machine is inspected, but not the program chip (which looks a lot like a PCMCIA card) is not. It is provided after inspection, and can easily be tampered with to report false results. In this case, potentially one person could cause fraud, which can be stopped by a recount, but often will not be.
Get the idea I'm biased against electronic voting machines? You're right--I know enough about technology to know better than to trust that it cannot be easily tampered with. The big producers of electronic voting machines are also themselves liberal, which is itself a cause for concern. --David B (TALK) 14:33, 2 November 2016 (EDT)
Honestly, I've become so disgusted with the current system, the "ease of voting" and suspicion electronic machines have created, I vowed last time I will do what I have never done in 40 years of voting - VOTE A STRAIGHT PARTY TICKET. Perhaps then the odds favor at least one of my votes for a candidate on the ballot will be counted. It simply has become a waste of time to try and be fair by studying issues and candidate positions.RobS#NeverHillary 11:08, 3 November 2016 (EDT)
In my state, last time I voted in a general election, here's how it went: we have early voting around town, not necessarily at your regular election day polling place. You can vote at any early voting site. I walked in told them my name, and I have a fairly common name (at least 3 pages in phone book with the sams name), no middle initial, they did not want to know my address, I signed one of those electronic signature thingees, they handed me a ballot and I voted.
Early voting lasts 3 weeks and there about 24 early voting sites. Everyday for the next 3 weeks anybody can drive around town hit as many as are possible in one day, tell them your name is 'John Jones', and when you get to the 24th site repeat the process from the first.
With early voting, you will not even be rejected cause you're at the wrong precinct, which you usually hear stories of on election day (oh yah, they also ask what state house district you're in; they easiest way to deal with that is, rather than say 24A or whatever, just give the poll worker the name of some incumbant Democrat in a close race. Just say, 'Rep. Joe Blow's district', and they'll give you the right ballot. This system is designed for abuse, and still, there are proposals on the table to make it even more "easy to vote".) RobS#NeverHillary 16:26, 2 November 2016 (EDT)
For example: here's a proposal to "register people to vote automatically whenever they interact with a government agency, as laws have already mandated in California, Oregon, Connecticut, West Virginia and Vermont. People would have to opt out if they don’t want to be registered, as opposed to having to intentionally opt in under the current system." IOW, within 4 years, every driver license holder, state ID holder, and anyone who filed a state tax return would be a registered voter. This would presumably bring the rolls of registered voters over 90%. It's not hard to identify taxpayers & drivers who rarely vote, but with "participation" from, say 55% to 95%, someone engaged in fraud under the current system can use the name of a real, living person, rather than 'John Jones'. When mistakes are caught, human error by poll workers are fairly common, and its not the civil servant or volunteer poll watcher who's engaged in fraud. The fraudulent activity is outsourced to labor unions or ACORN or somesuch. Where the Hillary and the DNC have a problem in the Project Veritas revelations is, payment for services can be traced back to them. Like Nixon's CREEP & the Plumbers unit, they got very sloppy and amatuerish again. I attribute this to over confidence; if they win it's never a problem. There's too many low level operatives among the Democrats whose thinking is by habit, 'this is way things are done'. RobS#NeverHillary 17:14, 2 November 2016 (EDT)

LBJ's 1948 Senate election

For a good picture how election fraud occurs in the United States, read pages 132-139, Chapter 10, how Lyndon Johnson was elected to the Senate, without which he never would have become president. Spoiler alert :

So bitter were the protests of [Johnson's primary opponent] supporters that the Senate voted to look into the contested primary. But Senate investigators soon discovered that most of the ballots in Duval, Jim Wells, and Zapata counties — the [local party boss's] bailiwick — had been destroyed. Who destroyed them? Well, according to [the local party boss], some illiterate Mexican janitors must have thought they were trash ready to be burned.
RobS#NeverHillary 13:45, 13 November 2016 (EST)

"The FBI is Trumpland"

Or so says The Guardian. Endorsing Black Lives Matter and bashing the cops as racist were definitely not Hillary's brightest moves. Copland is united against Hillary in this election cycle. As a Trump spokesman, Guiliani has put his foot in his mouth more than once. But he is the politician the cops trust, and he has connections with the FBI's New York office, the office which is driving dickileaks/Weinergate.[89] Trump's poll numbers are up like a rocket. He has a five point lead in the LAT poll.[90] Despite earlier denials, the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation is apparently alive -- and ready to make additional revelations. Remember, this is Obama's FBI, with his handpicked director at the helm. Makes you wonder if he really wants Hillary to win. PeterKa (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2016 (EDT)

They did. Obama & Jarrett were behind the email leaks. He's more anti-Trump than pro-Hillary, but I think he's just fed up with Clinton's now. Honestly, she's as much of an eratic loose canon as Trump is.RobS#NeverHillary 03:49, 4 November 2016 (EDT)
He's campaigning hard for Hillary, but he has trouble finding much to say about her, at least according to this amusing account: "Obama talks about himself 207 times in 84 minutes — while campaigning for Hillary" He talks about how gas prices have dropped and some wiseacre shouts, "Thanks, Obama." Obama accepts this as sincere praise, as if he invented fracking. PeterKa (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2016 (EDT)
Yep. Cheney's secret meetings with oil executives is why these nincompoops (Obama included) enjoy lower prices and a higher standard of living today. RobS#NeverHillary 21:16, 4 November 2016 (EDT)

Too funny to check: "He'll Dig Up Michelle's Garden!"

The humanity! Oh, the humanity! "Obama Frets Trump Presidency: 'He'll Dig Up Michelle's Garden!'" No, he wasn't not joking: "Obama wasn’t amused, “You think I’m joking?” he asks." PeterKa (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2016 (EDT)

The poor guy--my heart bleeds for him. Maybe Trump will remove her stupid vegetable garden that was all over the news for a while too--the one which kids were helping plant and grow, then they celebrated by eating their produce. (Of course, the only problem was that the soil was contaminated with lead, so the produce was toxic. They just bought produce form the store and ate that instead.) --David B (TALK) 13:08, 5 November 2016 (EDT)

Comey bows before Dem fury

It takes a brave man to stand up to the united fury of the Clinton machine and the liberal media -- and that brave man is not FBI Director Comey. A couple of days ago, they told us that there was no way the FBI could review all 650,000 emails on Weiner's laptop before the election. Just yesterday, they told us classified material was found on the laptop. Today, we learn Clinton routinely instructed her maid to print out classified material for her.[91] So no way is this a proper time to wrap up the investigation.
Trump is currently ahead of Hillary by one point in the IBD poll, the poll with the best track record. Obama is ready to use massive voter fraud to overturn the will of the American people. See Criminal President Obama Encourages Illegal Aliens to Vote – Promises No Repercussions (VIDEO). Meanwhile, the media is hailing the "historic Hispanic turnout." PeterKa (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2016 (EST)

Obama is asking for massive trouble if he tries it. The public won't tolerate it this time around, given what we now know about the Democrats' history and level of voter fraud. Northwest (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2016 (EST)
Obama never gets in trouble for anything he unlawfully does. He may be emboldened. Conservative (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2016 (EST)
Well, if Obama DOES try it again, at least the Republican base will have absolutely nothing to lose attempting to try him for Impeachment charges if they retain control of the House and the Senate due to it occurring right after an election cycle (after all, they won't have to worry about reelection for another few years, so they don't have anything to lose if they charge him, meaning the MSM's got absolutely nothing on them to back off. If it were me who were the Republicans, I certainly WOULD try Obama, not even care if the MSM since we'd have nothing to lose at this point.). Honestly, let's hope Trump wins this time around. I don't want a repeat of 2012's election cycle where the Democrat nominee wins despite all evidence pointing towards the Republican winning, especially under the idea of a stolen election. In any case, I made sure to notify my Congressman and my Senators about this development, and made it pretty clear that if they don't act on impeaching Obama with that smoking gun, they might as well kiss their chances at reelection goodbye. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2016 (EST)

Trump vs. Clinton: Final arguments

I highly recommend Ann Coulter. For every common criticism of Trump, she shows how Clinton is worse. Did some Trump companies go bankrupt? There are hundreds of Trump companies, and The Donald has little involvement with the vast majority. Hillary has run one private company: Whitewater Development. It was a thoroughly corrupt entity and it went bankrupt.

Hillary is a big fan of open borders and German Chancellor Merkel. So Europe's migrant crisis may be our future. See Rush Limbaugh's "Why Trump? Look at Europe".

The ad "Donald Trump's Argument For America" is a summation of the Trump campaign. Check it out. It's powerful stuff.

As Clinton's health declines, Huma could emerge as a White House power broker. Huma grew up in Saudi Arabia with fundamentalist parents, and then married the non-Muslim (not to mention freakish) Anthony Weiner. Here's a video detailing Huma's jihadist connections: "Anonymous Release Bone Chilling Video of Huma Abedin that Every American Needs to See" PeterKa (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2016 (EST)

  • Here is Trump's own "final argument" article: "Exclusive Trump op-ed: We must clean up this corruption."
  • Just to give an idea of how moronic the arguments to elect Hillary are, check out "End this misogynistic horror show. Put Hillary Clinton in the White House" by Barbara Kingsolver. Hillary will promote woman's rights by bringing in a lot of Muslims and Mexicans? Oh, please. Ask the women of Tahir Square or Cologne what it's like to live under Islamic rule. But logic is a male thing. Real feminists like Kingsolver reject it. To her, Trump represents all the men who have slighted her over the years, especially her father. Electing a female president is a way to get back at them. This is the mentality of Hillary supporters. PeterKa (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2016 (EST)

World Series MVP - a Christian

This might be belated, but it is still worth sharing. The MVP of the World Series, Ben Zobrist, is a strong Christian and has been using his fame to spread the gospel. [92][93] It's unfortunate and quite revealing that the MSM hasn't reported this. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2016 (EST)

According to Google, as of 7:43 EST Trump is winning - including in Florida where the polls closed at 7pm EST. Will America be great again?

As of 7:43 EST Trump is winning including in Florida where the polls closed at 7pm EST. See: 2016 election results.

USA! USA! USA!

We will see what happens by 8:30pm EST. Hopefully, Trump will continue to be on top. Conservative (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2016 (EST)

Its 8:56pm EST and Trump is still winning. Trump is still winning in Florida too

Clinton 48 electoral votes. Trump 66 electoral votes. See: 2016 election results. Conservative (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2016 (EST)

Its 9:17pm and Trump is still winning. Trump is winning in Florida, VA and Michigan

Its 9:17pm and Trump is still winning. Trump is winning in Florida, VA and Michigan. Michael Moore was right to be concerned about Michigan going Trump. Will Trump win Michigan? Trump is winning in Michigan so far with 9% of voting areas reporting in Michigan. See: 2016 election results.

Will Hillary be behind bars in 2017? Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up! :)Conservative (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2016 (EST)

All power to The Donald! NYT says there is a 66 percent chance of a Trump win at this point.[94] PeterKa (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2016 (EST)
Trump's chance of winning is already up to 79 percent. They have Hillary ahead in the popular vote, Trump in the Electoral College. There is also a 95 percent chance the Republicans will keep both the House and Senate. PeterKa (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2016 (EST)
Fivethirtyeight has just flipped: 55 percent chance of a Trump win.[95] Never have so many forecasters been so confident -- and so wrong. This is as dramatic as "Dewey Defeats Truman" in 1948. PeterKa (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2016 (EST)
John Stossell's political betting market has the odds of a Trump victory at 80.3%. [96] The stock market is selling off due to uncertainty of what Trump will do. The sell off may be a great buying opportunity as Trump is expected to lower taxes if he wins.
The Republicans may control both houses and the presidency.Conservative (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2016 (EST)

According to Bret Hume at Fox News, the NY Times says there is a 91% chance that Trump will win

According to Bret Hume at Fox News, the NY Times says there is a 91% chance that Trump will win the presidency.

If Trump wins, will Hillary Clinton flee to Mexico before Trump builds his wall that Mexico will be paying for? Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up! :) Conservative (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2016 (EST)

NY Times now gives Trump a 94 percent chance of winning while Fivethirtyeight says 50-50. PeterKa (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2016 (EST)
If Trump wins, will Obama pardon Clinton? I am not sure if he will. He may be concerned about his legacy and not pardon her. On the other hand, party loyalty may cause him to pardon Hillary just like Ford pardoned Nixon.Conservative (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2016 (EST)

At 11:17pm EST, John Stossel's US Betting odds website says there is a 90.5% chance that Trump will win

At 11:17pm EST, John Stossel's US Betting odds website says there is a 90.5% chance that Trump will win.[97] Conservative (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2016 (EST)

The Silent Majority has spoken

It appears the silent majority has spoken. Fox News projects Trump will Wisconsin. The first time a Republican won the state since the 1984 Reagan-Mondale landslide. Wow. The silent majority has spoken, and I'm a part of it (by the way, do we not have an article about the silent majority?). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2016 (EST)

If Trump wins, the Democrats didn't have to lose this election. If they: Didn't have a huge pork laden stimulus plan; came out with a workable, bipartisan healthcare plan that wasn't unconstitutional; didn't have policies that ignored the white working class; had real educational reform including school choice; didn't allow Hillary to have a private server or to run a corrupt pay to play non-profit, didn't choose an arrogant and corrupt Hillary Clinton to represent them; and didn't have a president who abused executive orders.
It all comes down to arrogance and complacency. Since the 19960's the liberals have ruled the roots, but now the political pendulum has begun to shift to the right in the USA/Europe.
Angela Merkel is fearing for her political future and is warning that Russian hackers will interfere with the German election.[98] I think she is worrying about Wikileaks hammering her before the next election like they did with Clinton. Conservative (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2016 (EST)

Obama may have a tiny legacy

Obama's legacy was heavily fraying before the election. If Trump wins and repeals and replaces ObamaCare, Obama will have a tiny legacy. ObamaCare was one of the most significant changes he caused. He built it on arrogance and deceit so it is not surprising that it probably will not last. Conservative (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2016 (EST)

If Trump wins, Andy Schlafly receives a quadruple win

Few, if any, political scientists predicted early on that Donald Trump would be the leading Republican candidate in the 2016 GOP primary. 27 percent of American political scientists believe in the existence of God while 76 percent of American doctors said they believe in God. [1][2] Compared to medical science which has many effective medicines and surgical procedures, the social science of political science is often unreliable. See: Atheism and science

If Trump wins, Andy Schlafly receives a quadruple win.

First, the candidate that he and his mother supported wins. Second, the experts were wrong and the best of the public forecasters were right. Third, I suspect Andy said on main page right that Trump will win. Therefore, another tick mark for Conservapedia proven right. Finally, 27 percent of American political scientists believe in the existence of God.[99]. Political scientists generally said Trump will lose. Therefore, atheistic political pseudoscience failed. See: Atheism and science. Conservative (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2016 (EST)

If Trump wins, we should put that on the Conservapedia proven right page. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2016 (EST)

Google results for the term 2016 election results: 266 electoral votes expected for Trump; 218 electoral votes expected for Clinton. Trump is predicted to just need 4 votes to win.

Google results for the term 2016 election results: 266 electoral votes expected for Trump; 218 electoral votes expected for Clinton. Trump is predicted to just need 4 votes to win.[100]

John Stossel's election betting website indicates Trump has a 97.6% chance of winning.[101] Conservative (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2016 (EST)

With Alaska at 54:37 with Trump leading, it looks unlikely that he will not get those three as well. Then he just needs one vote from any of the three states leaning his way, or one of Maine's districts. I can't call it a done deal, but it sure looks good for him at this point. --David B (TALK) 02:24, 9 November 2016 (EST)
Democrats are furious at Comey right now.[102] Conservative (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2016 (EST)
They sure are! He should have done more, but even what he did has gotten the dems mad at him. Speaking of which, Clinton must be all bent out of shape. This is the second time she was entitled to the presidency, and now it looks like it's going to be stolen from her again. If she fires people just for looking her in the eye while passing her in the hall, imagine the firing spree she'll go on now! --David B (TALK) 02:31, 9 November 2016 (EST)



Never thought I'd see the day where Michael Moore was right about something and me & Susan Saradan were in agreement. RobS#NeverHillary 03:13, 9 November 2016 (EST)

Pro-Hillary Google indicates that Trump is expected to win the election with 276 electoral votes in his column so far

Pro-Hillary Google indicates that Trump is expected to win the election with 276 electoral votes in his column so far.[103] Conservative (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2016 (EST)

It looks like Hillary Clinton's blue wall was a Maginot Line. :) Conservative (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2016 (EST)
Washington Post dec!ares Trump the winner. Big win.[104]RobS#NeverHillary 03:03, 9 November 2016 (EST)
Right after Google indicated Trump won, ABC News quickly turned off camera at Trump rally when the Trump rally people loudly cheered. The Washington Post was airing an old Michelle Obama speech somewhat near the time that it was fairly clear that Trump would be the winner. Bottom line: Right to the bitter end, the media was trying to deny reality about the presidential race. Conservative (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2016 (EST)

Election returns delayed for Presidential race

Sources say U.S. Presidential election totals were withheld in some U.S. counties to delay the victory of President-elect Trump until Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's private jet touched down in Saudi Arabia. She reportedly said "I am leaving to go live in a country which appreciates my public service more than the U.S. apparently does." She also said she intended to make use her newly-acquired leisure time after the Presidential race to see to it that she practice and promote feminism in her new country, causing some nay-sayers to advise that the Muslim theocracy may not be as flexible in considering her new ideas regarding gender latitudinarianism as many liberal-influenced United States courts were. VargasMilan (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2016 (EST)(satire)

Unless the economy blows up the Democrats are in bad shape in 2020 presidential election. They don't have a deep bench

Mother Jones has a list of 11 Democrats who could beat Trump in 2020.[105] It isn't an impressive list.

Unless the economy blows up the Democrats are in bad shape in 2020 presidential election. They don't have a deep bench.

If they had a deep bench, they wouldn't have run Hillary Clinton in 2016.Conservative (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2016 (EST)

That is an unfair assessment. There are many solid Democrats, most notably, Senator Jim Webb. Good people may have chosen not to run, or lacked the financial backing, or failed to navigate the early primaries. As a thought experiment, suppose that neither President-elect Trump nor Hillary Clinton had entered the 2016 race, what two people would have been the ultimate nominees, and what would have been the outcome of that election? For example, Rand Paul vs. Jim Webb. The issue for 2020 will be Donald Trump's age and health. JDano (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (EST)
In all fairness regarding Trump, Ronald Reagan was also of roughly the same age as Trump when he got elected president, and he managed to do both terms very well despite suffering early signs of dementia, so we can't say for sure that that will be much of an issue with the 2020 elections when they come. Now, if it becomes apparent that he's suffering from something that cannot even be hidden by that time, then we'll talk. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2016 (EST)
Someone will emerge as star of the Democratic Party in the 2018 midterm election. Whoever it is will outshine Hillary "Did you know I'm a woman?" Clinton. Bill Clinton showed that the wider public craves a moderate Democrat. PeterKa (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2016 (EST)

Trump and China

On YouTube, there are Trump videos from the 1980s. Replace "Japan" with "China" and he could give the same speeches today. Trump considers himself the world's expert on deals. The U.S.-China trade deal was the biggest business deal of his lifetime. His beef is that he wasn't part of it. I tell my students that Trump is just like a Chinese emperor from the history books. He loves beautiful women, opulent living, and flattery. The Chinese know how to deal with this type of personality. He and the Chinese will get along fine. The Chinese press has very little coverage of the election. But it's democracy they are afraid of, not Trump. See this story. PeterKa (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2016 (EST)

All power to The Donald!

The SJWs react to Trump's glorious triumph:

Over 200 Columbia students gathered early Wednesday morning at the heart of campus, reeling from Republican nominee Donald Trump’s presidential victory with a mixture of shock, disgust, and sadness.

“Fuck Donald Trump,” they screamed. …

“I can’t believe this is happening,” students repeated.

“This is catastrophic for women, for minorities, for our country in general,” [student Sophie Neiman] said. “I’ve seen people weeping in the streets—I just cried onto my friend’s shoulder.”

“My civil rights have been compromised,” Adam Snyder said.

Here is the reaction at Yale: "Trump victory leaves students reeling."

Yes, greatness does count!
PeterKa (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2016 (EST)
I don't want a situation where there is "All power to The Donald". One of the current deficiencies of the Supreme Court in recent years and a prime deficiency of the Obama administration is the overstepping of authority. The founding fathers wisely put in place a system of checks and balances. The result is more of a consensus government and one that is resistant to radicalism. Conservative (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2016 (EST)
The Founding Fathers did not anticipate the development of political parties and they did not create a system to accommodate their existence. The endless campaigning has gotten out of hand. We are only a few months away from the beginning of the campaign season for the 2018 midterms! Time for a parliamentary system and/or approval voting. PeterKa (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2016 (EST)

Are liberals really reeling and shocked/surprised over Trump winning?

I know the left can be arrogant and engage in denialism. And maybe they put too much confidence in "scientific polling" (which turned out to have errant assumptions). So maybe they are shocked/surprised.

On the other hand, there were clear signs that Clinton was a weak candidate and that many polls might not be accurate. Also, Trump had the big rallies and Clinton largely did not. And of course, liberals/leftists lie all the time. So it wouldn't be unusual for them to lie about being confident that Hillary will win. Also, liberals/leftists often feign being outraged so their "outrage"/"shock" about the election may not be sincere in some cases.

So how surprised were liberals/left about Clinton's loss?

Judging by various liberal women crying, I am guessing that some liberals/leftists were surprised/shocked at Hillary's loss. And of course, many young Hillary supporters who don't have a lot of life experience to temper their expectations might be shocked at the results of the campaign (Unexpected things happen in life which is a lesson often learned through life experiences). But I am not sure of the extent of surprise among liberals/leftists that Hillary lost.

One clear sign that many people were surprised at the election results is the steep decline of the Mexican peso when it came clear Trump would win. But maybe many people are not investment oriented and the establishment to a greater degree than the public at large was overconfident that Hillary would win. Conservative (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2016 (EST)

Trump's played you mugs like a fiddle. You'll be disowning him as a RINO within two years. Caveat emptor. JohnZ (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2016 (EST)
We'll see. I don't see how he's any worse than Romney or McCain. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2016 (EST)
JohnZ, your commentary is sour grapes. He is significantly farther to the right than Hillary Clinton. And his main issues were the economy, jobs, immigration and terrorism. His issues are not the potpourri of politically correct talking points. He could care less about "global warming" and a host of other liberal sacred cows.
And unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will not be holding meetings with atheist groups at the White House. Trump said he will push to reverse the Johnson Amendment. I think it is in his political interest to do so. Therefore, he might do it. Conservative (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2016 (EST)

The more I think about it, the more I think that the lefts overconfidence was due to their poor understanding of the limitations of science. They clearly put too much confidence in scientific polling and didn't understand the some of the new and past challenges that pollsters face. In addition, they didn't understand the effects that misplaced assumptions can have on polling/scientific endeavors. Conservative (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2016 (EST)

  • According to Politico, there was a period in late October when Clintonworld figured they had a chance and got excited. Otherwise, they knew they were losing. The campaign did its own polling and didn't use the rigged polls that the media was trumpeting. PeterKa (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2016 (EST)
It's not just liberals - it's also the anti-Trump non-liberals; the ones with 15 year-old daughters who could hardly imagine their reaction if a middle-aged pervert deliberately walked into the change room of the dance studio or swim club or beauty pageant and checked the girls out while they were in various stages of undress. Add to that his actions at Miss Whatever contests and his pussy grabbing and judging his staff on the size of their breasts etc.
And you call him one of you. Well, I tell you what mate! I've never been prouder to be a liberal if Trump is one of you!!
Frankly, I think a lot of your proTrumpism is simply a case of the enemy of my enemy ... "AlanE (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2016 (EST)
I hope Trump works to reform the education system--if he doesn't, their constant brain-washing may well prevent another conservative or even pseudo-conservative from winning in the future. --David B (TALK) 23:19, 9 November 2016 (EST)
I agree David. When my wife and I were in Britain a few years ago we visited the Museum of London at the Barbican wall. In a brief patch of silence during the The Blitz cacophony we heard a teenage American voice say: "I didn't know the Brits were in the Second World War, Dad.". Dad replied: "They always follow us son." I had to physically restrain my English wife. AlanE (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2016 (EST)
Oy! Another evidence that they spend too much time brainwashing, and not enough time teaching. They take time to teach the kids about "the poor polar bears," showing them sad video of a polar bear "trapped" on an iceberg (even though they can swim) but no time to go over things as influential as the world wars. Sick! --David B (TALK) 03:17, 10 November 2016 (EST)
America might have too many problems for a Trump administration to make much of a difference. And even if he tackles the illegal immigration problem, legal immigration will probably cause the USA to drift to the left as the rest of the world is to the left of the USA politically.
It seems to me as if American conservatives are not willing to tackle the educational system and do not have a lot of interest in doing so. The same applies for creating a robust alternative to the leftist media. Conservatives want to spend time with their families, churches and businesses. Leftists are more willing to put in time in regards to politics.
I see the national debt growing and an eventual currency crisis. Americans seem attached to things that grow debt and things like entertainment, etc. etc. But it would take a whole lot of work to turn things around. I don't think they are willing to do the work. Asian kids study harder, etc. etc. It seems like the Christianization of China will create a lot of competition for America (see: The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China). I see an Asian century on the horizon. But who knows? Maybe Trump will negotiate better trade deals with China or erect tariffs. That would cause a lot of problems for China. But it could also cause problems for the global economy since China contributes a large chunk of the Global GNP economic growth lately. And if Trump is not careful, he could ignite a trade war.
I don't think there are any easy solutions. Americans will need to study harder and work harder to fix its problems like its national debt, education system, etc. etc. But it seems like the American public wants to hear easy solutions.
America may hit bottom before it sobers up. I hope not. But about 50% of Americans have a poor mindset. 50% is a large percentage of the US population. That is why Obama was elected twice and Hillary was nearly elected. I hope there is a Christian revival. Conservative (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2016 (EST)

Maybe I am too pessimistic. Maybe Trump will negotiate better/sensible trade bills for the USA that do not cause big problems for the global economy or ignite trade wars. Maybe his administration and his fellow Republicans will simplify the tax code and cut out unnecessary regulations. And the United States does have assets like a lot of innovative people. It has other assets as well. Maybe Trump will lower taxes and cause a net increase in tax revenue. Yet, Trump doesn't seem to be committed to entitlement reforms. Americans are living longer and the age of collecting social security needs to be raised. Also, American health habits need to be improved so people can work longer and sadly I don't see this happening any time soon.

Yet, there is still the problem of a large percentage of the USA having a poor mindset. Again, Obama was elected twice.

The developed countries seem complacent (see: Decline of nations by Daniel Greenfield). And there are emergent economies that are increasing competition. Also, even if Trump negotiates perfect trade deals, robotics will impact blue collar jobs. America's educational system is based on an older model that creates good employees to work in simpler jobs. It needs to upgrade its educational system so more entrepreneurs are created.

Many of the economic/financial experts who correctly predicted the 2007/2008 economic crisis are predicting another great depression (And many of them say it will be worse the Great Depression). These experts tend to be from the Austrian School of Economics or at least have leanings as far as this school of economics. And even if America dodges this bullet and dramatically revitalizes itself, Europe has high levels of sovereign debt and low economic growth prospects which probably will be a big drag on the world economy.

The bottom line is America has a lot of problems. But so does the rest of the world. America is not alone in having a lot of problems. But America has had a lot of past success so it is not starting out as a third world country in terms of its future economic prospects. Who knows what the future of America is? It could break up due to internal strife. America could revitalize itself at some point. But eventually, civilizations go through decline or at least periods of decline. China is a very old civilization but it seems to be on the upswing.

Lastly, the Bible says that in the last times, men will grow more and more wicked. Wickedness will of course cause societal problems. Humanity will face a lot of problems in the future and as usual most of them will be self-imposed. Conservative (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2016 (EST)

The liberals Michael Moore, Cenk Uygur, Joe Scarborough and Kyle Kulinkski and were the most realistic when it came to Trump's chances of winning the election. I think that is because they detected the anger of blue collar/Reagan Democrats better than the other liberals. Conservative (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2016 (EST)

Why did Americans vote for Trump?

Terrorism was the decisive issue, according to the exit polls. Clinton needed a "Sister Souljah moment" to show that when the chips were down, she would put the safety of everyday Americans ahead of political correctness. In 2008, Obama was able to protect himself on this flank by calling for drone strikes and other measures. But Clinton depended on Obama to protect her from the FBI. So she gave Khan the podium at the DNC and he proclaimed Muslim immigration a constitutional right. Democrats found Khan's speech so inspiring that they were trapped by his soaring nonsense. I would have supported Hillary against McCain in 2008. But she has moved far, far to the left since that time.
Although campaign coverage focused on race and gender, those issues seem to have made little difference to the voters. Trump got 8 percent of the Black vote compared to 6 percent for Romney. He got 29 percent of Latinos compared to 27 percent for Romney. Despite the tsunami of Democratic attacks on the gender issue, Trump's support among women was only one point short of what Romney got. PeterKa (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2016 (EST)

Here are five reasons why Americans voted for Trump: 5 Ways Donald Trump’s Victory Is Barack Obama’s Legacy.[106]
Ultimately, many of the blue collar workers in Michigan/PA/WI who voted for Trump may have to improve their job skills. Robotics is making more and more advances. The pace of technological advances and information growth is getting faster and faster. America is going to have to improve their educational system and have its students work smarter/harder. Conservative (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2016 (EST)
Trump and Hillary got 60 million votes each compared to 61 million for Romney in 2012. Clinton got 6 million fewer votes than Obama did that year. In 2012, Obama ran as the guy who killed Bin Laden. This year, Clinton ran against "Islamophobia." Every time she pointed out that Trump wanted a temporary Muslim ban, more people wanted to vote for him. PeterKa (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2016 (EST)
Three days after the 2012 election, Romney's total stood at 58 million votes. His total later increased by 3 million. So both Trump and Hillary presumably got more votes than Romney. But I think my previous analysis still stands: It was less about Trump bringing in new voters than about Hillary failing to win over Obama supporters. PeterKa (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2016 (EST)

Why is no one updating these articles?

Donald Trump's article has not been updated since before the election. It does not mention his surprising and historic election victory where he won states that a Republican hadn't won in 20-30 years. Also, 2016 U.S. presidential election has only one line (which I added, in fact) saying that Trump won. Nothing about the details of his victory (seriously, if a Republican wins Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania these days, we should talk about it). We should go into the specifics of this election. Republicans did much better (even on the state level) than expected. Maybe we should create a United States elections, 2016 article? Either way, it is not very fun being the only person adding election results here. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2016 (EST)

I updated the article. Feel free to make further updates and/or improve/refine my update. Conservative (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2016 (EST)
Sorry, I've been going crazy with other things going on at work, and have been unable to assist with much of anything around here lately. Besides, I figured everyone else would be all over this--apparently not. --David B (TALK) 16:21, 10 November 2016 (EST)
Thanks for your fixes, Conservative, but Trump's article is currently protected, so I cannot make any changes (and there are many other changes I want to make to other articles first). Trump's article should be brought up to the quality of the CP articles of other U.S. presidents. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2016 (EST)

I removed the protection for the Donald Trump article. Now that the election is over, the vandalism will probably be less frequent. Conservative (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2016 (EST)

That's being optimistic.RobS#NeverHillary 10:44, 11 November 2016 (EST)
Well, the page has survived for almost 12 hours... --David B (TALK) 11:11, 11 November 2016 (EST)

A question about Conservapedia and other sites, and Net Neutrality as it is likely it will finally be put down

I have prayed on this for almost a week. I am a black Trump supporter, and he has turned out to be the the closest-to-perfect candidate I feel we will ever get. But how sites like Conservapedia.com, Twitchy.com, FreeRepublic.com & WND.com will survive Net Neutrality finally being put to rest has been lingering in my mind. Can we discuss this? --DeAndre Z. Taylor (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2016 (EST)

Perhaps you're more up to date on this than me--I thought Net Neutrality laws were still in place and even supported by the FCC, to be maintained by W3C. Am I mistaken, and they're being overturned? If overturned, you're right--this could pose a problem for sites such as this one. I know the FCC has been trying to gain control over the Internet, but it's out of their hands now, isn't it? --David B (TALK) 13:04, 10 November 2016 (EST)
I seriously doubt if a GOP congress & Trump (despite their differences) have any kind feelings or sympathy toward corporate media and Google. RobS#NeverHillary 10:39, 11 November 2016 (EST)

First 100 days

Trump has released his agenda for his first 100 days in office. This is a conservative agenda.

As an aside, even The Guardian, which is very liberal, is admitting that the Republicans are the party of regular folks and that the Democrats are the party of the elites. They even blame Bill Clinton and Barack Obama for this (even though, of course, they think labor unions are part of the solution). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2016 (EST)

Now that's something I'd be willing to back. Trump is even showing that unlike Obama, he's got the backs of the military and the police and he's willing to back them in restoring law and order and putting an end to eight years of Democrat criminality and corruption under Obama and Hillary. He said he wanted to make America great again and this Contract with the American Voter is a step in the right direction. Northwest (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2016 (EST)
Wow. The Guardian sound exactly like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Alex Jones, and Conservapedia.RobS#NeverHillary 10:26, 11 November 2016 (EST)
I know Trump has as his VP a very pro-life candidate and that he mentioned bringing in people who would ensure the constitution is followed regarding Scalia, but did his 100 day plan ever mention anything about undoing Roe v. Wade? I don't think there was any direct mention if it, which concerns me. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2016 (EST)
How exactly can the Executive Branch undo a Supreme Court decision? RobS#NeverHillary 20:41, 11 November 2016 (EST)
Well, for starters, make sure that the justices they nominate on the supreme court go by a framework that believes in the original intent of what was written instead of the living document idea. That would at least go a ways there. Besides, the Dred Scott decision got overturned eventually. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2016 (EST)
Abortion is a good point, one that I have to say I overlooked. It do wish Trump added something about ending abortion to his agenda. There are many ways we could, at least, reduce abortion levels simply by majority-vote legislation. Unfortunately, the Republican Party, including Trump, I fear, is either too scared to act on controversial social issues or simply doesn't care about them. However, RobSmith does have a point in that the Supreme Court is the best way to end abortion. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2016 (EST)
@Pokeria, so you are saying 16 Democrat Senators (assuming the GOP Senators vote en bloc, which they won't) will vote to overturn Roe v Wade? RobS#NeverHillary 00:43, 13 November 2016 (EST)

Didn't Trump release his "Contract with the American Voter" almost a month ago? I surprised the news in only breaking now. --David B (TALK) 01:38, 12 November 2016 (EST)

  • Hopefully, dumping Ryan will be part of the first 100 days. Ryan is a true believer in open borders.[107] There will be no solution to the immigration crisis with him running Congress. PeterKa (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2016 (EST)
    • If he does dump Ryan, I hope he makes sure that his replacement is not Nancy Pelosi. We've already had damage from her last time she was speaker of the house, and we don't want her back. Otherwise, we should keep Ryan, at least until we can replace him with someone more reliable regarding closed borders. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2016 (EST)
Duh, the president has no say whatsoever over who Congressional leaders are. It's called, separation of powers. Tell me, what planet are you from? RobS#NeverHillary 00:43, 13 November 2016 (EST)
I'm from the same planet as you are. And if he doesn't have that power... well, we'll have to wait until there's more Republicans in the Senate before we can do anything to replace Paul Ryan, not because I like the guy, but because pragmatically, I'd stick with him over risking having Nancy Pelosi as Speaker again, and I heard from my dad that if Paul Ryan gets kicked out, they may bring her back in, which is far worse. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2016 (EST)
Well, what matters in this case is the House, and there are more Republicans in the House than the Senate. Honestly, I don't think any Republican (even the RINOs) would even consider Pelosi as Speaker. If it is clear that Ryan cannot become speaker, my expectation is that House (GOP) leadership would accept a more conservative speaker and the Republican majority would go along with it because a Republican Speaker would be much better than a Dem Speaker. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (EST)
(1) the Senate has no say over the House Speakership; (2) Pelosi is probably finally gone this time; she should have been fired 6 years ago when the Dems lost the House; (3) Ryan's hand is actually strengthened with appointment of Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff. Priebus is Ryan's boy. Priebus has one function in the White House: to act as laison between Trump and Ryan. So Trump has set up an adversarial system between Priebus & Bannon, where Bannon feeds him the thinking of Breitbart viewers and Priebus tells him what votes Ryan can muster on the Hill for any action, with Trump making final decisions. We'll know by June if this system works. Make no mistake, Priebus' appointment was Ryan's decision, and Trump's concession to Ryan. RobS#NeverHillary 06:50, 14 November 2016 (EST)

Anti-Trump "protest" in Portland turning into riot

This just in: 4,000 rioters wreak havoc across Portland Northwest (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (EST)

I wonder how much these fine folks are getting paid to do this... --David B (TALK) 11:10, 11 November 2016 (EST)
And meanwhile, the stock market doing so well that it's breaking records. Of course, though, this boom must be due to Obama (who's one nothing)--it couldn't be Trump. --David B (TALK) 13:29, 11 November 2016 (EST)
Wait a minute, while elections returns were coming in, the headlines were nothing but a stock market crash and panic because of Trump. Now you're saying it's booming cause investors are looking forward to Obama leaving office?RobS#NeverHillary 15:44, 11 November 2016 (EST)
It looks that way. Maybe the market crashed because they thought Clinton would win? --David B (TALK) 15:57, 11 November 2016 (EST)
Trump spoke 3 words, "repeal Dodd-Frank", and market set new highs. RobS#NeverHillary 20:42, 11 November 2016 (EST)

Some secular leftists are afraid of assassinating Trump because he chose the evangelical conservative Mike Pence as his VP.[108] Pence is one of Trump's layers of defense!Conservative (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2016 (EST)

Conservative rottweilers vs liberal poodles

Perfect analogy, poodles are intelligent, well reasoned and loyal dogs where rottweilers are treacherous, unintelligent violent bullies who are responsible for a lot of fatal and non fatal attacks. You sum it up perfectly. A lot like your unionized firefighters are cowards posts, it's true. The 343 unionized firefighters who cowardly gave their lives on september 11 2001 were rightly vilified by you.--HasH (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2016 (EST)

See this picture[109] Look at it and you will know what a coward looks like.--HasH (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2016 (EST)

Rottweilers are intelligent dogs and have above average intelligence when it comes to dog breeds.[110] They are not unintelligent dogs as you falsely claim. Once again, an atheist misrepresents the animal kingdom/natural world (see: Atheism and science).

Rottweilers are also popular and big/powerful dogs which accounts for the amount of harm they are able to cause.

Poodles are often yippy dogs, but often they aren't very physically powerful. Just like atheists! See: Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence and Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism.

Next, as you can see HERE, a poodle can have a poorer disposition than a rottweiler. Godly people have good dispositions, but when you behave badly towards them, bad things can happen to you. In the Old Testament, those who messed with God's chosen people found this out the hard way. Conservative (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2016 (EST)

As the former owner of a Toy Poodle, I definitely agree with Conservative regarding their being very yippy. However, mine was actually particularly fierce especially when someone arrived at my house (we have to constantly hold him back and softly tell him "friend" repeatedly to make sure he doesn't bite). From his behavior to strangers you would have almost expected him to be a Rottweiler (and he's extremely defensive regarding my mom even though I'm technically his owner). In fact, the closest to stereotypical poodle behavior regarding quivering involved going to All Creatures Animal Hospital or even when someone from that vet paid a visit (in fact, of my dogs, he was the only one who expressed the stereotypical dog fear of the vet). Pokeria1 (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2016 (EST)
Richard Dawkins
The Oxford University Professor Daniel Came wrote to the New Atheist Richard Dawkins:: "The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.[3] See: Atheism and cowardice
By the way, the new atheist Richard Dawkins was dubbed "Darwin's rottweiler" by someone who provided a large donation so Dawkins could be dubbed "Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science" at Oxford.[111] But Dawkins is a poor debater and a coward when it comes to debate challenges from strong debate opponents (see: Richard Dawkins and debate and Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and Atheism and cowardice) In short, Dawkins is a yippy poodle and undeserving of the moniker "Darwin's rottweiller". Conservative (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2016 (EST)
Maybe, but I can assure you my toy poodle (who's dead now) definitely did not act cowardly (if anything, my dog acted more recklessly and was probably closer to having very little fear at all). Still, I agree with your point, he definitely shouldn't be compared to a Rottweiler. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2016 (EST)

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain. :) 20:03, 13 November 2016 (EST)

PZ Myers: "I despair over atheism as I watch it burn...."

Anti-Trump protesters get $35 an hour

You too can get a paycheck from Soros. Check it out: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxI91KLW8AAuhsV.jpg PeterKa (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2016 (EST)

The good ol' liberal Rent-A-Mob trick --David B (TALK) 01:24, 14 November 2016 (EST)

Trump and Europe

The Churchill bust is returning to its rightful place of honor at the White House, according to Nigel Farage: "Trump to bring back Churchill statue SHAMEFULLY removed from White House by Barack Obama." Britain has jumped to the "the front of the queue for a favourable trade relationship" with the U.S. Since the election, Farage has been spinning all things Trump for the benefit of the British tabloids. Check this out: "Donald Trump and Nigel Farage - the picture that says it all about 2016." Obama always preferred Merkel to the British leaders. We are also getting rid of Merkel: "Angela Merkel 'does not want to complete full term as German chancellor'." Western civilization had a close call, but it's back in business. PeterKa (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2016 (EST)

Don't get too excited about Nigel Farage. Despite his high media profile, he is a political lightweight and his stock in British affairs is pretty low. In last years election, his party ended up with one seat - they had started out with two. He was not part of the official Leave campaign because he was seen as a loose cannon. When the referendum result came in, and everyone rolled up their sleeves to start work on actual Brexit, he resigned the leadership of his party and, apart from some TV appearances and low key speeches in Brussels, he has made nothing even remotely significant. Some of the British Conservative Party, which has more fault lines than the Pacific Rim, want to raise his profile. However, with a slim parliamentary majority and the possibility of a surprise election, this can be seen as public positioning rather than make-it-happen politics. Rafael (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2016 (EST)

On Clinton "winning" the popular vote

Given the amount of fraud in this election, it's unlikely Clinton received more legal votes than Trump. See "REPORT: 3 MILLION Votes in Presidential Election Cast by ILLEGAL ALIENS, Non-Citizens." There are enough illegals in Nevada to swing the state to Hillary. California and New York don't even require that voters present ID. As both states are reliably Democratic, fraud in those states has no practical effect under the current system. If the Electoral College was abolished, a few corrupt precincts in California could swing a national election. It's just asking for more fraud. PeterKa (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2016 (EST)

"If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily" - Donald J. Trump.[112] :)Conservative (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2016 (EST)

Obama, clueless as ever

He's learned nothing: "Obama says he's not responsible for Trump's rise to power." Well, let me explain it to you, Mr. President. Your mishandling of the immigration issue, including your illegal "executive action," gave the American people the sense that the border was out of control. This gave Trump his signature campaign issue, the issue that allowed him to separated himself from other Republican candidates. Obama's reluctance to release his birth certificate is what put Trump on the political map to begin with. On top of that, Obama has obviously been manipulating the FBI's investigation of Hillary. Since establishing his security bona fides by killing Bin Laden, Obama has been pushing the Dems to the left as hard as he can. Now it's the party of Keith Ellison, the Democrats far-left Muslim chairman. I don't think that helped Hillary. PeterKa (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2016 (EST)

SJws always lie. SJWs always double down.[113] Conservative (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2016 (EST)

Alexander Hamilton did not design the electoral college

At the convention, he didn't even comment on it. Also, Federalist #68 doesn't set forth the electoral process. It merely describes it. The convention set it forth. Progressingamerica (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2016 (EST)

The Founding Fathers did not expect nationwide political parties to develop, nor did they expect electors to vote together in statewide blocks. They thought it was unlikely that any presidential candidate would get a majority in the Electoral College. A deadlocked Electoral College allows the House of Representatives to select the president. So the system they had in mind was semi-parliamentary. Madison, who has a much better claim to be designer of the Electoral College than Hamilton does, later proposed a constitutional amendment to "correct" the system and allow electors to be selected by district. This method is currently used in two states, Maine and Nebraska.[114] PeterKa (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2016 (EST)

Trump's appointments

Trump is meeting Marine Gen. Jim Mattis and 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney this weekend. Mattis is a real soldiers' soldier who even has nickname: "warrior monk."[115] Here is Romney and Trump meeting at a golf club. I certainly hope they can put the feuding behind them. The article says he is being considered for secretary of state. Wouldn't Treasury make more sense? John Bolton at State,[116] Mattis at Defense, and Romney at Treasury -- that's a dream team. PeterKa (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2016 (EST)

I personally don't want Romney in the cabinet at all. I know that he brings some good experience with him, but I don't trust him. He is quite a RINO. Additionally, I'm worried he will undermine U.S. sovereignty if he becomes Secretary of State. I do like Bolton, as he is very critical towards the UN and supports U.S. sovereignty. However, with Rand Paul threatening to filibuster his nomination, I don't know if he can pass. I have to say, I am very happy with Trump's appointments so far. I hope he keeps it up, especially concerning education secretary. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2016 (EST)
Agreed, I don't trust Romney either. He might do some good, but he could just as easily waffle on everything that counts. I don't even recognize all of the people Trump has been considering and appointing, but the liberals is in utter hysteria about them, so these folks must be good. From what I'm hearing on their history and stance, they could really fix up things around here. --David B (TALK) 17:42, 19 November 2016 (EST)
I agree. The general rule is the more liberals go crazy over a conservative, the better that person must be. At least that's how it seems these days. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2016 (EST)
It just amazes me that so few people recognize it for what it is--divisive hysterics--and refuse to accepts it. However, the liberals do it because it does work, and many people become more terrified of the event/policy/person than the media itself is. They control almost the entire information flow, and have no problem doing outrageous things, because people will accept it. Ugh! --David B (TALK) 18:50, 19 November 2016 (EST)
Last year, Trump offered to make Karl Icahn Treasury secretary: "Carl Icahn: "No way" I would be Donald Trump's Treasury Secretary"". Perhaps Icahn can still change his mind. In W's administration, they left Clinton loyalists everywhere. The worst was George Tennet, head of the CIA. Before the Iraq war, Tennet told Bush that finding WMD would be a "slam dunk." He never found any, although we now know they were everywhere. Both president Bushes are best buddies with Bill Clinton nowadays.[117] When the Bushes refused to endorse Trump, many people interpreted it to mean that Trump was just too rude and crude for them to stomach. But I have to wonder if there is more to it than that. The recently released "28 pages" makes it clear that Saudi is the pivot of the terrorist axis. The Wikileaks email shows that Hillary knew all along that the Saudis were financing ISIS. But that didn't stop either family from using its Saudi connections for financial benefit. PeterKa (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2016 (EST)
Here is a Saudi prince calling Trump "a disgrace": "Saudi Prince Who Bailed Out Donald Trump Calls on Him to Quit Presidential Campaign." Let's hope Trump doesn't forgive or forget this slight. With Mattis at Defense, we won't need Russia's help to defeat ISIS. But a U.S.-Russia alliance against Saudi Arabia (as well as Iran) could come in handy. PeterKa (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2016 (EST)
Meeting Romney is probably cosmetic, meaning the decision is made already on somebody else, but Trump is mending fences. Romney will probably end up on some advisory board, like reforming Obamacare. Next will be McCain, who will remain in the Senate. Then Hillary on some LGBT, women's and children's advisory board. We're starting to see the real Donald Trump. RobS#NeverHillary 00:17, 20 November 2016 (EST)
I never even heard of Jared Kushner until this week. But he has enough clout to ousted Christie as head of the transition team. Kushner and Ivanka are Jewish, observe the Sabbath, and don't answer their phones on Saturday.[118] Who knew? All I can say is, good thing Ivanka didn't marry a liberal. PeterKa (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2016 (EST)
The denials are out this morning that Romney's consideration is not cosmetic, but serious. This follows the Obama pattern of appointing a political rival as Secretary of State which was a disaster for everyone, Obama, Hillary, America, and the world. Going back farther, Reagan appointed someone who wanted to be president, Alexander Haig. Thst did not work out either. What is needed is a specialist, someone with no personal political ambitions. RobS#NeverHillary 12:17, 20 November 2016 (EST)
Let's hope Trump's president-elect status survives enough to ensure those guys get into office. I just received word that certain members of the Electoral College are planning to replace Trump with either Romney or Kasich. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2016 (EST)
So you think a Republican House would elect Hillary Clinton? RobS#NeverHillary 16:00, 20 November 2016 (EST)
Neither I or the article said or even implied that they would elect Hillary Clinton. If anything, the people in the Electoral College mentioned in that article said that they if anything wouldn't even dream of putting Hillary in. They specifically chose either Kasich or Romney. Me personally, I wouldn't want Hillary, Romney, or Kasich in office (well, okay, I preferred Romney over Obama, but that's more because Obama's worse). If anything, I'd prefer Trump to win, and if I really had to choose someone else, it would have been Ben Carson. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2016 (EST)
The linked article is about two Clinton electors. There is also a Trump elector from Texas who said he might for Hillary. Many states have laws to automatically replace faithless electors. Even without a specific law, a state governor can still do this. A state's official vote is whatever tally the governor transmits to Congress. The vote will be counted by the newly elected Congress on January 6. Both chambers will be Republican, so any disputes that arise will presumably be resolved in Trump's favor. PeterKa (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2016 (EST)
Okay, but this made it seem as though they were not going for Hillary: "Chiafalo, a self-described “regular nerdy dude who works for Microsoft” and Baca, a grad student and Marine Corps veteran, insist they’re not seeking the election of Clinton — or even a Democrat. Both, in fact, had already been considering voting against her when the Electoral College meets in five weeks. Rather, they intend to encourage Republican electors to write in Mitt Romney or John Kasich. If enough agree, the election would be sent to the House of Representatives, which would choose from among the top three vote-getters." Pokeria1 (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2016 (EST)
I understand that. In every election, there are one or two faithless electors. My point is, if this ever became a serious problem, there are controls in place. PeterKa (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2016 (EST)

Back to Trump's appointments. Looks like Christie is back in the mix. I got the perfect job for him: Secretary of Transportation. Bridgegate ought to have proven his qualifications. RobS#NeverHillary 04:52, 21 November 2016 (EST)

As far as someone other than Trump winning the 2016 presidential election via faithless electors, this notion reminds me of the 5 stages of grief and loss which are: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. It seems like some people are still in the denial stage.
I was thinking of how about the fall of the Soviet Union; the atheist movement's implosion; Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful campaign; and the left losing some power in recent years and the political pendulum swinging to the right. In each case, it was a matter of corruption/deception and an implosion from within. And denial, anger, bargaining and depression about these implosions isn't going to undo them.Conservative (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2016 (EST)
Rebekah Mercer is pushing for Bolton as secretary of state.[119] She is the donor who got Bannon and Conway appointed to the campaign back in August, when Trump was in a tailspin. She also got Jeff Sessions appointed attorney general. Sounds like she gets what she wants. Here is a chart of the Mercers and their various interests. The Mercers supported Cruz in the primaries, so Cruz could be on the Supreme Court before long. PeterKa (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2016 (EST)
The Mercers are big on the gold standard, and so is Cruz. Maybe that's the next big push. Virtually no economist supports the idea. Friedman showed that the way the gold standard was applied in the 1930s led to the Depression. The Bretton Woods agreement of 1944 created a modified version of the standard that worked well for many years. PeterKa (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2016 (EST)

Christianity article

I tied myself in knots trying to fix the above article and managed to balls up big time. Can someone who knows how please accept my apologies and fix it. (As my family says at times like this: "At least you can lay bricks.") AlanE (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2016 (EST)

What's wrong with it? RobS#NeverHillary 05:05, 21 November 2016 (EST)
Nothing any more: 'Merica69 vandalized the article, AlanE tried to repair it, but couldn't revert all of 'Merica69's edits, NorthWest was able to restore it. --AugustO (talk)