Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(The unstoppable (and destructive) Left)
(The unstoppable (and destructive) Left)
Line 835: Line 835:
 
:::He was doing his job. Comey needed firing. Hillary Clinton said as much. Now the reputation and peoples confidence in the FBI can be restored. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Lock Up The Coup Plotters!'']]</sup> 05:19, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
 
:::He was doing his job. Comey needed firing. Hillary Clinton said as much. Now the reputation and peoples confidence in the FBI can be restored. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Lock Up The Coup Plotters!'']]</sup> 05:19, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
  
== The unstoppable (and destructive) Left ==
+
== The apparent inability of conservatives to effectively fight the Left ==
  
 
It turns out that the [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/18/obamas-state-department-made-us-key-to-paris-clima/ Obama Administration designed the Paris Climate Agreement so that] it would be pretty much impossible for anyone to choose to leave]. Even though the pact is ridiculous by putting most of the burden on the West rather than China or India, and even though courts could use this to block pro-energy reforms, the fear of losing geopolitical power or "remaining relevant" is powerful in forcing Trump to reconsider. The deep state knows how to stop conservatives from reversing their "accomplishments." This is similar to the whole Jerusalem embassy thing. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:50, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
 
It turns out that the [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/18/obamas-state-department-made-us-key-to-paris-clima/ Obama Administration designed the Paris Climate Agreement so that] it would be pretty much impossible for anyone to choose to leave]. Even though the pact is ridiculous by putting most of the burden on the West rather than China or India, and even though courts could use this to block pro-energy reforms, the fear of losing geopolitical power or "remaining relevant" is powerful in forcing Trump to reconsider. The deep state knows how to stop conservatives from reversing their "accomplishments." This is similar to the whole Jerusalem embassy thing. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:50, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
Line 870: Line 870:
  
 
::::The other matter is given the growth of Muslim extremism/terrorism due to the most religious Muslims having the most kids, a very doable strategy for right-wing politics is to fire up opposition to Muslim immigration which should be a big winner in Europe in 5-15 years. And Europe's opinions about Muslim immigration will spread elsewhere such as the USA. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:37, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
 
::::The other matter is given the growth of Muslim extremism/terrorism due to the most religious Muslims having the most kids, a very doable strategy for right-wing politics is to fire up opposition to Muslim immigration which should be a big winner in Europe in 5-15 years. And Europe's opinions about Muslim immigration will spread elsewhere such as the USA. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:37, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::Those are good points, and let me make clear that I'm ''not'' a "defeatist." My problem is that I know that many conservative people are unwilling to fight the liberals and reverse all their changes. I think there is a term for that behavior, where liberals come to power and enact all sorts of leftists laws, and then conservatives are elected and basically endorse those leftist laws, ensuring they stay permanently. I want to end that practice, but I'm worried our current leaders will continue it. ''Practically speaking'', the Left is unstoppable. I changed the header anyway.
 +
:::::You make strong points, but let's note that the USSR, which was an imperialist power over the Eastern European nations, has been replaced by the socialist/globalist EU, which is bossing Hungary and Poland around.[https://www.euractiv.com/section/central-europe/news/eu-sets-june-deadline-for-poland-hungary-to-take-migrant-share/][http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/18/eu-deepens-its-own-crisis-with-attacks-on-hungary-/] Homeschooling is legal in the U.S. and growing rapidly, but it is illegal in much of the rest of the world, including Europe. If you homeschool you children in Germany, you'll literally be arrested and charged with "child abuse." Left's hope these things can be changed. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:27, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

Revision as of 21:27, 19 May 2017

This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see: Conservapedia:Community Portal

Archive Index


Contents

CNN Poll

CNN Poll finds Trump more popular than the Democratic party. RobSThe coup plotters are going down 18:44, 23 April 2017 (EDT)

Trump would crush Hillary if they reran the election. A WaPo matchup shows him doing six points better than what he did in November: "Wash Post poll hides: Trump still beats Clinton, 43%-40%." PeterKa (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2017 (EDT)
The most popular candidate among Democrats - Bernie Sanders - isn't even a Democrat. RobSThe coup plotters are going down 18:56, 23 April 2017 (EDT)

Korean brinksmanship, round two

Did Trump make a good deal when he agreed not to label China a currency manipulator? We'll find out Tuesday. April 25 is another big North Korean anniversary, and the nuclear testing site is again being prepared for action. See "Volleyball Over, North Koreans Go Back to Work at Nuclear Site, Analysts Say" and "North Korea’s Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site: Back to Work We Go." PeterKa (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

The North Korean communist dictator Kim Jong-un feels he needs an existential enemy in order to distract the people from the poor conditions in North Korea. For historic reasons, he is picking the United States. In addition, the United States has been responsible for toppling leaders in the past. His nukes and large army prevented this from happening to him.
The whole thing is a joke. South Korea is a far better place to live. China is experiencing rapid Christianization (See: Growth of Christianity in China). In addition, with an uncertainty as far as the economy of Europe, China might be more dependent on the USA as a market to sell its products/services. Eventually, North Korea could lose its ally in China. China is already starting to put more pressure on North Korea. Conservative (talk)
Documentary: North Korea's Darkest Secrets Documentary 2017 .Conservative (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

March for "Science" hypocrites

Where on CP can this source be added? "5 Scientific Facts The ‘Science March’ Has Yet to Acknowledge" --1990'sguy (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

An obvious place would seem to be the March for Science page. And, in fact, if you look on that page, it's already there. Added by, of all people, you. At 15:35 today. (My goodness! Did the whole page, and the whole discussion between you and me, take place in the space of just 5 hours? It seems more like 3 days. Maybe time doesn't fly after all :-)
But I would suggest that that article is not as damning as you might think. There are many aspects of science not acknowledged by the march. I have a 1400 page encyclopedia of physics full of things that I'm sure they didn't acknowledge. So I looked at the cited article. Just the first of the 5 items; I'm not going to waste my time on all of them. It was that there are just two genders. Fine. I accept that. I'm really tired of all the "LGBTQwhatever" stuff in the liberal media. (I spend far too much time looking at HuffPo; they are obsessed with this.) "Lesboflexible"??? What??? I assume that what the Breitbart article was really about was the "bathroom bill" stuff. Yes, there are people that get worked up about this. And no doubt some of the people at the March for Science were among those people. But that's not what the March was primarily about. It was about climate change, and it was about Federal Government support for science research. If you look at the placards in the pictures of the March, you'll see that. So, yeah; Breitbart was right. The March ignored the gender issue. And I for one am glad it did. SamHB (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
Among Hillary's scientific achievements: She found Eleanor Roosevelt and Gandhi at the White House: "Book says Hillary talks to dead." PeterKa (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

Generation Z (people born after 2000) are the most conservative generation since WWII

Generation Z (people born after 2000) are the most conservative generation since WWII.[1][2]

We've Lost Millenials But Generation Z Is Ours.[3]

The nationwide study of more than 50,000 Generation Z’ers aging from 14-18 year old (high school age) found that Generation Z favored TRUMP by 15%. In other words, there was a thirty-three percent spread between Millennials and Generation Z regarding support for Trump.[4]

American culture war, demographics and expected tipping point after 2020.[5] Conservatives have more children. Post Roe vs. Wade in 1973, the difference of conservatives having more children became even more pronounced.

This is one of the reasons why leftists are getting desperate/violent. They see the writing on the wall.Conservative (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

Good thing that Generation Z is for conservatism, though to be fair, I was born in 1990, and thus am technically a millennial, and I most certainly am as conservative as one can get. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
Top 5 Reasons Generation Z is So Conservative. Why is Gen Z so Right Wing?[6]
It is just a matter of time before the internet starts shifting more to the right. It is already happening and Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign was freaking out about it.Conservative (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
I realize the left still has significant power as they control Hollywood, academia, many school systems, the major media and the courts. But the trends don't look for the secular left. This Generation Z info combined with the rise of right-wing parties in Europe and the trends of global desecularization tells me the political pendulum is swinging back rapidly. And the left is so used to making advances for the past 60 years, they lose morale quickly when their narrative of always making incremental progress towards their goals is shown to be false (namely Progressivism). The New Atheism was very angry about global desecularization and the left has been very angry about Trump's win. Seething anger can be very draining. It will be interesting to see how fast progressivism/leftism implodes. The more rapid implosion will happen sometime between 2020 and 2050. The even more rapid implosion will happen post 2050.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? concerning America:

High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family."[7]

Concerning the future of religion/secularism in Europe, professor Eric Kaufmann wrote:

"We have performed these unprecedented analyses on several cases. Austria offers us a window into what the future holds. Its census question on religious affiliation permits us to perform cohort component projections, which show the secular population plateauing by 2050, or as early as 2021 if secularism fails to attract lapsed Christians and new Muslim immigrants at the same rate as it has in the past. (Goujon, Skirbekk et al. 2006). This task will arguably become far more difficult as the supply of nominal Christians dries up while more secularisation-resistant Muslims and committed rump Christians comprise an increasing share of the population."[8]

The secular left's day are clearly numbered. See: Decline of the secular left). Conservative (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2017 (EDT)

When I think of the present state of liberalism, all that comes to mind are the lyrics to this song. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 20:15, 25 April 2017 (EDT)

An innovative (and realistic) way to make Mexico pay for the wall

"Ted Cruz Calls for $14 Billion Seized from ‘El Chapo’ to Fund Border Wall"

Cruz introduced legislation today to do just that. Hopefully, the House and Senate leadership will act on this bill rather than let it die like most other legislation. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2017 (EDT)

As part of the tax reform bill, a nullification of tax credits for aliens will generate at least $5 billion. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 21:42, 25 April 2017 (EDT)
GofundMe campaign, millions of Americans would pitch in to pay for it. Just get 'r done.--Jpatt 22:12, 25 April 2017 (EDT)
No fair, it was Laura Ingraham who came up with the Chapo-funded wall idea; she was the innovative one. VargasMilan (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2017 (EDT)

Trump has more than leftist judges to worry about (maybe)

It's not just left-wing judges who are trying to stop President Trump's agenda, in the legal sense, but now the UN is saying that repealing ObamaCare will violate "international law" if there is no "adequate replacement" (whatever that even means). I'm glad these organizations don't actually have the power to enforce their views, but regardless, it is clear these organizations promote left-wing political ideology. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

The whole leftist/communist/socialist/progressive world tries to find a a reason to critisize president Trump 24/7. It's not about his opinion or politic agenda, it's personal. Watch this : [Students despise Obama policies...when credited to Trump]--Gentenaar (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
I saw that video a few days ago on Fox. I don't think their hatred for Trump was originally caused by personal reasons. They saw that he contradicted their globalist/socialist politically-correct one-world government agenda, and through that it eventually became personal. Besides, he won, defeating their darling Hillary Clinton, and he is now in the White House, so now it's personal. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

Obama's treason

It turns out that when Obama wasn't fundraising, golfing, or watching ESPN, he was working on getting us all nuked: "Nets Censor Blockbuster Expose on Obama’s Hidden Iran Deal Secrets." He released 21 Iranian scientists and engineers who are now presumably working on that country's nuclear program. We know this from an exposé that was recently published in Politico. From Obama and his henchmen, we got only lies. PeterKa (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

"Sanctuary" city judge a Democrat activist

The judge who blocked President Trump's executive order was an activist in the Democrat Party, having attended Democrat conventions and having raised money to several liberal groups/people. How did this guy even get the position he has? Oh, wait... --1990'sguy (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

Appreciate your analysis and humor!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

Pro-Israel caucus, with no Dem support

A pro-Israel caucus is created in Congress and only Republicans attended the unveiling press conference. Maybe this is something to add to MPR. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2017 (EDT)

Corrected the heading here, just posted other items on MPR tonight so a third posting would be a bit much. Thanks for the suggestion.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
There's already a bipartisan pro-Israel causus in Congress.--Whizkid (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2017 (EDT)

DeMint

DeMint's ouster at Heritage reflects the growing acceptance of Trump by the GOP establishment. All Trump did was mention Heritage in a tweet and next you know he's out. Heritage under DeMint, along with the Club for Growth and Freedom Caucus Tea Partiers totally, totally messed up the Republican legislative agenda. Day 100, and nothing to show, facing another shut down crisis. GOP will be lucky to accomplish anything at all now. Midterms are at risk.

If people don't fall into line real quick, more heads will roll. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 19:08, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

True conservatives are going to be at odds with the Trump admin because they choose principles first. To whip in line is what Trump seeks, that is the Establishment way. Though I think Trump is not concerned and is happy the progress being made. The left likes to call him stupid but being a billionaire proves he has business smarts. I think we are witnessing high stakes chess match unfolding. The best part of Trump's first hundred days.....it wasn't Hillary's first 100. The second best part of Trump's first 100 days....100 days without America-hating Obama pulling the strings. --Jpatt 00:27, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

Trump appoints pro-life leader to the HHS

Major victory for the pro-life movement; Trump appoints Charmaine Yoest, former president of Americans United for Life, to a key administration post within the Department of Health and Human Services. Planned Parenthood predictably denounces Yoest as an anti-choice extremist for condemning the atrocities of abortion. [9] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] [[User talk:{{{1}}}|(talk)]]

K.T. McFarland

MPR states,

  • The D.C. swamp ousts conservative K.T. McFarland from the National Security Council, as neocons consolidate power within the White House. [49]

I just saw her on TV, and not H.R. McMaster, reassuring the country about nuclear war. This item should be reworded or removed. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 19:27, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

She was not immediately removed. The administration gave her some time. It nominated her to be the U.S. Ambassador to Singapore, so she will probably remain in her position until the Senate confirms her. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
Often when people are "ousted" they are given some time before it becomes effective. She's lost all her influence, which is unfortunate.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
This is the thing, though. It's a struggle for control of the NSC staff between the "drain the swamp Trump machine," and the inside the beltway establishment experts which includes Russophobes, Deep Staters, and neocons. The post can't go vacant. K.T. McFarland is a trusted GOP loyalist with an NSC clearance going back to the Reagan days, a placeholder, and not involved in the Trump/IC ideological conflict. And she was brought in temporarily even when Flynn was there. If McMaster/Mattis had somebody to replace her, they would have done so by now, especially since we're in the gravest nuclear crisis since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The situation is somewhat analagous to Reagan making Judge Clarke National Security Advisor when Richard Allen was forced out in the early days. Clarke was a trusted guy Reagan brought from California, and knew absolutely zero about DC or National Security, but Reagan had to fill the position quickly. He wasn't quite ready to cede national security entirely to Papa Bush, and there were still Carter holdovers, too. Eventually the Iran-Contra gang got in control with Bud McFarland, and the neocon group started forming, Colin Powell, William Barr, Carlucci, Robert Gates etc. Judge Clarke got eased out to do something he was more fitted to do - Secretary of the Interior. It was Reagan's second fatal mistake: First putting Papa Bush on the ticket, second giving up control of the NSC staff to Papa Bush and his crowd of insiders. The parallels are remarkable. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 01:37, 29 April 2017 (EDT)
So far the insiders have axed four of Trump's NSC picks: Monica Crowley, Mike Flynn, Robin Townley, and Steve Bannon. Now we're in a nuclear crisis largely of their doing. Who's he going to turn to for advice to fill the position? Pence and Sessions who align with the anti-Assange Trump/Russia conspirators? Mattis & McMaster as well? Pompeo who denied Flynn & Townley's clearance? Nikki Haley who was cheered by the neocons for tuff talk against Syria, and had to be publicly rebuked by Trump? RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 01:57, 29 April 2017 (EDT)
Looks like K.T. McFarland is going nowhere. [10] In fact, if McMaster is reassigned to Pentagon or Afghanistan, McFarland would probably be his best pick to replace him. The two have built a trusting relationship. Nothing against McMaster, but his counterinsurgency doctrine is built to minimize violence snd build good relations. To do so, it builds Islamic national unity and identity. IMO, this lacks the strategic vision needed.
Trump is now beginning to stand up on his hind legs. Firing Comey, downgrading Mcmaster, and meeting the Russian Foreign Minister in the Oval Office are first steps. It will be a long slog, though. He has to purge the IC of the Obamanistas and convince the remaining professionals he does have a strategic vision. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 05:00, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

Breaking News in Saudi Arabia

https://www.theexmuslim.com/2017/04/25/saudi-arabia-ahmad-al-shamris-appeal-denied-sentenced-death-atheism/

Ahmad Al Shamri renounced his Islamic faith on social media, and his death sentence from 2015 was just upheld after two appeals. The #مرتد_حفرالباطن hashtag appeared on twitter mostly celebrating the sentence, but a couple condemned it. Saudi Arabia is still on the human rights council and in the women's rights council.--IluvAviation (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2017 (EDT)

Shariah violates the 12 Amenfment Freedom of association clause, the 13 Amendment involuntary servitude clause as well as due process clauses. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 11:32, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
Saudi Arabia does not have a constitution like us, the only basis for law in the Kingdom is the Koran and Hadith. Sharia goes against the US Constitution, obviiusly. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, petition (first amendment), due process (6th and 14th amend), cruel and unusual punishment (8th amend)... About the 12 amend, you see to be a little confused. The 12th amendment is about procedures for Electors when picking president and vice president. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992"--IluvAviation (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
Radical Islamacists and militant atheists have one thing in common. Once they have power, they can be very tyrannical (see: Intolerance of militant atheism and militant Islam and Atheism and mass murder).
Countries like the United States/Britain/Switzerland help illustrate that Protestantism creates a situation where there is a separation of powers (for example, executive/legislative/courts) and not too much power in the executive branch (Biblical Protestantism teaches the fallen/sinful nature of man so its governments had checks and balances).[11] Protestant England had a bloodless revolution thanks to Protestantism, but atheistic France's attempts to curb authoritarianism failed and there was a bloody French Revolution.[12] The atheistic Russian Revolution lead to repression. In the aftermath of the American Revolution, there existed a country with a great deal of liberty. Colonial American culture was greatly influenced by Protestantism.
Atheism is ultimately doomed to a large degree. It faces Islamacists/evangelicals in Europe and an explosive growth of evangelical Christianity in East Asia where most atheists likely reside (see: East Asia and global desecularization and Growth of Christianity in China). And Africa/Latin America and the United States have historically been hard ground to grow atheism to a significant degree. Richard Dawkins is trying a "Hail Mary pass" to try to grow atheism in Latin America, but given his weak debating skills, it is doomed to fail (see: Richard Dawkins and debate).[13] Conservative (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
He was no militant atheist, he just renounced Islam on twitter. The USSR no longer exists, modern atheism is much more peaceful. For Christianity, however, The Lord's Resistance Army has far more in common with radical Islam that "militant" atheism. The LRA, especially during their reign of terror in the Second Congo War, was very tyranical, destructive, used the Bible as the primary source of law, and tortured anyone that disagreed with them, including other Christians. There are some of secular governments that are tyranical, (Like China), but many more that are not tyranical and rank well on the world press freedom index (Portugal, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Spain). But theocratic governments are nearly always authoritarian and ignore human rights. (Iran, Saudi Arabia, even Buddhist Myanmar and Christian Mozambique) It's silly that theocrats sentence a peaceful atheist to death for being an atheist (and renouncing Islam) and all you do is complain about militant atheists. Without using the internet, try to recall the last time an atheist committed a suicide bombing and/or aircraft hijacking in the middle east. Atheists are not the problem in the middle east. Theocracy is. It is plai rude to associate a person like Ahmad Al Shamri with the Soviets from decades ago.--IluvAviation (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
@Conservative, ah, in the UK, I don't think there is a separation of powers. Even the Supreme Court is (or was til very recently) just a Committee in the House of Lords. The separation of powers is between the Crown and Parliament. Maybe some of our Brit friends can correct me if I'm wrong. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 14:36, 30 April 2017 (EDT)

Modern atheism is much more peaceful? Tell that to South Koreans facing the atheistic, communist Northern Koreans and the Filipinos being bullied by the atheistic, Chinese communists via their naval power. Tell that to evangelical Christians facing the repression of the atheistic, Chinese communists (but it is backfiring and persecution is actually growing Christianity which has historically been the case). See: China, state atheism and persecution.

Also. the peaceful, irreligious, European countries have a cultural legacy of Protestantism/Christianity (see: Atheism and world peace).

One thing I have noticed. Islam is among the most repressive theistic worldviews, but even Islamic cultures can produce fun/rhythmic music.[14][15][16][17] The atheist nerds in the Western World haven't really produced much, if any, fun/rhythmic songs (Western atheism is dominated by atheist nerds and even the the atheist PZ Myers has admitted this matter). That is because male, atheist nerds in the West are wet blankets and overweight, feminist, lesbian atheists are lousy bellydancers!!!! See: Lesbianism and obesity and Atheism and obesity and Atheist feminism. Conservative (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2017 (EDT)

"The atheist nerds in the Western World haven't really produced much, if any, fun/rhythmic songs" There's more to people than musical talent. British aerospace engineer Frank Whittle created the turbojet engine years before the Germans did; Alan Turing made breakthroughs in computer science, Marie Curie was a notable researcher on radioactivity... BTW the argument about atheist sterotypes is not about secularism. And not all female atheists are lesbian, nor are all atheists nerds. Third wave feminism is silly, but feminism is really needed in the middle east.--IluvAviation (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
Yeah, and besides, IluvAviation, about atheists and aircraft hijacking, have you forgotten about the time where that pilot proceeded to ram a plane into a mountain so he'd commit suicide? Or how about that guy who had the Communist Manifesto and rammed his plane into a building back in the early 2000s? As far as the USSR, true, but Castro's Cuba (and as Conservative pointed out, China and North Korea) certainly still exist and are persecuting Christians and any religious figures. Heck, France is still persecuting Christianity since they started doing so during the French Revolution and lauding people like Jean Baudrillard who would denounce the West and Christianity for any reason, even blaming them for 9/11. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
1. North Korea, while it has no official religion, demonstrates strong elements of neo-confucanism in their unofficial Juche religion. Go read about the idea of the mandate of heaven. State media is always talking about Kim's power coming from Heaven, a principle of Confucian politics. Atheists don't believe in heaven. 2. A vast majority of the atheist community knows that 9/11 was done by Whabbists. 3. While there have been atheists who commited various acts terrorism in the name of communism, an economic and political idealogy, the acts were not done in the name of atheism. Atheism lacks the missionary impulse that drives people to force their religious opinion on others. As for Latin America, there have been communist movements supported by the local religion, usually Catholoism. While religious Cubans can't join the communist party, there are no restrictions on public display of Christianity in Cuba. In Brunei, (an islamic nation), any public display of Christian faith is illegal, and converting to Christianity in Islamic Brunei is punishable by stoning.--IluvAviation (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
By the way, if modern atheism is much more peaceful, then why is their so much acrimony/factious behavior among American atheists which effectively brought the atheist movement to a very, slow crawl? See: Atheist factions and Atheist movement.
Aren't there many factions in Christianity?--IluvAviation (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
American atheism is dominated by socially challenged, quarrelsome atheists (see: Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence). If only Western atheists were more like the peaceful Amish (who are Protestants). Atheists, when is the last time you saw Amish people quarreling? Conservative (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2017 (EDT)

Saudi Arabia, cont.

Well, I do know that I posted about an Islamic Kingdom violating human rights, and you had to make it about how terrible atheists are. I tried to start a discussion about Saudi Arabia but you decided to start a quarrel about religion itself.--IluvAviation (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
(Ec}IIuv, you raise a most important point: Americans, and all Western civilization must, at this very moment, focus on understanding the differences between the establishment Saudi Wahhabism, and the Wahhabism that now exists globally. Little else matters, except maybe a nutcase in Pyongyand North Korea. He may represent a few 10s of million dead and longterm environmental damage, but he does not represent a threat to the survival of a 2500 year old civilization that Muslim invaders do. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 15:37, 30 April 2017 (EDT)


Athieism, cont.

Atheists have a higher suicide rate than theists. See: Atheism and suicide

Atheism isn't well known for producing fun, rhythmic songs. See: Rhythmic Muslims vs. atheist wet blankets
See: Rhythmic Muslims vs. atheist wet blankets.
I hope this further clarifies things. Conservative (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
@Conservative, <psst, nobody reads that stuff. Save yourself a case of carpel tunnel.> - RobSmith

RobSmith, Essay: 10 telltale signs you are an atheist nerd has over 60,000 views. The counter got reset for Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?. It may have over 50,000 actual page views. Essay: Ponies vs. atheism - Ponies win has over 37,000 page views. And Essay: Rhythmic Muslims vs. atheist wet blankets already has over 70 views. I realize that thin-skinned and humorless atheists don't appreciate the fact that I point out their lack of accomplishments when it comes to producing fun/rhythmic music and belly dancing though. :)Conservative (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2u017 (EDT)

I'm referring to here in discussion. Nobody's going to detract to on off-point link. You're supposed to be preaching Christ anyway, not anti-atheism. Muslim preach anti-atheism. Read your bible if you care to dispute this.. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 16:02, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
Iluvaviation, Protestantism has a fantastic record when it comes to science (see: Christianity and science). Atheism has a poor track record when it comes to science (see: Atheism and science and Atheism and the suppression of science). I would also point out that America is one of the most prolific nations when it comes to producing technology/science and it also has one of the highest rates of creationism in the developed world.
re: North Korea is an atheistic, communist state (see: Religion and Atheism in North Korea and Atheism and communism). Confuscianism is non-theistic.[18]. Communist North Korea creating a cult of personality around their leaders and trying to ascribe supernatural powers to their leaders is not surprising (see: Atheist cults). Neither is some atheists deviating from naturalism (see: Irreligion and superstition and Atheism and life after death). However, while all those holding to naturalism are atheists, not all atheists are naturalists. The reason why a significant amount of Western atheists believe in life after life, but deny the miraculous in many other areas is because atheists are commonly hypocritical and illogical (see: Atheist hypocrisy and Atheism and logic) Conservative (talk)
I Iluvaviation, you wrote: "Aren't there many factions in Christianity?". Christians aren't primarily known for being arrogant and quarrelsome/factious. Western atheists are (see: Atheism and arrogance). On the other hand, most atheists are probably East Asians and due to rice agriculture requiring high amount of collective behavior compared to wheat farming, they have more social skills than Western atheists due to their cultural heritage. Conservative (talk)
Look, the world knows atheists are idiots, everybody execpt the atheists. They think they're more enlightened than the rest of us. An atheist is like an idiot with snot hanging from his nose, everybody's too embarassed to say, "Hey fool, there's snot hanging from your nose." So most people let them go on looking like idiots. It takes love and compassion to help a weaker brother, and maybe he'll get the message.
Meantime, my bible says "I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 16:33, 30 April 2017 (EDT)

RobSmith, re: recent comments. I realize that atheism is like a burning/collapsing building right now. It is not like it was from 1917 to the 1991. The next biggest threat to Christendom in the 21st century should Jesus tarry will be Islam. Islam is going to a lot more radical/violent in about 50 years should Jesus tarry because Islamic fundamentalists have more children than other Muslims.Conservative (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2017 (EDT)

The problem is here, right now. I feel like Peter the Hermit. And as I said earlier, you are doing exactly what Muslims do, preach agsinst atheism. Why can't you see that? RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 17:00, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
User:IluvAviation, re: "communists didn't commit atrocities/terror in the name of atheism". Communism was explicitly atheistic and it was an integral part of their ideology (see: Atheism and communism). They didn't tear down churches and kill/torture religious people by accident. You are engaging in historical revisionism (see: Atheism and historical revisionism). Furthermore, atheists have a history of engaging in indoctrination (see: Atheist indoctrination) so your claim that atheists don't have a "missionary impulse" is bunk. They are just to cowardly and afraid of people calling them on their nonsense to do it face to face with adults. Instead they prey on children. You probably don't realize the extent of atheists engaging in indoctrination because they didn't cover that much in the public schools that you attended! Conservative (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
Um, you've said yourself in the past that atheists don't go around evangelizing. And the pledge of allegiance which we were required to say every day contains "under God", I wouldn't call that atheist indoctrination. Now, remember this discussion was supposed to be about intolerance based in Saudi Arabia and Whabbism, but you started attacking atheism. In Saudi Arabia, atheist Ahmad Al Shamri is not the problem. All he did was renounce Islam, for which he was sentenced to death.--IluvAviation (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2017 (EDT)
These last few days I've been studying H.R. McMaster's revision of the Army's counter-insurgency field manual, which had not been updated since last time it failed, in Vietnam. The Shia in an Iraq town 60 miles west of Mosul said: [19]
“ ‘Don’t we give you information? So why are you meeting with the Sunnis?’ ‘Because I’m trying to be balanced. I’m trying to stabilize your city. If I just talk to you, I’m not going to stabilize your city.’ We tried to switch the argument from Sunni versus Shia, which was what the terrorists were trying to make the argument, to Iraqi versus takfirin.”
So this is how troops are being trained today, to promote Muslim unity against Muslims with a sectarian difference. And this earned McMaster appointment as National Security Advisor.
We got way bigger problems than what you focus o much time and attention to. Let's debate that: Should the US military be promoting atheism or Muslim unity? RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 17:34, 30 April 2017 (EDT)

I showed the satire Rhythmic Muslims vs. atheist wet blankets to another member of User: Conservative editing team and that person found it humorous. :) Conservative (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2017 (EDT)

Ok, I followed it, took a click. Yes, I see the dry wit and humor, which personnally I have an appetite for and can appreciate very much cause that's my method, too. Now, if you can suffer a little criticism from my hyper-critical brain (I'm often accused of such) aimed at assisting and in no way intended to denigrate, perhaps this criticism could help improve the article and put it on a more solid footing.
The essay suffers from a fatal flaw in its opening phrase, "Islam has produced some of the most repressive regimes." This phrase, (no wish to offend) betrays a profound lack of understanding about what the author is trying to convey. Islam does not have regimes. Islam does not believe in regimes. Islam is fighting to free itself from the Western concept of nation state which has imposed regimes and tyrants on Islam, and has divided Islam. This is what the global jihad, and global war on terror is all about.
Once the author declares such a profound lack of understanding of the subject, a knowlegable reader not only stops reading, but deems it harmful perpetrating such mistaken notions at a time people need to be educated. That phrase is a classic piece of what WP calls "systemic bias", it's targeted at one audience which isn't even aware of its inherent flaws.
The whole piece can be much improved if this single opening phrase were changed or removed. How to rewrite it, you're on your own for awhile. More importantly, to appeal to a wider audience, I suggest the author become more aware of their own systemic bias (no. this is not an argument for multiculturalism, globalism, syncretism, or diversity) so as to be more competative in the field of ideas. You need to know your subject before you write about it. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 00:37, 1 May 2017 (EDT)
I changed the wording of the opening line. I also broke up the opening sentence into two simpler sentences. Conservative (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2017 (EDT)
According to Wikipedia, a wiki founded by an atheist and agnostic, "Other estimates state that there are 200 million to 240 million self-identified atheists worldwide, with China and Russia being major contributors to those figures."[20] The number of atheists is collapsing in China due to the explosive growth of a worldview that is diametrically opposite of it - namely, evangelical Christianity. In Russia, religion is growing. Atheism is more of a burning/collapsing ideology than I thought.Conservative (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2017 (EDT)
Yes yes, good choice of words. And it opens it up to other possibilities and expansion, as well, to be further developed. It pays to get outside input. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 17:37, 1 May 2017 (EDT)

Criticism, cont. ok, this phrase, "According to Wikipedia, a wiki founded by an atheist and agnostic..." suffers from redundancy and there are three ways you can go.

  • As is, is a personal reference to two of its founders, leaving open the justifiable criticism of Conservapedia's founder forevery bit of information on the site.
  • Pluralizing it is one option, but you need a bit of study and research to be sure. "atheists and agnostics" (probably not a demonstrable fact); "groups of atheists and agnostics" (same probably requiring more resesrch); "groups that included atheists and agnostics" (probably easily demonstrable).
  • Leaving it out of the Intro for brevity, and it's underlying truth can be demonstrated elsewhere on the page, or is redundant to other information available in CP.

For better brevity, begin with this phrase, "According to Wikipedia, founded by an (group or groups) atheist(s) and agnostic(s)..."

Avoid redundancy is the point, "Wikipedia, a wiki" is a rudundant point introducing a secondary subject to the main point.

I got suggestions on the reference to China, as well. 17:58, 1 May 2017 (EDT)

User: IluvAviation, if you post notices about Islam on main page talk in the future, I am not going to post anymore responses.
And there are various topics we agree on. For example, on your user page you mention that you are pro-Israel.Conservative (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

Graph shows the rise of the number of European Muslims and the rise of right wing politics

Graph shows the rise of the number of European Muslims and rise of right wing politics.[21]

It is just a matter of time before Europe swings more to the right politically.Conservative (talk)

Hopefully not before it's too late. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

French election

It is clear that Macron is inexperienced and he threw millions of voters under the bus with his 'deplorable-like' comment the other night. If Le Pen wins, how long before the Russians are blamed? --Jpatt 09:31, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

It's a given that they are going to blame Russia if Le Pen wins. Of course, if Macron wins, probably no one is going to blame the media and the European elites for influencing the outcome (which they are probably doing), but if an election result goes against the globalist elite, it's because of sinister forces acting behind the scenes. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2017 (EDT)
Considering that global elitists are the sinister forces in question (by influencing elections in favor of the Left), for them to make such an accusation if conservative politicians win elections would be straight-up hypocrisy on their part. Northwest (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2017 (EDT)
NYT says AltRight in the US isn't helping. They don't realize the image of a frog like Pepe the Frog is considered an insult in France, and the fake news barrage is absent. Anti-globalist populist movements just aren't as organized on a global scale as what they are fighting - globalism. To be expected. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 14:02, 4 May 2017 (EDT)
Parisian/urban French liberals are stubborn. As the Muslim population grows and commits more terrorist attacks, rioting and crime, the proud French liberals will have more humility.
See the article about Islamic populations hitting various percentages of population and the consequences: What Islam Isn't - Dr. Peter Hammond. Once the percentage of Muslims in France hits India/Israel percentages, the situation is going to grow significantly worse in France.Conservative (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
The reason why Le Pen's numbers decreased was because of her debate performance, which I think pretty much everybody considered to be terrible. At least, everyone considered the debate to be nasty.[22] Most people thought Macron won the debate.[23] We'll see if the polls are accurate and if her strategies work, but if I were her, I would have personally have chosen a different debate strategy. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
Exactly what is going on with Champs-Elysees shooting? We get absolutely terrible reporting in the US. As of now it looks like the cops shot a homey gangbanger (who may or may not have converted to Islam but probably had Muslim contacts based on his prison years and the dope trade on the outside), the cops planted a note on him to help Le Pen, the Islamic State took credit based on the wrong guy, and the wrong guy is still at large. Meantime the cops have one dead, but can't come clean on a shameful effort to coverup God knows what and their effort to use ISIS to manipulate an election and world public opinion. I mean, what's the real story? RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 15:56, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
Can you believe that 65% of the French voted for a candidate who says French culture and literature doesn't exist and wants to open the borders for more muslims? A candidate who commited fraud and worked as a bankster for the Rotschilds! I can't, like I said before there is no democracy in EU countries. This must be fixed.--Gentenaar (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

The honeymoon is over

Even if the healthcare bill passes, I doubt it can repair the messy divorce inside the GOP now that the honeymoon is over. No funding for the border wall, for instance, can be tied directly to the Tea Party caucus' failure to support Obamacare repeal earlier. Funding to support it could have come from Obamacare. To get something you must give something up-been true since Gramm-Rudman. The bill that passes now has an immediate bigger price tag. Too many legislatives days have been lost, and the focus now shifts to tax reform.

So after today, the squabbling shifts to the next debt ceiling funding increase Sept. 1st. This vote only covers May-Oct, but it took Jan-May to realize it. The next vote Sept 1st, must cover more than one year, beyond the Nov Midterms, Sept 2017-Dec 2018. Bigger numbers. And bigger deficits depending on the final tax bill. Priorities shift, healthcare reform and the border wall fall down well below deficits, jobs, and taxes. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 14:14, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

The border wall is not defeated even if not appropriated, it still moves forward. Obama was able to circumvent Congress not funding insurers in Obamacare. I am sure Trump will get his way. Yes it is disheartening that this passed, that Ryan is still in control, that the Democrats can claim victory, that the deficit is not getting better. It's my belief that things will gradual go in our direction. 100 days is not enough time to turn around 8-years of Obama's strangulation of lady liberty. Obamacare should've been repealed in its entirety and start over. It's now a band-aid on a tumor. Congress is clearly the deep state. Will they ever care about America more than their reelection? Their vacation schedule says much. We have mountains of problems to tackle. They should be working 12 hour days, six days a week. It seems happy hour is more important. --Jpatt 15:02, 4 May 2017 (EDT)
If it's of any consolation, at least they've passed that bill to defund Planned Parenthood and ObamaCare. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2017 (EDT)
Correction:Congress isn't the deep state, it is in the clutches of the deep state blackmailers, as Jason Chaffetz resignation is intended to serve notice and intimidate. The only trump card up Congress's sleeve is the power of the purse and reform of Section 702, which has to be done now by anyone with courage to do so. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 22:45, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

Given the effects of the Russians/Comey on the close 2016 presidential election, the honeymoon never began. If Hillary/Bill didn't try to destabilize Putin's power in the past, she might have been elected. 12 years of Hillary plotting to win the Presidency went up in smoke. As Trump said, Putin has outsmarted the Clinton's at every turn. Conservative (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

Hillary and Comey

When she should be feeling grateful to Comey for protecting her from indictment, Hillary is instead blaming him for her election loss. But it wasn't Comey's fault that her email was on Wiener's laptop. That was Huma's fault. Huma sent Wiener copies of her email so he could print them out for her, or so Comey claims.[24] I sure hope Trump puts enough money for printers in the State Department's budget. PeterKa (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

This article argues that the more emotional energy the Dems invest in rehashing 2016, the harder it is for tomorrow's leaders to get any oxygen:
"If "the election had been on October 27, I would have been your president," [Clinton] said. "And it wasn't." And if there were no iceberg, we'd never remember the Titanic."
I would add that Comey was nowhere near the top reason she lost. These reasons were all more important than Comey:
  1. She was closely tied to the incumbent in a year when the wrong track number was 2-1.
  2. Nobody trusts her on terrorism. Political correctness and raking in Gulf Arab money were quite obviously higher priorities for her.
  3. One word: deplorable.
  4. The Dems have never been enthusiastic about her. She gets saddled with the bitterness at Bill's triangulation, perhaps illogically. So her turnout on election day has never been as good as her polls. PeterKa (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
Yes indeed definite. We got a big Hillary/Poccohontes cage match brewing. I'll buy ringside seats, and I wanna see Poccohontes take the glove offs, bit, scratch, claw, phlem in the eye, grab the cahoonies, and whatever it takes to prove she's the Alpha Female of the litter and not the runt. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 15:42, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
When I read the title of this section which is "Clinton/Comey" it was a big turn off. She was incompetent/crooked as a governmental official and campaigner and the election was about 6 months ago. It's time to move on.
But then I read how counterproductive the woulda, shoulda, coulda endless ruminating about Wikieaks/Comey is for the Democrats. I am glad they are still bogged down in the 2016 election. Conservative (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
That's not the end of it. Now they want to turn Shattered into a movie. I can see it already, Meryl Streep as Hillary Clinton, Alec Baldwin as Trump, Robert DeNiro as the villain Comey, Eric Roberts as Anthoney Weiner, and Ru Paul as Obama. Who can we get as Putin and Huma? RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 23:34, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
These liberals would never accept participating in a movie that undermines their left-wing agenda. I think they believe HRC lost because of "misogyny" and Russia. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
This'll fall into the genre of Recount, Game Change or Too Big Fail, an HBO production by Tom Hanks. It basically follows the story line of Recount, how Gore was robbed and the loosers get to be self-righteous and indignant cause the bad guys won, which helps explain why global warming and healthcare are such big crisis', etc etc. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 23:49, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
William Hurt as Vladimir Putin. He played Hank Paulsen, the big hero in Too Big to Fail, when he snubbed John McCain to talk with Nancy Pelosi. But he can play a villain, too. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 23:58, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
  • The IBD/TIPP daily tracking poll shows Clinton two points ahead the day before Comey's intervention (October 27), Trump two points ahead on election day (November 8). Republicans moved to support the Republican, while Democrats moved to support the Democrat. This is a common way for opinion to shift in the last days of an election. In a tight race, one can plausibly claim many factors as decisive.[25] PeterKa (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Democrats to run ads targeting California's House Republicans

That's how to do it, spend more money in a state where you already win electoral vote by 61%. Democrats will be Democrats. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 23:34, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

If only it were statewide races that are in question. Unfortunately, we're talking about the House, and several vulnerable Republicans have districts in CA. It seems to me that the spending is not useless, at least completely. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
So even if they gain a few seats, that's less dollars to be spent in competitive districts, elsewhere. A few seats in CA won't get them the House. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 00:00, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

Aux armes, citoyens!

Flag of France.png

"Play La Marseillaise... play it!" JohnZ (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

Soon that flag will be taken down once and for all and be replaced with the EU flag. The French have voted in favor of no longer being French but being "citizens of the world." --1990'sguy (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
I predicted the exact opposite. Right-wing nationalism is ascendant in Europe thanks to Muslim immigration and other factors. The EU will probably breakup. See my posts in the section below. Conservative (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
I hope your right, but I'm very skeptical. The people fighting the globalists are those who actively want to see a return to how Europe was. My fear is that as Europe becomes more and more unrecognizable, people are going to accept that Europe has changed just like it did during the barbarian invasions in the 300s-400s AD. My fear is that there's a point of no return and that we're heading fast in that direction. The nationalist populists need a breakthrough before that point comes. It's a race to see who achieves their goal first. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

Le Pen or right wing party will probably win in 1-3 election cycles

Exit polling seems to indicate Le Pen will lose.

French presidents are elected every 5 years.

One of the people who early on predicted Trump would be president predicted in 2015 that in 2 election cycles Europe will experience a sea of change and right wing parties will do much better. He points out that Adolf Hitler did poorly in an election 5 years before he came to power.

Pew Research says Muslims will be more than 10% of France's population by 2030.[26]

Also, consider this information about the percentages of Muslim in a country:

"From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chai ns to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).

France -- Muslim 8% Philippines -- Muslim 5% Sweden -- Muslim 5% Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5% Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana -- Muslim 10% India -- Muslim 13.4% Israel -- Muslim 16% Kenya -- Muslim 10% Russia -- Muslim 10-15%"[27]

So given Frances's size and influence in Europe, by 1-3 election cycles, there could be a sea of change in European politics. Conservative (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

I doubt Mme. Le Pen would appreciate the Hitler analogy. Her dad might, though. JohnZ (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
JohnZ, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said Len Pen was like Hitler. I merely mentioned that Hitler fared poorly in an election 5 years before he came to power. A lot can happen in politics in 5 years.
JohnZ, in 2012, my political predicting was poor. For example, I believed Boehner when he said that based on his experience visiting Ohio, Romney was going to carry Ohio. By 2014, however, I began to have a better understanding of politics and wrote this: Essay: Political tremors and the supervolcano of conservatism (If I had to write that essay over again, I would title it "Political tremors and the supervolcano of right-wing politics" as not all right wing politics is part of conservatism).
My knowledge about atheism enabled me to forecast much better earlier on. In 2010, I thought feminist women could cause significant problems to the atheist movement and I created the Richard Dawkins and women and Atheism and women articles.
Mark my words, User: JohnZ, my post above will be yet another case of Conservapedia proven right! By 2032, there will be a sea of change in French politics and it will a rightward change. And by 2050, I see a strong possibility of Eric Kaufmann being vindicated (see: Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London).Conservative (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
At ease, soldier. Gentle teasing re. the FN's thoroughly repugnant roots. That's all. JohnZ (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
JohnZ, leftists like yourself love to exaggerate mischaracterize the FN. A lot of the Holocaust controversies were blown over. I've read what the people in question have said, and a lot of it (I'm not going to say all of it, of course) is actually relatively mainstream and reasonable (at least compared to the leftist narrative) if you cast aside your anti-FN bias and consider it. The FN wants to free France from the European elites who don't want an independent France. Macron, by his very statements, hates his own country. It's unfortunate that he's the mainstream. France cannot survive as an independent nation with that mindset. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
Protip: your particular brand of populist nationalism would stand a much better chance of being taken seriously if you (and others) didn't insist on trying to airbrush its less savoury antecedents and fellow travellers.
As for Macron "hating" his country, that's an extraordinary claim. Do you have any evidence to back it up? JohnZ (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
I would take leftists like you more seriously if you showed more tolerance and didn't demonize those who don't subscribe to your political views and political correctness.
Here is good evidence for my claim. Macron, like other liberals, look over the positive aspects of colonialism (higher standards of living, more civilized society, introduction of Christianity, etc.) and only focus on the negative. Also, his wording is extreme: colonization itself was a "crime against humanity" and "truly barbaric." If you can't acknowledge the good in your nation's history, even though it exists, and act like your a patriotic citizen of your country's enemy, it is reasonable to say that you hate your country. Macron is also probably a hypocrite, because he, like other liberals, practice a modern form of imperialism where they seek to spread their favored form of government, democracy, to other countries, and they harshly criticize countries (and worse) that do not subscribe to their views. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
With all due respect, that's p___ poor evidence for your claim. I'll leave you with Conrad's wise words on the dubious glory of colonialism:
"They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force-- nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others. They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind--as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness. The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretense but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea--something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to. . . ."
JohnZ (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
Those words are not "wise." They're simplistic, inaccurate, and one-sided, just like most of your other claims. Like liberals in America who criticize their nation and say it had a bad history because of slavery (they look over the many good things in our nation prior to 1865, or 1965), Macron hates his own country's history because it chose to gain land outside of Europe. This is strong evidence for my claim, contrary to what you think. This is the same person whose agenda consists of giving much more power to Brussels and depriving France of the power of self-determination and sovereignty. He's French, but he hates his country's history, only recognizing the bad, and he doesn't want his country to be independent. What do you call that?
But of course, for some reason in today's left-wing and politically correct society, "loving" one's country and being "patriotic" (whatever that even means in this context) means letting unelected elites from a different country make decisions for your people and run your own country. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
You realise it's entirely possible to criticise something / someone and still love it / them, right? Please don't ever have kids if you don't. You'll raise monsters. Horrible little monsters. JohnZ (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
Of course I know that, but your comment misrepresents my position. Macron's France is much different than the France that I want, or, more importantly, what Marine Le Pen and even more moderate people like Fillon want. His France is one with no freedom or self-determination, controlled by foreign elites who are unelected. He has no problem with the fact that France's culture (or "cultures", as he calls it) has to make room for foreign cultures at odds with French culture. You call that loving his nation? Do you think Vidkun Quisling loved Norway?
Of course, secular left-wingers raise children so much better, with much stronger values, than I ever could (sarcasm). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
Never use (sarcasm) tags. They're either redundant because your meaning is clear, or betray an enfeebling lack of confidence in the barb you're trying to throw. By way of example, I'll note my surprise in having to point this out, given the razor-sharp delights of your repartee to date.
I also note we appear to moving from discussing whether Macron hates France to questioning how much he loves it. Your characterisation of the EU is melodramatic at best, and I suggest we swiftly draw a veil over your Quisling half-Godwin. The EU certainly needs major structural reform, but there's still a sizeable majority of Europeans who remain happy with various degrees of pooled sovereignty in exchange for freedom of movement, etc.
Squaring the circle of the euro may yet defeat the project, as it logically requires the common taxation / budgetary policy that the ultra-federalists dream of. Even if the euro ultimately fails, though, I can't honestly see things unwinding much further than back to the old EEC arrangement.
In short, if Macron sees the EU as a fundamental part of France's future, that puts him firmly in the mainstream of French thinking, and whilst it's certainly possible to disagree with his analysis, questioning his love for his country because of it seems like an absurd cheap shot of very limited rhetorical effectiveness. JohnZ (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
JohnZ, you DO realize that there were over a thousand ballots for Le Pen that were rendered "invalid" due to rips, right? And the rips all occurred in the same area, which suggests they were deliberately tampered with. Besides, France had a very low turnout as well, meaning not many were in support for either candidate, let alone Macron. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
Macron prefers a United States of Europe, like the other European elites. How can you love your country if you don't want it do be a country in the long term? There's also the fact that he doesn't mind the dissolution of French culture (or "cultures" as he describes it) in favor of Eurabian culture. I don't want my countries (America/Switzerland) to bow to or become provinces of Brussels or the UN any more than I want them to bow to or become provinces of Russia, China, Japan, or Nazi Germany (and no, the U.S. will not bow to Russia under Trump -- we've seen the opposite occur since he was sworn in). Macron wants France to bow to Brussels and become a province of the USE in the long term. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

(undent) The USE is an ultra-federalist pipe dream, and I've seen no evidence to suggest it's one shared by Macron (or Merkel for that matter). I reckon your cultural concerns are overblown, too. If there's one country in Europe where sharia law will never be allowed to gain a foothold, it's France. They take their separation of church and state seriously. JohnZ (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

You liberals also took separation of church and state seriously, often advocating not allowing for ANY displays of religion, in particular Christianity, yet you had absolutely no problem with letting Islam practice its religion. So no, France taking that concept seriously is not going to ensure that Sharia Law won't be able to gain a foothold. Besides, do I REALLY need to point out that Hollande was part of the reason why France was overrun by Muslims? Pokeria1 (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
@JohnZ: A U.S.E is NOT "an ultra-federalist pipe dream." I also didn't say that it would be accomplished overnight. Even the more skeptical people like Merkel support it in the long term. Several European leaders have made clear they support a U.S.E.[28][29] The EU leaders want a U.S.E.[30][31] Macron could play an important role in the formation of the U.S.E.[32][33] I never said that the French government wants Sharia Law, but at least, the European elites are useful Idiots for Eurabia. Once they realize what kind of Europe they've created, it will be too little, too late. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
I consider myself a fairly pragmatic sort, and thus have immense difficulty with the idea of national parliament turkeys ultimately voting for a USE Christmas. I'll concede the logical possibility of it happening one day, but I don't believe it to be at all likely.
Indeed, Macron and Merkel have more than enough on their plate in trying to drive through any meaningful fiscal union, given the various competing economic visions in play across the EU. If I were to put my money on any particular outcome, it'd be a rehash of the budgetary rules / penalties that were formulated when the euro first launched, with extra-special, cross-our-hearts-and-hope-to-die promises that they'll actually be honoured this time round.
I'm ignoring your Eurabia nonsense, so whilst you're obviously free to continue with it, you'll be talking to yourself. JohnZ (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
You don't think that uncontrolled, unregulated mass immigration into Europe by people who have don't share European culture and have completely different core values as them is a destructive policy? That's sad. But then again, you have company in the form of the liberal elites. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
That's a much more sensible formulation of your concerns, and deserves a sensible response. I suppose where we fundamentally differ is in our idea of core values. For me - and I've seen it time and time again wherever I've been in the world - it's about being safe and happy, with a decent job, food on the table and a roof over our heads, and wanting exactly the same for our friends and family. Bar the few genuine loons and zealots, I've found that that religion and political ideology play relatively little part in most people's day-to-day thinking and actions, as long as the above is satisfied. JohnZ (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Good that we have some level of understanding. I believe that government is most effective and does the most good when power is decentralized. I prefer nation-states and as opposed to a massive centralized state. A massive state creates one-size-fits-all policies and only benefits certain people at the detriment of others. Smaller nations, with decentralization, are more representative of the people they serve and thus accommodate them better.
Also, I believe that as all people are inherently sinful due to the Fall, our utopian schemes will always fail in this life. The "European Project" is one of those schemes. The elites are trying to create their version of utopia. We need to govern with the recognition that all people are very imperfect. I think decentralization does this most effectively. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

I am considering buy stock in Kimberly-Clark. Because if the 2016 Clinton-Trump election is any indication, there will be a lot of Kleenex sold in the Western World in coming years due to wailing/weeping leftists who are completely oblivious to significant trends and their political ramifications such as the growth of Muslims in the Western World.

There won't be another presidential election in 5 years, they'll all be praying to Mecca 5 times a day. And if people think French jihadis in NATO uniform with NATO training will take orders from NATO commanders, their living in dreamland. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 20:39, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

By the way, Trump's ban on Muslims was only temporary until we figure things out. :) Conservative (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

Aye. So temporary, in fact, that the revised second ban never actually came into force. Genius :) JohnZ (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
You can thank the leftist politicians who happen to wear black robes for that. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
JohnZ, Europe influenced America when it came to evolutionism and socialism. I am confident that it will do the same as far as right wing politics. In addition, there is the issue of the rapid Christianization of China and that many experts are predicting an Asian Century. There aren't many gay parades in China and after evangelical Christianity gains a stronger influence, there could be even less. The most Christianized province of China not only has the highest IQ in China (See: Asian atheism and intelligence), it also has very few gay parades.Conservative (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

Vive la France, vive Marianne, et vive la Liberté! Vive Liberté! 22:55, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

The next big move

Now watch, over the coming days and weeks, how Macron's win be translated by American media into a 67% rejection of Trump, Trumpism, and populism in the United States. And the argument goes like this: "France is just like America. The vote wasn't an opinion poll. Therefore, the American people have rejected Trump. The Left is resurgent!" RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 22:37, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

"Donald Trump is turning liberals into conspiracy theorists"

Interesting article, even though it is from CNN. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Articles Needed

Time for an edit-a-thon! Use infoboxes if needed. Some articles we need:

--IluvAviation (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Liberal intolerance article greatly needs expansion - especially in light of recent events

The liberal intolerance article greatly needs to be expanded - especially in light of things that have happened since Trump appeared as a political candidate and was elected (violent demonstrations, violence used to prevent speakers on campuses, etc. etc.). Right now, the liberal intolerance article is merely one sentence.

If the Liberal intolerance article was expanded, the liberal article could have a section on liberal intolerance.

The liberal article is a popular article. But it turned into a mess and I cleaned it up as I indicated on the talk page.

The liberal article could be much better. Modern liberalism is often intolerant of conservatives/conservatism. The way the liberal article was trying to make this point was poorly done. Slapping the word Stalinism, etc. on the article doesn't cut the mustard. A section on liberal intolerance with a link to a well-supported article would cut the mustard. Conservative (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

I started the article.Conservative (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

Comey gets the boot

This is even better than when Bharara got fired. And it's for exactly the right reason too. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein cites Comey's July 6 announcement exonorating Hillary: “It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement, but rather that of the Attorney General’s office," according to Rosenstein.[34]. “Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions." I would add that Comey's bogus investigation of the Russia-Trump connection is an better reason to fire him. It is obvious Comey's only interest in Russia is as a vehicle to prevent either Trump or Sessions from firing him. The investigation created conflicts of interest for both of them. Fortunately, Rosenstein, a veteran prosecutor originally appointed by Bush, rose to the occasion and resolved this impending constitutional crisis. PeterKa (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

The swamp isn't drained just yet. Andrew McCabe, FBI acting director, is a Hillaryista. His wife's campaign for state senate was funded by Terry McAuliffe.[35] PeterKa (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Yah, we need help organizing the info. Did Andrew McCabe offer to pay Christopher Steele for the Trump-Russia dossier? McCabe also was one of four deputies who wrote the bogus talking points for Susan Rice to deceive the American people and coverup the Benghazigate scandal, Christopher Stevens mission to transfer weapons to the Islamic State. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 03:16, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
The tectonic plates have shifted. The Age of Comey has past. The Age of Rosenstein is upon us. Roger Simon thinks Hillary could be next.[36] Rosenstein even has an inspiring manifesto: "Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI."

Our personal opinions about James Comey should not get in the way of our mission to advance true conservative values, transparency, and to avoid gossip. It is really too early to speculate on why Comey was really fired. Ideally, law enforcement, and particularly the director of the FBI, should be apolitical and free of ideology. JDano (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

(1) Go back and look at the timing of Comey clearing Hillary. He rushed it to head off the convention. (2) An FBI Dir. should not hold press conferences. That's either the Attn Gen.'s job on the domestic side or the DNI's job on the foreign. So much for indepenence. (3) His stated reason's for not prosecuting Hillary are anything but independent or non-partisan.
If Comey did his job right, Hillary never would have been nominated. Comey's FBI offered to pay for the Steele dossier if Steele could corrobate any of it, yet Comey still is using it as the basis of Trump-Russia. It is Comey's incompetence and self-serving cowardice at the heart of all these scandals. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 10:20, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
RobS, I think you are entirely correct. Comey's behavior was self-serving, at least at first. Hillary was the favorite by the odds makers and the polling. But was the race got closer and the race tightened, perhaps Comey hedged his bets. But I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and perhaps his conscience told him to do the right thing. Or perhaps God intervened and directed him to re-open the case and make a public announcement. He moved/hardened Pharoah's heart so who knows. Conservative (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Gossip needn't be an issue here. Trump told everyone why Comey was fired. He did a poor job in handing the Hillary email issue. And Trump is entirely correct about this matter. Comey should have recommended that Hillary be indicted. Furthermore, the American people have an 80% approval of the FBI, but Comey's approval has tanked. In short, he did a poor job on a key matter and he does not have the confidence of the American people. Trump is from the private sector and in the private sector you are more likely to be fired for doing a poor job. Conservative (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Gentlemen, your powers of denial are astonishing. Let's play place that quote. Fabulous prizes to be won for speaker and subject!
  1. "...it took guts for Director Comey to make the move that he made in light of the kind of opposition he had where they’re trying to protect her from criminal prosecution. You know that. It took a lot of guts."
  2. "I was not his fan, but I’ll tell you what: What he did, he brought back his reputation. He brought it back."
  3. "He had an absolute duty, in my opinion, 11 days or not, to come forward with the new information that he has and let the American people know that, too."
JohnZ (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Those would be quotes from Donald Trump. What do I win?--Abcqwe (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Close, but no cigar, I'm afraid. If you'd been a bit more specific, I could have awarded partial credit. JohnZ (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Huh. I see the last one was actually Jeff Sessions. The second one was definitely from Trump's Twitter, though. Of course, do I really want a cigar?--Abcqwe (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
And the crowd goes wild! You get to be Trump's press secretary for the remainder of his term! Just report to the White House gate and tell them you're the winner. JohnZ (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
The events of October are irrelevent. Go back to the press reporting from when the investigation began in January of 2015. The question was always, What would Loretta Lynch do?, not What would James Comey do? because he does not have the power to prosecute. All reporting was that a decision would be made by Lynch by April 2016. We have a whole section about the cover up of the fact there was an investigation because of fears it would affect primary voters. Then the decision was extended to May. Then July 5th, Comey, not Lynch, shockingly makes an announcement. Since that day forward, the Intelligence Community began speaking with multiple heads, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Brennan, creating untold confusion and contradictions. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 15:52, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
The events of October are entirely relevant. You can't go "Bad job! Bad job! ... ... oooh! Good job! Well played!" and then fire a man for having apparently done a bad job all along. At least, not without appearing insane or as crooked as a dog's hind leg. JohnZ (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
The facts speak for themselves. If Comey did his job right, we'd probably have President Sanders right now. And where is Hillary's courageous leadership? How come Hillary is not out front condemning his firing?
You have no idea how absolutely ridiculous Trump haters and the media look over this. This action will gain GOP votes in the Midterms and in 2020 from people who voted Democrat in 2016. Not because what Trump did, but because of how Trump haters reacted.
There has been a bi-partisan consensus to fire Comey for a year. The Trump-Russia conspiracy kooks have shrunk, even on Capital Hill and only remain strong in the media - which has earned ZERO credibility for itself. Every word spoken against Trump is beginning to gain him sympathy from people who never supported him. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 17:49, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Look, Rob, you backed an impulsive, unstable loser who made a great big noise about being the winning-est winner ever. I can understand why you're embarrassed and feel the need to keep spinning and dissembling in your own inimitable style. But trust me, the shame and searing self-loathing will only get worse the longer you put this off. He's toast. There's poison in those tax returns, and that's where all this is heading. JohnZ (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Nah. There will be an investigation into the Clinton Foundation now. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 19:57, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
So if Trump's such a "loser" to you, JohnZ, how do you explain his winning the election last November and him now being in the White House (without falling back on the usual liberal talking points, canards and fake news)? Northwest (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2017 (EDT)

JohnZ, Trump is man enough to admit his mistake and do what is best for the American public. Comey did not bring back his reputation. Public approval/confidence/trust is low in Comey according to polls. If Comey brought back his reputation, his approval ratings would be high. Firing Comey was the right thing to do. Trump can restore public trust in the FBI by picking the best candidate he can find to replace Comey.

And the icing on the cake is that he can replace Comey with someone who will not waste public resources on the wild goose chase of Trump supposedly colluding with Russians to bring down Hillary which is a total farce. If elected, Trump was willing to work with Putin to remove sanctions on Russia in exchange for Russian help in more quickly destroying/degrading ISIS because he thought that would be in America's interest.

And the extra thick icing on the cake is the more he talked about working with the Russians, the more Wikileak material they released to public. Win-Win-Win!!! The American public won. Trump won. And the Russians may win up getting their sanctions removed eventually. Everybody wins - except for Hillary and liberals. But Hillary and liberals are losers so they have no business winning anyways. One thing I can tell you is that I am almost getting to the stage where I am sick of winning. America is nearly great again. And with two terms of Trump, America may once again be the greatest nation on earth!

I hope this clarifies matters for you. Conservative (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

Good summary. And Putin wants help fighting the jihad. Scroll through this list from the bottom up and see how many terrorist attacks Russia has sufferred, most unreported in the West. It tapers off a bit in 2012, about the time Hillary/Obama's aid to ISIS began and more started occurring in Europe. And about the time Putin took the war to the jihadis in Syria.
Just as Russia needed our help fighting Nazis invaders, so to now does Christian Russia need help fighting the Islamist invaders. But antifa, liberals, Democrats, fascists, Putinophobes, Russophobes, Trump-haters & Clinton sycophants all sympathize with jihadi killers. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 16:17, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Putin wants to remain in power, and for Russia to have status and relevance on the world stage. All other considerations are secondary. JohnZ (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
So a nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Russia is preferable. Okay. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 18:04, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
  • There were many good reasons to fire Comey. Surely one of them was that nobody could figure out what he was up to. Colbert's audience of liberal ultrapartisans got confused: "Stephen Colbert Corrects Audience for Cheering News of Comey Firing." A lot of people are wondering, "Why now?" But I think the answer is obvious. Neither Trump nor Sessions could act on their own because they have conflicts of interest in the case. That meant the decision devolved to Rosenstein, who just got confirmed. Investigate everyone, then shout "Conflict of interest!" if someone tries to do something about it. What a scam this guy was running. PeterKa (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

Page suggestion

Liberal hypocrisy: James Comey firing or something like that, which would be "before and after" shots by various politicians who demanded that Comey resign or get fired relative to the 2016 election, versus what they're saying now. Karajou (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2017 (EDT)

I suggest James Comey's firing as it is an encyclopedic sounding title and it will more closely match a search that people are apt to search for at the major search engines. Conservative (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

JohnZ:Removal?

Do we need the lunatic left viewpoint here on our talk pages from JohnZ? He is only here to claim how brilliant his mind is, which is a myth to begin with, and not contribute. Give me feedback from 4 contributors here. 4 of you say he should be gone, I'll do a 90/10 permanent ban. --Jpatt 10:21, 11 May 2017 (EDT)
He hasn't abused other editors and offers a well-rounded perspective of Comey/Clinton/Democrat/Russophobe/Anti-Trump/jihadist sympathizers' perspective. We need that. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 15:06, 11 May 2017 (EDT)
You call well rounded, I call it liberal superiority complex. He wouldn't be banned for annoying me and others, he would be banned for lack of contributions. 1 for him staying, 0 for removal.--Jpatt 17:47, 11 May 2017 (EDT)
Look at SamHB's talk page, under "Re:claims of familiarity with CP guidelines." I can't say he hasn't bothered other editors. You may get a vote of support from Northwest.--Abcqwe (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2017 (EDT)
It's good to get instant feedback from critics. I don't see him vandalizing. Above, for example, he makes the nonsensical argument Trump fired Comey over his actions in late October that handed the election to Trump. Ordinarily such idiocy isn't even worth responding to. Better yet, a thoughtful anti-Trumper wouldn't go out on limb hoping to be taken serious. JohnZ lets us know that critics are firing blanks and soon will out of ammunition. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 19:34, 11 May 2017 (EDT)
I see your point, but it's also true that the Conservapedia:90/10 rule exists. JohnZ does not make many mainspace edits, and I'm not sure how constructive his edits would be. I've already reverted his mainspace edits at least twice. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2017 (EDT)
That's true. If we enforce that rule strictly and literally, we see that he has made 1 edit off a talk page in the past month, and 16 on talk pages (mostly on the main page). The previous month, it's 2 to 13. If he needs to make at least one-ninth as many edits on regular pages, he has failed this month.
However, he has not failed the previous month. Also, the month is not over.
Of course, who wants to wait?
Some of us are tired of these triangles of text he makes.
But he might go back to correcting spelling, like he did in the past. Look at his Contributions, and scroll down.
And what if he is blocked, is angry, and returns with sockpuppets that vandalize over and over to wear out the administrators?
Two words: IP blocks.
So it's pretty debatable. I think that it is wise to do as previously stated and wait for four total votes. Five if we need a tiebreaker. Or an relief to the prevalence of the indent.--Abcqwe (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2017 (EDT)
This is the problem with the 90/10 rule: a moderate to liberal editor can't make any edits, even when they are valid, cause they are immediately reverted by his onsite enemies which lowers his 90/10 score. Then, he can't speak up to defend himself or help improve an article.
90/10 should work both ways: if someone engages a controversial editor to ask about questionable edits, then its a bait trap just to get rid of him. If someone asks a question or gives a response to a controvresial editor, in fairness the 90/10 clock should start running there and then for each question and response, too.
If you want collaborative writing, you're going to have to allow for social interaction. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 00:02, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

As I'm apparently not being banned for annoying anyone, I'd just like to remind PG 65 of the exceptional stupidity he's displayed in both the Pizzagate article and on its talk page. There, that should get things moving. Have fun, y'all. JohnZ (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2017 (EDT)

He's got a point. He's been annoying on the Pizzagate talk page, too. I vote that Jpatt should go ahead and block him. I'm surprised Karajou or someone hasn't already.--Abcqwe (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
Boring rant. Only the PizzaGate article gets under your skin. Everything else here meets your standards I'm guessing. Move along lame brain. --Jpatt 00:09, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
Since I got brought up in this conversation, I'm inclined to vote in favor of blocking JohnZ, as he primarily edits in article talk pages and then only to make insulting comments (and insert occasional vulgarity) about both the articles and about those editors he doesn't agree with (as shown above). He hasn't made what the Conservapedia guidelines would consider substantial or helpful contributions to this site, and if he refuses to do that, then this site is just not the place for him. Northwest (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
In the past, CP earned a reputation as being an unwelcoming place and many editors left. It turned out that some of the most active ban advocates were in fact parodists who were trying to destroy the CP editor corps. We all need to relax and decide how to handle disagreements without so many bans. JDano (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
JohnZ does not make many mainspace edits -- definitely less than 10%. Also, while I have no problem with minor edits such as grammar correction, some of his edits have not been constructive (I've reverted at least two of them; one of them was almost on the level of vandalism). I don't mind having the opposing view on Talk:Main Page, but I think the 90/10 policy is a good policy and it is best that we follow it.
JDano, I have not been here very long to have seen the previous ban proposals, but CP's editor corps will not take a hit if JohnZ is blocked because he makes very few mainspace edits. I'm assuming this is the difference between this case and the previous ones. The only difference is that we wouldn't have JohnZ giving the left-wing perspective on the issues. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
(big edit conflict; sorry) First, I vote for letting him stay.
But I don't think that holding an actual vote is the right way to handle this. According to my knowledge of, and familiarity with, the CP guidelines, losing a popularity contest is not a valid block reason. Though it's better than the way things have sometimes been handled in the past. I appreciate JPatt's patience and forbearance (up to this point) with JohnZ.
@JohnZ: You really need to change your behavior. Strict bean-counting application of the 90/10 rule is known to be a really bad way to handle things, for the reasons stated above. (And it isn't even applied properly—people have been blocked for blatantly mathematically incorrect applications of it.) But, for better or worse, it is in place to stop a certain type of activity, which is continuous or repeated debating over ideology. And you are engaging in exactly that sort of behavior. You are rapidly wearing out your welcome. The admins here can drink their fill of opposing opinions any time they want, by going to places like HuffPost or NBC News.
Now I realize that it's frustrating dealing with people who don't accept relativity, or climate change, or evolution, or old-universe cosmology, or who think that vaccines cause autism, or that abortion causes breast cancer, or that the Bible foretold quantum mechanics, or who don't think that Donald Trump is a corrupt, dishonest, disingenuous, narcissistic, ignorant liar. But you have to accept that such people are here. With some effort, you can work with people whose views you strongly disagree with.
You should find some articles that you can contribute to, that can help Conservapedia's reputation. Stay away from bestiality, why atheism is going to disappear, and other obvious pet articles. (They're usually locked anyway.) There are a lot of reasonable or close-to-reasonable articles that can be improved. I have a fairly long list of things I want to work on. But you have to do it carefully; there are anklebiters who will attempt to thwart you.
SamHB (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
Losing a popularity contest has nothing to do with my support for blocking JohnZ. I have no problem with him making comments here (so long as they are not harassment). He has definitely made less than 10% mainspace edits (and some of his mainspace edits were not constructive). --1990'sguy (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2017 (EDT)0
If 90/10 is to exist, it ought to be applied to those who engage an offender (feeding the troll). As compromise, what about lowering it tp 50/50? RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 13:59, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

JohnZ is a snapshot of a cultural dinosaur of the future. He is a white, liberal American.

Replacement birth rate for a society is 2.1.

Fertility rates of white liberals in the USA, "The results, using parameters similar to Hail's*, are as follows (with % of white female population in parentheses)"[37]:

  • Extremely liberal (2.5%) -- 1.61
  • Liberal (12.7%) -- 1.72
  • Slightly liberal (11.3%) -- 1.58
  • Moderate (39.9%) -- 2.14
  • Slightly conservative (15.6%) -- 2.03
  • Conservative (14.3%) -- 2.34
  • Extremely conservative (3.7%) -- 2.62

The American Generation Z is the most conservative generation since WWII.[38]

He can blather on and on, but the pendulum is swinging to the right. Conservative (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

Jakarta's Christian governor guilty of "blasphemy" against Islam

Let's not forget that Sharia Law already dominates much of the world.[39] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

Also, if we don't have an article about him, we should create it. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

I see nothing indicating that we do. I'll start one, called Basuki Tjahaja Purnama.--Abcqwe (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

Another victory for Trump

A Republican in Omaha won re-election as mayor against an anti-Trump Bernie Sanders Democrat who made his opposition to Trump and support for Sanders an important issue in the election.[40] Clinton won the city in the 2016 election. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

This really is telling. They brought Sanders & Ellison in. Where's Hillary, who actually won the city? It is rare, extremely rare, for the national party & and national outside figures to get involved in mayoral elections. It's controversial enough in Congressional seats (look at the Georgia runoff, for example). This shows the desperation of the Democrats for a win - any win, any where - and shows the weakness of the Democrat name brand. What's more, it shows the utter ignorance of Tom Perez in recognizing this fundamental reality. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 18:30, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

Legal immigrants and the leftist narrative

The NYT actually admitted that legal immigrants helped defeat the Maryland "sanctuary" state bill.[41] Leftists need to realize that real, law-abiding immigrants who obey immigration (and other) laws find the Democrat agenda repulsive. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

The swamp cries

Anonymous FBI agent on Comey firing: “I’m literally in tears right now. That’s all I have to say,”[42] Heh, heh. The Comey firing is already paying off in terms of normalizing relations with Russia: "Russia’s Oval Office Victory Dance." How much money do the Clinton Foundation and the Dems receive from terrorism sponsors Saudi, Qatar, and Iran? With any luck, we will soon have an FBI director who can tell us these things. PeterKa (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2017 (EDT)

Actually, no. Read the Rosenstein letter. That's why Comey was fired. The FBI Director is not supposed to talk about these things.RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 15:00, 11 May 2017 (EDT)

The Trump-Holt interview

Didn't the Comey firing generate a big enough firestorm? Apparently not big enough for Trump's taste. Now he tells Holt that the decision to fire Comey was all his and not Rosenstein's: "When I decided to [fire Comey], I said to myself, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story": See "Trump just decimated the White House’s entire James Comey narrative." The FBI director has no business meddling in foreign policy, so this is a perfectly good reason to fire him. All the same, I'm wondering if things might go more smoothly if Trump could golf more and talk less to the media. PeterKa (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2017 (EDT)

We have a serious structural problem with the FBI. The FBI needs to be solely involved in domestic law enforcement. Counterintelligence, by its very nature, is not a law enforcement function or problem. It is all about longterm surveillence, investigation, anslysis, and counter moves. It is and not about making arrests, prosecution, and trial. The two need to be split up. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 23:46, 11 May 2017 (EDT)
Trump seems inappropriately focused on whether the FBI is investigating him personally. It's a road he could have avoided traveling down had he followed the recommendations in the Rosenstein memo. The memo was widely read and impressed many people, but it seems Trump wasn't one of them. PeterKa (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
Trump doesn't read anything. Everything is presented to him graphically, on TV, or spoken. But it's over. We have the real narrative, even if the msm won't report it.
(Comey was the last fool holding onto Trump-Russia. The American end is done and found nothing. Now he wants more resources to translate, Czech. Polish, Estonian, etc. intelligence sharing).
All the evidence is pointing to a Clinton machine scam. They got hackers ("computer scientists") set up the phony ping to make it look like it was coming from Alpha Bank in Moscow to Trump Tower; they got Loretta Lynch and James Comey to investigate. They know, based on experience in Clinton's impeachment, once you set federal investigators on somebody there's no way to get them off. But Trump the novice is learning. Now it is payback time.
The only flaw in the Clinton's little hoax was, they didn't plan on losing. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 02:11, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
Spare a thought for how confusing this all is for the average liberal, who just wants to be politically correct without having to think too hard. Jimmy Dore created this amusing video: "Caught: Democrats Wanted Comey Fired Up Until Trump Fired Him." PeterKa (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

I respectfully disagree with my good friend RobS. The CIA is not bound to protect the rights of citizens, while the FBI is trained to protect Constitutional rights. (Many FBI special agents are law school graduates.) So, when the FBI has jurisdiction for counterintelligence within the United States, it protects citizens' rights from Constitutional violations. We don't want the CIA to be spying or performing covert operations inside our country. JDano (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

But that is exactly what we're learning has happened under John Brennan.
The CIA now does not perform counterintelligence operations other than internally. What I'm talking about is splitting the FBI in two, like INS was split in two after 9/11. Just as handing out visas and the law enforcement function of rounding up offenders were found to be two different functions, so to most other countries divide the function of law enforcement and countetintelligence. The existing structure of the FBI is largely the personality of it first director, J.Edgar, and bureaucratic battles he won for funding and authority from Congress over other federal agencies, the US Marshall Service, Army G-2 intelligence, the Army Signal Corp, the NSA, CIA, DEA, TSA, etc. over many decades.
The 1954 case of Judith Coplon is one of the best in point; her arrest was staged to be caught in the act with photographers present solely for propaganda purposes to convince the public and media espionage was real. The whole plan backfired and she was aquitted. Meantime, the whole Soviet espionage apparatus was alerted to surveillence, and the investigation was compromised.
This case is still used by the US intelligence community as the textbook study to illustrate the diametrically opposed objectives of law enforcement and countetintelligence, which is the two irreconciliable functions the FBI Director is tasked to perform. RobSTrump now is okfighting back against the coup plotters 14:33, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
IOW, the objective of counterintelligence is not to bring indictments and secure convictions. It is to map an organized network and disrupt their operations. This can go on perpetually, unlike a criminal investigation which has a termination point. In the best of circumstances, their work is preventative before a crime takes place (other than a conspiracy with intent).
Law enforcement should remain with DoJ, but you would think counterintelligence would be in the Department of Homeland Security. Why then, did we ever create a $60 billion federal Department, only to keep it blind, with no eyes or brain to analyze threats? while at the same time keeping the FBI overburdened and working at cross purposes? all to keep alive legacy of its founder, J. Edgar Hoover.RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 15:05, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

Roger Stone documentary

Stone is the jockey who has been riding Trump toward the White House since 1988. So says a new Netflix documentary. See "Get Me Roger Stone Profiles the Man Who Created President Trump" and "The World Roger Stone Helped Create (or So He’d Have You Believe)." PeterKa (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

The Deep State tries a coup

Comey decided to intensify the Russia investigation about two weeks before he was fired. Then he refused to let his superiors preview his May 3 congressional testimony.[43] So the White House spent May 2 worrying about what he might say. That inspired this Trump tweet bashing Comey and the Russia investigation. The decision to fire Comey was made at approximately this time. Comey appointed the special prosecutor for the Plame Affair, so this is not the first time he's tried to take down a Republican president. He had power on a scale J. Edgar Hoover only dreamed of, which is reason enough to dismiss him right there.[44] Perhaps the next FBI director will have more respect for the democratic process. PeterKa (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2017 (EDT)

The next Director is going after the coup plotters - Obama, Hillary, Bill, Lynch, Brennan, Rice and others. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 18:29, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
About time this happens too. The FBI needs someone in charge who's all about law and order and won't hesitate to put criminals who currently occupy public office (or did in the past, like Obama, Hillary, etc.) behind bars. Northwest (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
Soros, Bill, Obama and a few others might escape; but Hillary needs the kinda treatment Leona Helmsley or Elena Ceaușescu recieved - despite her age or health condition - to make an example for future generations. Rice ought to get some hard time, like John Mitchell, sentenced to eight years but served less than two. Brennan I'm still not sure about; while he's definitely guilty of some despicable acts, the element of mens rea must be proved; he either did these things in service to his country, or he did it for self-serving interests and later tried to cover his tracks over a guilty conscience. Comey I think was just a stooge, lost in Wilderness of Mirrors as they say, and his bureaucrstic acumen and tenacity was manipulated by the real string pullers. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 19:26, 13 May 2017 (EDT)

--David B (TALK) 19:49, 13 May 2017 (EDT)

Four or five presidents wanted to fire Hoover, but worried that he would retaliate by leaking dirt on them. It seems that each one of those presidents had more to hide than Trump does. Comey has been openly investigating Trump since July. All he has to show for it is Alpha Bank pings. In short, the firing is proof positive that the Russia connection story is just a conspiracy theory. PeterKa (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
You got it. The investigation and FISA warrants were initiated shortly after the Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch airport meeting. Read the Summary here. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 21:38, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
Check it out: "Bernie: “May Turn Out Trump Did NOT Collude W/ Russia”" Ya think? One thing is for sure. If the Dems are still focused on this Russia nonsense in November 2018, they aren't winning the midterm. Comey was offered a chance to testify and turned it down. He's got nothing. PeterKa (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
We'll find out soon enough if this Russian fake news site is true. If only..if only...if only...if only... RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 23:48, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
What made anyone think Comey was qualified to be FBI director in the first place? As a prosecutor, "his most notable accomplishment was sending Martha Stewart to jail."[45] Put that feather in your cap! PeterKa (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2017 (EDT)
After watching some videotape of Comey, it occurs to me that there is a way this crisis could have been avoided. The man is obnoxiously full of himself. If someone had given him some honest criticism, he couldn't have taken it. It would have been easy enough to get him to resign on his own. It writes itself: "Comey, you screwed up one terrorism investigation after another. You never investigated the IRS for auditing Obama's enemies. Your investigation of the Russia-Trump link was joke." etc. PeterKa (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
I never investigated the man's private life. I understand he's Christian, which personally I think is boon in that job, but it's also common as a facade in some law enforcement positions-particularly at the federal level. I sort of viewed him as another Ken Starr, somewhat naive but honest and perhaps a little tougher. I'm not sure of that assessment anymore. The MPR link TerryH posted a few days ago makes him look like another corrupt careerist willing to do anything for buck-which ultimately we discovered Starr was, and maybe is why Obama appointed him.
Going after a successful, powerful woman with a lot of backers in Martha Stewart originally was billed as the reason of his appointment. That he wouldn't back down or be intimidated by Hillary Clinton, as she has successful done to other powerful men. Now, those same Obama admirers who thought it wonderful Obama politicized the Directors office by appointing specifically someone with the task to investigate Hillary say Trump should not politicize a replacement to root out corrupt coup plotters who are trying to overthrow our democratically elected government. We'll see how it plays out. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 10:20, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

BobbyJean + SimonE -- he's back!

First, someone please block this guy. I believe one of them has already been blocked. SamHB (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2017 (EDT)

Second, a user called James Wilson was a horrible troublemaker back at one or another of the incarnations of "Ameriwiki" several years ago. He was obsessed with Taylor Swift and Elvis Presley (though he actually did some good writing about Elvis.) He engaged in outrageous vandalism over multiple web sites. His behavior was really quite vile. I could look through my archives for details of this, but its really not worth it. Just get rid of him. Permanently. SamHB (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2017 (EDT)

I've been reverting Simon for a while. I don't know what his deal is.--Anglican (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
His deal is that he is a total troll and loser. SamHB (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
James Wilson? the husband of Valerie Plame? RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 18:32, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
Uhhhh, no. The guy referenced in the linked CP article was a founding father, who died in 1798. SamHB (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
Oh? What in the world is this clown doing here then? --Anglican (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
OK, I just blocked SimonE. BobbyJean was already blocked. PeterKa (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
And I just "anvilled" (Looney Tunes reference) TaylorSwiftisEvil a moment ago. Best to keep an eye on the Recent Changes section to see if he comes back with another sock. Northwest (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks, I got BobbyJean, but then was focusing on other work. --David B (TALK) 19:49, 13 May 2017 (EDT)

JohnZ and Topical and main page talk bans

At Conservapedia:Guidelines I created a section entitled Topic bans and main page talk bans,

The policy I created can also be found at: Conservapedia:Topic bans.

With that said, I agree with RobS that JohnZ does not merit either a permanent/temporary ban from Conservapedia. I don't think the right/Trump should be immune from criticism. There is also place for the exchange of idea.

It seems as if it was determined that JohnZ should not be banned from Conservapedia and that RobS played a key role in this decision.

On the other hand, if JohnZ's main page talk edits should deteriorate or should an editor post low quality main page talk edits, a temporary or permanent main page talk ban can be imposed. In addition, a broader topic ban of a temporary or permanent nature can be imposed. Conservative (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2017 (EDT)

I don't think that providing an opposing view should have anything to do with this (I have no problem with him doing that). He's clearly violated the 90/10 rule, and his mainspace edits have not been the best either (this is the worst I've seen). I've stated several times in the thread above that the main reason for a ban is a lack of constructive mainspace edits. What is your argument against this? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2017 (EDT)
By the way, no determination not to ban JohnZ was made in the section above. Several editors voiced support for such a ban. JohnZ was not banned due to lack of agreement. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2017 (EDT)
JohnZ is intelligent enough to create quality edits to articles if he wanted to. If he doesn't raise the bar in this matter, I would recommend a temporary or permanent ban from posting on main page talk. He can't leech off the web traffic volume that others are creating in order to give a bullhorn to his liberal views. Conservative (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2017 (EDT)
I banned him for 1 month for the Donald Trump article vandalism. Conservative (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2017 (EDT)

JonhZ's topic ban in addition to his 1 month ban from editing Conservapedia

I posted this on JohnZ's talk page:

"You were banned for a period of 1 month due to your vandalism of the Donald Trump article.[46]

You are no longer permitted to edit the Donald Trump article.

You have also received a topic ban.

You are not to edit the main page talk page or the Conservapedia:Community Portal page (or its talk page) until you create am article on Propaganda in the Soviet Union that is 6,500 words or more words in length. The article has to be a quality article and not some substandard effort.

You are not allowed to do any editing of political/history/religion/atheism/agnosticism/irreligion related articles (or their talk pages) until you create the article Propaganda in the Soviet Union that is 6,500 words or more words in length." The article has to be a quality article and not some substandard effort. Conservative (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (EDT)

I read his vandal piece edit, and must admit it showed some good imagination and humor- it's just not the proper page to place it. It did indeed constitute vandalism (despite the bellylaugh I got out of it). Editors like that just need a proper place to channel their energy (so long as its not blatantly offensive).
Let me add, I think Community Portal access should be open to all members of the Community for legitimate discussion or airing of grievances, unless somebody starts blatantly trolling there. That would be the proper place to begin discussions of sanctioning or banning someone from the community. My two cents. Thank you. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 02:53, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
As far as grievances, User: JohnZ can grieve all he wants in the Community Access Portal once he finishes writing the Propaganda in the Soviet Union in the manner indicated above.
However, being a proud atheist and a vandal with low productivity in terms of article content production, I doubt he will create the article. Secular leftists like to promote the secular left narrative and Propaganda in the Soviet Union doesn't fit their narrative very well.
Maybe he will surprise me and be open-minded enough to create the article. But I have my doubts about his matter.
In addition, User: JohnZ is able to do a lot of editing to Conservapedia if he wants to. For example, there are plenty of articles that are not related to history/politics/religion/irreligion that User: John can edit or create. As far as article creation, the articles Knitting, Embroidery and Crocheting have not yet been created. There are so many opportunities for User: JohnZ to engage in wiki editing at Conservapedia. Conservative (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
That does make sense, and I'm sure he'd be most helpful creating and expanding articles about domestic crafts, trigonometry, or basketball teams, and I will enforce this topic ban if the duty comes. I would like to ask, though, if John doesn't do his homework, how would we as an encyclopedia cover the topic? Is it enough to mention it in related articles?--Abcqwe (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
Avcqwe, I thought about this matter before you mentioned it and you raise a legitimate question. If someone creates a 6,500 words of content for a Propaganda in the Soviet Union article that does not pose a significant problem. User: JohnZ can create a quality Propaganda in the People's Republic of China article instead. If both articles are completed by others, User: JohnZ can create a 6,500 word article on Romanian communist propaganda or Cuban Communist propaganda, etc. etc. There is no shortage of secular leftist lies for User: JohnZ to write about in order to remove his topic ban. The topic of Communist propaganda is a very broad topic.Conservative (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
So his 6500 word penance effectively drove JohnZ off. I'm sure he's got dozens of other sleeper-socks ready to take over. Now you're back to playing the shell game with each active user account, versus having him corraled. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 10:08, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
And once you tip your hand, that you love to play whack-a-mole, they will do their part to keep you entertained. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters!`

RobS, User: JohnZ has a ban of 30 days for his vandalism to a high traffic article. After the ban, he can edit a ton of Conservapedia pages that are outside of his topic ban.

And if he wants his topic ban lifted, he merely needs to create an article on Propaganda in the Soviet Union that meets the criteria given above. If he is not open-minded enough to create such an article or has some other reason not to create the article, then the topic ban is not lifted. Conservative (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2017 (EDT)

Obama could never achieve what Trump did

He is what Obama wrote in an unpublished paper while he was still a student at Harvard: “[Americans have] a continuing normative commitment to the ideals of individual freedom and mobility, values that extend far beyond the issue of race in the American mind. The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American—I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.” So the American dream is "unfounded optimism."[47] Only illegal immigrants are legitimate Dreamers in Obama's world. PeterKa (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2017 (EDT)

Yes. Definitely. I think this quote needs to go into the Intro of the Barack Hussein Obama. It displays as succinctly as humanly possible what a phoney three dollar bill Obama has been since his graduation days. These are not the words of an uneducated hick, it is the culmination of his lifetime achievement and learning. Even as critics of CP might say an educated man is susceptible to being decieved, so too now many Trump critics may also be susceptible to the same deception.
I made space in the Obama Intro exactly for such content. Wanna put it in? (it might need some paring down for conciseness from above). Thanks. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 03:19, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
Something like, "Upon graduation from Harvard Law School, Obama expressed an unfeigning idolization of Donald Trump as a standard measure all Americans can and should aspire to: values of commitment extending far beyond the issue of race - "I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will." or some such. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 03:33, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
We'll leave it to David Brock to deconstruct the phrase, "summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism" to explain what Obama really meant to say was he hates America and all it stands for. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 03:43, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

Comey firing a big nothing, polls say

Check it out: "Opinion on Trump Stable Despite Tumult Over Comey Firing, Poll Finds." 38 % disapproved of the firing, the same percentage who disapprove of everything Trump does. The media dropped the nuke, and came up emptyhanded. Who will listen when they cry wolf next time? PeterKa (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

Trump drives internet clicks and ratings. Besides him being President of the United States, that is one of the reasons why the media continues to relentlessly focus on him. Of course, Trump derangement syndrome is probably the primary reason the media devotes so much coverage to Trump.
The silver lining is the American public's attention has its limits. So the pet causes of liberals gets crowded out by Trump news (feminism, global warming alarmism, homosexuality, atheism, etc.). In other words, issues that many Americans could care less about, are no doubt getting less coverage than they used to. Trump's various shiny new balls and his Twitter feed are getting a lot of the limelight. Conservative (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
Personally, I wanna see the White House Press Office and Press Corp reorganized. The Daily Briefing, as is, has got to go. And most of those accredited to the White House, CNN, ABC, etc, are provided a cubicle to work from in the White House basement. Once upon a time the White House needed reporters and news organizations to get their message out. That time has passed. The job of White House reporter has outlived its need, like buggy whip manufacturers. Like the rest of America, technological improvements have eliminated their usefulness. Sure, you might want to allow a few satellite trucks and technicians to hang around, but you don't need snoops looking for leaks all day looking to fill a deadline or make a headline. Especially when leaks become national security problems.
Trump does well with Twitter and doesn't need David Moran, John Dickerson, Candy Crowley, Sam Donaldson, or Helen Thomas to tell us what he meant or said. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters`
The coup is not over. May get a lot nastier before it get's better. Trump to meet Putin in Hamburg in July. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 21:28, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

Dick Morris explains why 39% approval is wrong

in less than 3 mins. Worth the click. RobSTrump now is fighting back against the coup plotters 17:07, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

News stories about atheism.

I did not have time to check earlier but there were some news stories about atheism posted but they have been removed and over-sited as shown here.

Template:Mainpageright‎; 10:04 . . (-755)‎ . . (username removed)‎ (edit summary removed)

I wanted to read them, can you please restore the news stories? Thank you. --MarkusR (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

Thanks MarkusR, I updated Conservapedia's Atheism news article with 2017/2016 news (See: Atheism news). I also cited the resource Atheism news on the front page.
The main areas of atheism news in 2017 are: Global: Global atheism is shrinking in its global market share. And in 2017 for the first time in recent history, there are academics indicating that the number of atheists in the world is decreasing and that this trend will continue; China: Atheism is rapidly losing a ton of adherents in China, the world's population of atheists; USA: Secular leftists are losing power as a result of the Trump presidency; France: Christianity and Islam are growing rapidly in secular France; Europe: Evangelical Christianity and Islam are growing in Europe and the rate of secularization is now zero in Northern Europe and France. As far as Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, nothing major is happening in regards to atheism as those areas are historically fairly had ground when it come to atheism and there is a lot of social disapproval of atheists. And with Muslim fundamentalism growing in the Middle East due to Islamic fundamentalists having more children than more moderate Muslim, I expect Middle East atheists to largely remain closet atheists (see: Atheism vs. Islam).
In short, in 2017 there was more bad news for atheism as a whole than in 2016. This trend is expected to continue in the 21st century. Conservative (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

WaPo and CIA, again

From WaPo's article about Trump:

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.

Let me spell out in plain English who "an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State" is : CIA, the boys who created ISIS. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 00:38, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

The media watched complaisantly while Obama committed treason with Iran. Now they want to play national security watchdog. I see Obama has awarded himself a prize in courage: "Obama: Not bombing Syria 'required the most political courage'."
Based on the timing, this looks suspiciously like the Deep State retaliating for the Comey firing. If we take the WaPo report at face value, the person who leaked this stuff should be doing serious jail time. Yet whoever it is apparently doesn't fear jail. And why not? Because he thinks that if he can oust Trump he becomes a hero. Does that sound like a reliable source? There might not even be a source. I note that the Plame Affair started with a WaPo report that claimed Rove shopped the Plame story to six reporters before contacting Novak. That report turned out to be completely bogus. As far as I know, no explanation was ever given for the original report or how it got written. So a blockbuster story can appear in WaPo and later turn out to be entirely fictional. PeterKa (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
This is only the beginning. The 25th Amendment allows for the Cabinet to remove the President. Their already working on that. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 09:57, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
Well, well, well. Trump has confirmed the WaPo report, once again throwing his spokesmen and explainers under the bus, this time including McMaster. Here is his tweet of May 16: "As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining….…to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism." With Russian reporters at the meeting, it was obviously inappropriate to discuss classified information at all. PeterKa (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
  • This confirms McMaster as the leaker to the Post on the story Trump leaked classified information.
  • WaPo is the CIA mouthpiece thru Jeff Bezos, who owns the Post and simultaneously​ holds a cloud computing contract with CIA to provide cloud computing thru Amazon, i.e. 'on the payroll'. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 10:43, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
I guess Trump felt that he needed a publicity stunt to eclipse the Comey firing. "Trump has been throwing gasoline on a firestorm for no other reason than that’s what Trump does," as Jonah Goldberg puts it.[48] PeterKa (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
No, I disagree. You have to take the long view, as Trump does. This most definitely is not Clintonism, where everything is dictated by the 24 news cycle. Obama had much success with it, too. The media still plays it that way, and the fact Trump refuses to play along is one reason they hate him. You need to understand the broad strategic objectives, underlying positions of players and institutions, and most definetly refuse to be swayed or impacted by day to day headlines. Or even thinking much of them. Focus on the facts and underlying issues. Trump is at war with Intelligence Community. They want to remove him. He wants to gain control over them. Speculation, rumor, and BS needs to be ignored.
We are living right now in an event which has happened maybe only 3 or 4 times in our nations history. Every citizens needs to be armed with facts to survive this. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 20:44, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

Theory of the crime

CrowdStrike was in charge of DNC's computer security. When the Wikileaks dump occured, CrowdStrike indentified Rich as the inside leaker. The insider leaker was liquidated. The Russian hacking story was invented as a cover story to hide the fact it was an inside job. Trump Tower was pinged to provide probable cause for a FISA warrant, although the ping likely came from CrowdStrike or other "computer scientists" closely associated. Meanwhile Guccifer 2.0 was invented likewise as a "Russian hacker", to discredit the validity of the real information coming out of Wikileaks (with Rich as the original source).

Does this succinctly cover it and sound plausible? Questions welcomed. Thank you.nRobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 11:33, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

It wasn't the Russians after all

He sent 44,000 DNC emails to Wikileaks. Then he was murdered: "Seth Rich, slain DNC staffer, had contact with WikiLeaks, say multiple sources." PeterKa (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

Assuming the Hillaryistas killed him, there is a good chance the NSA fingered him. Someone needs to put Susan Rice under oath and ask her and find out exactly who she "unmasked." PeterKa (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
There is FusionGPS, CrowdStrike, a possibly yet a third unnamed entity. FusionGPS has refused to cooperate with Senate investigators requests. CrowdStrike, in my estimation was best suited to finger Seth Rich. CrowdStrike, or individuals related to it, are probably the ones pinging Trump Tower with the bogus pings deflected to look like they came from Moscow.
The Russian hacking story originated in the Hillary Clinton camp. The FBI has never examined DNC servers, so it's impossible for them to confirm it ever took place. Guccifer 2.0 as well was a Clinton/DNC operative (actually, a computer expert on-loan from Biden's staff; no evidence Biden was involved). RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 10:58, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
We may never know what really happened. If RobS is willing to accept a "misdirection" theory regarding the Russians, the PeterKa should also be willing to accept a "misdirection" theory about Rich. You can identify a laptop or IP address without accurately identifying the person operating a computer. All of this needs to be investigated by professionals. JDano (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
That's what lies at the heart of Comey's incompetence. Comey accepted the professional word of CrowdStrike that DNC computers were hacked without ever examining servers. When Congress pressed Crowd Strike, they backed off their theory, but Comey did not. Comey used CrowdStrikes disinformation to get a FISA warrant on Trump Tower. And if it wasn't CrowdStrike pinging Trump Tower, it was an someone very similiar with the same motivations. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 15:17, 18 May 2017 (EDT)

Special counsel appointed

Pointing and laughing. Lionel Mandrake (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

It's Mueller. A guy Republicans and Democrats can agree on. A guy who succeeded William Weld as US Attorney for Massachusetts. William Weld, Gary Johnson's running mate, and one of the Boss Hogs in Iran Contra. This spans the investigations of Iran-Contra, Whitewater, Torturegate, and Benghazi. If anybody can whitewash an investigation, surely Mueller can and restore public confidence in our institutions simultaneously. When are people going to realize investigation = coverup?
Iran-Contra? Clinton's get a promotion and a few underlings get their fingers slapped. Whitewater? Nothing. Torture? Brennan hacks the investigators and gets promoted to CIA Director. Benghazi? A guy instrumental in carrying-out Obama/Hillary arming the Islamic State, gets offed by them cause he knew too much, becomes the hero in death.
I have full faith Mueller can restore confidence to our institutions, the FBI, IC, DOJ, Congress, the White House, and our electoral process without reforming the system. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 22:04, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

There have been "independent counsels" and "special prosecutors." I assume "special counsel" is a combination of these two phrases. I guess we will find out what it means. It seems like a another clever move by Rosenstein. He has tried those before only to have his work blown up by Trump.
Was it an impeachable offense for Trump to ask Comey how the Flynn case was coming along? Obama was certainly never held to a standard like that. See "The Comey memo offers no proof for impeachment of Trump" and "Under the Obama Precedent, No Trump Obstruction of Justice." PeterKa (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

There currently is no Independent Counsel law such as Watergate, Iran Contra, or Whitewater was investigated under. In those cases, a panel of three federal judges selected an Independent counsel. We are back to a system where an administration gets to select somebody to investigate itself.
Mueller essentially is taking over from Acting Director McCabe, who was overseeing the investigation while at the same time under internal Inspector General review for (1) conflict of interest in Hillary email investigation, (2) conflict of interest in the Steele/FusionGPS aspects of Russian influence (Steele worked for FusionGPS and FusionGPS itself was an unregistered Russian agent; FBI offered to pay an unregistered Russian foreign agent for the Steele dossier).
So basically, despite media spin, this is good news - until Mueller reveals himself a corrupt pile of garbage like the rest of them. But his reputation and integrity is well known.
Ultimately, it'll all be covered up. The coup plotters illegal activity, and any far flung connection between a past casual associate of Trump with Russian connections. House & Senate Committee will each write a report. Mueller will make recommendations to DOJ. Unlikely anybody will be prosecuted. Unless some other scandal explodes in the meantime (which can happen on Team Trump or a countermove against the IC/Obama holdover coup plotters). The big question is, will it be concluded before Midterms? or will it be a Midterm issue? RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 00:17, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
Since the appointment, we've been deluged with news reports about what a great reputation Mueller has. So I'm starting to worry. The big case when he was FBI director was the 2001 anthrax mailings. For years, the FBI treated Steven Hatfill as their sole “person of interest."[49] It was obvious from the beginning that Hatfill was an innocent man fingered by conspiracy kooks who wanted a right-wing perpetrator. PeterKa (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
Um, 9/11? That was pretty big, at least as far as I remember. JohnZ (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
Yes, the Anthrax case remains a very interesting a case, and also a case study of government's operations, but we still have incomplete knowledge of it. I'll reserve discussion of that for another time and place. It should have no baring on present facts and circumstances.
However, speaking on direct recollection right now (I'm sure sources will support what I'm going to say), Mueller personally is an interesting individual. The Directorship now has a limited 10 year appointment. This remains a troublesome and controversial issue. In theory, he's like a Federal Reserve Board Governor, independent of politics. But the issue is one most large cities likewise grapple with- depoliticization of police departments. A mayor in most cities isn't free to appoint his crony to run the cops.
So this compromise 10 year legislation is aimed at not having another Hoover. Meantime, some of the best, most experienced, independent, qualified personal are denied appointment (I'm speaking of city police chiefs as well), while an incompetent or political hack may be the the only candidate available (a good argument against term limits). So after this huge debate in city councils across America since the death of Hoover until Obama, why did Mueller serve 13 years and not 10?
And this answer is quite simple: for all the hoopla about Barack Obama, by 2011 there was not confidence in his judgement to make a 10 year appointment to the FBI. Democrats had no qualms about Mueller's 10 year record, and as a compromise the 10 year limit was layed aside and he was asked to stay on longer. Once Obama was re-elected in 2012, Obama then earned enough confidence to not deny him making his own appointment. I, for one, at the time thought a 13 year tenure was plenty and for that reason alone thought it was time for him to go. But many like myself had no feeling of confidence the next 13 years would be so easy as the past.
Ultimately, I think my feelings, instincts, and judgements were correct: a lifetime appointment of Mueller at any stage, 2001, 2011, or 2013, would have been preferablle to a three year tenure of James Comey who perhaps not willfully, oversaw the politicization of the FBI. They've become no different than the Chicago cops. Google it to see what the residents of Chicago think of their police. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 19:41, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
JohnZ: Not only that, but 9/11 featured an even bigger FBI screw up: They let the Bin Laden clan go back to Saudi without questioning anyone. What does it take to get a non-great reputation in Washington? PeterKa (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
You're following a BS line of argument.
After the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979, international protocols were established for the quick exit and removal of foreign personal among all member states who joined the agreement, in the event of a mass emergency and the fear of uncontrollable mob violence. Your quoting Michael Moore now. FBI had a duty, under international law, to expedite the removal of foreign nationals in cooperation with the the State Dept. It's no conspiracy. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 20:19, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
The 9/11 Commission says they were interviewed by the FBI.[50] That would make us both wrong. PeterKa (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
Micheal Moore, using guilt by association, hyped simple facts out of proportion to anything bordering on reality, trying to inflame passions and hate. Yes, there were family members (remember, the term "family" in Arab culture is much larger and inclusive than Westerners can imagine; but a son I believe was present, who later wrote a book about growing up in Afghanistan in 1990s. It's very amusing and the kid is as American as apple pie). The Saudi nationals were in some form of protective custody, either direct detention or (depending how wealthy you are) guarded in their place of residence. During this time. 72 hours, 2300 persons were "screened". There has never been any allegations the FBI screwed up and let a terror suspect slip away. And per the international protocol, these people all likely were going to be deported whether they wanted to or not. If one choose to stay, I'm certain all sorts of legal hurdles would have be met to absolve the federal government of responsibility for their safety, should they be victimized by a random attack by a US national simply because they were foreigners or their name was "bin Laden".
Finally, I do not believe for an iota of an instant that Michael Moore is ignorant of these facts and didn't have it explained in researching and producing Fahrenheit 911. And it is unconscienable what he did with these facts, that God or somebody needs to hold him to account, unless he can muster the courage to offer an apology to the nation and generation he so maliciously harmed, spewing his hate with deliberate misinformation. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 03:11, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
Moore's No. 1 talking head was Richard Clarke, the Clinton holdover who authorized the flights. He neglected to mention this in the film. The Saudis were big supporters of the Taliban. The central thesis of the film, that the Saudis manipulated Bush into attacking the Taliban, is ridiculous. PeterKa (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
Didn't just fail to mention it, failed to mention the law required them to do it-unless the Saudi nationals had some legal means to fight it. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 15:27, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

I unblocked JohnZ and lifted his topic ban

Here is what I wrote on User: JohnZ's talk page:

"I unblocked you. You are free to edit Conservapedia again. JDano made a decent argument against your banning on page page talk that I just read. I also saw that you made some decent edits to articles when I looked at your edit history more closely.

The topic given above has been been lifted as well.

If you vandalize again, the above topic ban will be imposed or one similar in nature will be imposed should someone write an article on Propaganda in the Soviet Union.

Make more quality edits to articles and you will not face complaints about your adherence to the 90/10 rule. You can definitely build goodwill through quality edits. I have unblocked User: AugustO and would gladly do it again if he was blocked again. It is because he makes decent edits to articles.

Since you are at a wiki where the majority of people disagree with your politics, try to be as harmonious as possible and stick to the improvement of the articles on the talk pages using facts/evidence and well-reasoned arguments. If you had done that on the Pizzagate article's talk page, instead of complaining about JPatt's Twitter activities, chances are there never would have been a call to ban you. For example, you could have documented in the Pizzagate article that Alex Jones apologized for promoting Pizzagate and provided various sources to document this matter such as THIS SOURCE and THIS SOURCE. Just stick to the facts/evidence and avoid making commentary about other editors using words like "exceptional stupidity". I am going to endeavor to be more harmonious with other editors as well.

Lastly, thanks you for your recent commentary on the CBP talk page. Ultimately, however, the CBP is not going to materially change."Conservative (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2017 (EDT)

Thanks. I'll endeavour to persevere. JohnZ (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
More and more it appears as if Eric Kaufmann's ideas about desecularization are coming true. Have you read the new article UK and secularism? Conservative (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
It's certainly an interesting extended riff on that Guardian article. I'd refer you to Betteridge's law of headlines, though. Note the conditionals as Bullivant carefully couches his argument:
"...growth of no religion may have stalled ... Younger people tend to be more non-religious, so you’d expect it to keep going – but it hasn’t. The steady growth of non-Christian religions is a contributing factor, but I wonder if everyone who is going to give up their Anglican affiliation has done so by now? We’ve seen a vast shedding of nominal Christianity, and perhaps it’s now down to its hardcore."
He's (very sensibly) acknowledging he could be completely wrong. I suppose there's a lesson there for us both. JohnZ (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

The odds of impeachment

Paddy Power has reset the odds of impeachment to 4/6, up from 10/11 before the Comey firing.[51] That corresponds to a 60 percent chance of a Trump impeachment. Can anyone stop the Deep State's rampage? A lot depends on who the next FBI director is. We need a warrior who will clean up the rat's nest that FBI has been ever since Clinton politicized it by firing Director William Sessions. Appointing Mueller as special counsel can be viewed as a gambit to allow a nominee to be confirmed in the Senate, where McCain is making trouble. If we get some "nonpartian" Comey-clone, that would suggest Trump has thrown in the towel. PeterKa (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2017 (EDT)

Not gonna happen. Comey was gone months ago when he failed co-operate with Congressional investigators, but they don't have the power to fire him. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 01:41, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
Senator Grassley for example, started asking for documents back in February relating to why Hillary Clinton still had a security clearance despite recommendations Comey made, not to prosecute, but rather have that "internal security" (as Hillary called the investigation) and disciplinary proceedures. No response. More requests on other matters, even relating to Andrew McCabe. Feinstein signed off on both requests, and another about FusionGPS. Comey's refusal to cooperate with Oversight ground Senate investigators to halt. Comey wasn't fired cause Trump was tee-ed off, he was fired (1) mishandling the Clinton investigation and bring the Bureau into ill repute, and (2) Republicans and Democrats in Congress lost patience with him for disrupting their work and wasting their time. This is the story of James Comey. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 02:20, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
As long as Trump's approval rating among Republicans is sky high, he has nothing to worry about. It's 84% now, down from 89% in January.[52] He was elected despite the opposition of the Media-Dem Alliance. PeterKa (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

Well, maybe it will happen

Gingrich is one of only a handful of people who could salvage this Congressional session's legislative agenda. Not the whole thing, but anything would do right now.

Trump's management style has got to change however. All administrations face this problem - depleting the pool of talent. They start off with the "best and the brightest", but overtime one by one certain positions get refilled. Obama for example went through 4 defense secretaries in eight years; long about the time he was looking for a third one, all the best candidates refused because they didn't want to be treated like first two - having their judgements and opinions ignored. Real professionals weren't interested in just holding an honorary title. So number 3 really was about number 6 or 7 on the list. By the time Obama got to number 4 the guy was catapulted from about number 20 on his original list. Over time, you end up having unqualified people in important positions, over their head, because you have a reputation as a rotten boss to work for.

National Security Advisor, Chief of Staff, and Press Secretary are just too important of positions that you can't be disposing of them every three or four months. Trump seriously has to get grip on how Washington works. If Gingrich were to step in, it would essentially be Gingrich and Pence running the country, which might not be a bad idea. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 01:58, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

The "Comey memo" debunked

Who should we believe, Comey's videotaped congressional testimony given on May 3, or a memo that the lying New York Times doesn't have: "James Comey Said Under Oath That He Was Never Pressured To End An Investigation!!" PeterKa (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

It doesn't matter anyways. It's a he said/she said. No evidence uncorroborated words written on paper contrmporsneously are truthful. And it's author, according to written and videotaped comments by Congressional Democrats, has zero credibility. More BS news. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 02:33, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
We can be pretty sure that the Founding Fathers didn't have this sort of thing in mind when they wrote the impeachment clause. Jefferson ordered his Justice Department to prosecute Vice President Aaron Burr for treason. The rule that presidents shouldn't get involved in individual cases is yet another hypocritical Watergate reform.[53] PeterKa (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
He was doing his job. Comey needed firing. Hillary Clinton said as much. Now the reputation and peoples confidence in the FBI can be restored. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 05:19, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

The apparent inability of conservatives to effectively fight the Left

It turns out that the Obama Administration designed the Paris Climate Agreement so that it would be pretty much impossible for anyone to choose to leave]. Even though the pact is ridiculous by putting most of the burden on the West rather than China or India, and even though courts could use this to block pro-energy reforms, the fear of losing geopolitical power or "remaining relevant" is powerful in forcing Trump to reconsider. The deep state knows how to stop conservatives from reversing their "accomplishments." This is similar to the whole Jerusalem embassy thing. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

The left is not unstoppable.
The Soviet Union collapsed.
The secular left has suffered and to continues to suffer many defeats due to late 20th century desecularization and 21st century desecularization. Creationism is growing quickly in Europe (see: Evolution). Global creationism is seeing rapid growth. Pentecostalism is growing like wildfire. The secular left has been powerless to stop the explosive growth of evangelical Christianity in China.
Brexit was passed.
Right-wing parties are growing in Europe.
Donald Trump was elected.
The Democrats lost of ton of political positions across the U.S.A since Obama was elected.
It took about 70 years for the Soviet Union to collapse. Liberalism made major gains in the 1930s and 1940s under FDR and then started really taking off since the 1960s. So that is merely 50-90 years or so. And historically most empires/ideologies eventually collapse.
Governments are finding it harder and harder to maintain control of information flow which is definitely not good news for the left.
There is evidence that Generation Z nay be the most conservative generation since WWII.[54][55]
So the whole notion that the left is unstoppable is defeatists and is contrary to the historical record. Conservative (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
Fair enough, but the European elites are preparing to punish Britain during the negotiations and to make the negotiations a huge pain. And we all know what the media and Dems are doing to Trump. Let's hope Trump has the guts to destroy the entire legacy of Obama and the liberal presidents before him. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
I forget to add a few more important defeats of the left:
The has been a recent explosion of right-wing news websites.[56] These helped get Trump elected.
Homeschooling, vouchers and charter schools are growing trends.
Lastly, it is unrealistic to believe that the left will give up suddenly unless there was a big collapse of the present system and they were totally rejected as a result (Like the Soviet Union). It is going to require a fight. Conservative (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
The other matter is given the growth of Muslim extremism/terrorism due to the most religious Muslims having the most kids, a very doable strategy for right-wing politics is to fire up opposition to Muslim immigration which should be a big winner in Europe in 5-15 years. And Europe's opinions about Muslim immigration will spread elsewhere such as the USA. Conservative (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
Those are good points, and let me make clear that I'm not a "defeatist." My problem is that I know that many conservative people are unwilling to fight the liberals and reverse all their changes. I think there is a term for that behavior, where liberals come to power and enact all sorts of leftists laws, and then conservatives are elected and basically endorse those leftist laws, ensuring they stay permanently. I want to end that practice, but I'm worried our current leaders will continue it. Practically speaking, the Left is unstoppable. I changed the header anyway.
You make strong points, but let's note that the USSR, which was an imperialist power over the Eastern European nations, has been replaced by the socialist/globalist EU, which is bossing Hungary and Poland around.[57][58] Homeschooling is legal in the U.S. and growing rapidly, but it is illegal in much of the rest of the world, including Europe. If you homeschool you children in Germany, you'll literally be arrested and charged with "child abuse." Left's hope these things can be changed. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2017 (EDT)