Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 1990'sguy (Talk | contribs) at 17:33, 25 September 2017. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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

Archive Index

Gilberto Kassab

It is not much told in the news in America, but the new cabinet minister of science, technology, and innovation in Brazil is a evangelical priest creationist. He is called Gilberto Kassab. --Unsigned comment by User:Hereforonequestion

Interesting. I just read his Wikipedia article. He seems like a conservative by Brazilian standards. I have not seen anything about him being a conservative Christian, however (even though he could very well be that). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2017 (EDT)

Recently alleged to have received US$10 million in bribes. But allegedly he's been doing that for years. NeilWalker (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2017 (EDT) I don't know any English source sure of he is a creationist, but this http://www.nature.com/news/demotion-of-science-ministry-angers-beleaguered-brazilian-researchers-1.19910 says Temer (current president in Brazil) hinted he would choose a creationist and this in Portuguese http://www.pressreader.com/brazil/folha-de-spaulo/20160504/281736973655484 suggests Kassab is this. I am not sure that he is, but most I know think it, so you likely do not post this yet, just watch him. Yes he has taken bribes.--Hereforonequestion (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2017 (EDT)

Supporting the enemy

Why does the mainstream press generally take North Korea's side, when its dictator pretends that America is planning to attack it? Is it because the press has such a poor command of English that they don't know the difference between terms like "opening fire" and "returning fire" (or "initiating hostilities vs. "launching a counterattack")? Are they really and truly committed to the concept of moral equivalence?

More to the point, what can we do about it? --Ed Poor Talk 06:27, 21 August 2017 (EDT)

Intelligent Design?

Since the orbits of the Earth and Moon are elliptical, not all eclipses are total. Some are annular, hence the moon is not always the same size as the sun when viewed from Earth. The MPR blurb about intelligent design should be removed. --GinnyS (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2017 (EDT) (oops) [1] [2]

That's the administrators' call to make - and if they say it's not getting removed, it's not getting removed. Also, please sign your posts when you post on a talk page. Northwest (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
GinnyS, are you saying that partial solar eclipses disprove ID (or YEC)? The moon still looks like the same size as the sun, from the perspective of us on earth. Even if the elliptical orbit of the Moon is a factor, it is a very minor one -- you really don't see any difference. What the MPR blurb is saying, the fact that we have eclipses at all (due to the Sun and Moon looking the same size) is too much of a coincidence for it to have "just happened." Why isn't the Moon look 1.25, 1.5, 2, 5, 10, 20, etc. times larger/smaller than the sun? I think you (as an evolutionist) should just be happy that Andy did not link to creationism of young Earth creationism. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
The moon does not always appear to be the same size as the sun during annular eclipses. This is a fact that cannot be denied, there can be absolutely no argument unless a person is denying reality. The alleged premise about eclipses as stated on the MPR is utterly and completely untrue. I even provided a link to a CP article, what more could you want? If ID proponents claim all eclipses are total and not annular, this is simply another reason why it is pseudo science. On the other hand, if the administrators want to keep this claim on the MPR, the eclipse article should be edited to reflect the learned opinions of the ID crowd. --GinnyS (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
First off, the Moon and Sun are essentially the same size from our perspective -- not even close to being even 1.5 times (probably not even 1.25 times) larger/smaller than each other from our perspective. Personally, I think the Flood of Noah, which was very catastrophic (I think Walt Brown's hydroplate theory does a good job accurately explaining the past: [3]) may have slightly changed the Earth's orbit and some other astronomical components (of course, not dramatically -- we're still alive!). Also, after sin came into the world, the perfect universe created by God ("and it was very good") started to decay (Romans 8:19-22). --1990'sguy (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
If the earth and moon are essentially the same size from our perspective, lunar eclipses would not be differentiated between annular and total. This discussion is going nowhere. I dare you to delete all references to annular eclipses from the Solar Eclipse article.--GinnyS (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
I acknowledge that annular eclipses exist -- and so do other creationists and ID proponents. What I'm saying is that even when the elliptical orbit of the Moon makes a difference, the difference is very small. We don't see 20X difference, not even 1.5X. It's still almost exact. The greater light rules the day and the lesser light rules the night (Genesis 1:16), and they look the same size to us. What I'm also saying is that maybe these things were slightly different when the Earth was created and things were not corrupted by sin. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
If the intelligent design sought to make the sun and moon appear as the same size, the path of totality would be a very thin line. However, because the moon appears to be bigger than the sun, the path of totality is 70 miles wide. Again,the width of the path of totality will vary with each eclipse, but it shows that the shadow of the moon is longer than the distance between the moon and the earth (cutting off the umbra.) By simple geometry, the disk of the moon in the sky is actually larger than the sun during the Aug 21 total eclipse, and less than the sun during an annular eclipse. JDano (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2017 (EDT)

If it's intelligently designed, why will looking at it completely destroy your eyes before you even realise? ScottAA (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2017 (EDT)

One fallacy committed by evolutionists/atheists when critiquing ID or YEC is that they assume we believe the universe was in the same state as it was since creation -- as Christians, those of us who believe YEC/ID know that the Earth has changed since the creation (sin came into the world, corruption started, global flood, etc.). I cannot definitively answer your question, but I think a reasonable answer is that the atmosphere was a little denser in the past, meaning that the sun's rays were not as strong. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2017 (EDT)
I don't recall any Bible passage that suggests that the Sun and the Moon appear to be the same size from the Earth's surface during an eclipse. JDano (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2017 (EDT)
Although I'm no atheist or evolutionist by any stretch, am closer to being a believer of Intelligent Design (though I'm iffy on young Earth creation, even if a bit more receptive to the idea) and I'm fully Christian, and I do believe in the global flood happening and being caused by God, I disagree with the idea that our eating from the apple caused several things to be radically altered. I'm pretty sure if it were that, the bible would have placed a LOT more emphasis on alterations than just Adam and Eve becoming aware that they're nude, like, I don't know, explicitly mentioning a lot of the animals all of a sudden becoming violent and then desiring to eat them, or in this particular case, the atmosphere losing density. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
@JDano: You're missing the point. What I'm getting at is that the fact that the Moon and Sun look the same size from our perspective is evidence in favor of our universe being intelligently designed. Quibbling about "sometimes the moon or the sun look just a little larger than the other" is silly. Let's not deny that they look the same size, with a very little amount of variation due to their elliptical orbits.
@Pokeria1: The Bible makes very clear how Adam and Eve's rebelling against God brought sin, death, and decay into the world. Genesis 3:14-19 gives some of the consequences, Romans 8:19-22 shows that the universe is subject to decay because of sin, and Romans 5:12-14 shows how death came to all people because of sin. 1 Corinthians 15:26 says that the last enemy is death, and I think we can clearly infer from the Bible that animal death started because of sin. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
When I think of the Bible "making very clear" about their rebelling causing it, I think of it more like the actual text saying "the second Adam and Eve bit into it, however, all the animals began acting strangely, snarling and slaughtering each other. Then, they started devouring each other before turning to Adam and Eve with murderous intent and a ravenous expression in their eyes. Adam and could barely recognize they were naked and ashamed before they had to hide from the murderous wildlife before them." THAT would have made it very clear that the animals turning on each other was indeed that, sort of like a horror story, or how Macbeth specifically detailed a lot of unnatural things that occurred the very second Macbeth murdered the king like horses eating each other and that stuff. So no, I'm sorry, but the Book of Genesis wasn't that clear. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
God originally made the Earth perfect with no sin or death -- he said it was "very good." It is because of Adam and Eve's sin, that we also now have, that the world and universe are in the not-so-good shape that it is in. Besides, if the Earth and universe are decaying, as Romans 8 tells us, it is gradual. When something decays, we only see the effects eventually, and they increase. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
Like I said, if God wanted to make it clear it was Adam and Eve's eating the apple that, say, carnivores came to be, that there was death and all of that, that the atmosphere grew less dense, He would have explicitly mentioned it in that specific passage in very graphic and disturbing detail, just like in Macbeth when it dealt with the immediate aftereffects of Macbeth murdering the king, or, heck, the opening to Tonic Trouble here. After all, He WAS the author of the Bible. Had I been in God's position, I specifically would have written the Book of Genesis, particularly the rebellion via Adam and Eve eating the fruit, EXACTLY in that manner specifically so as to ensure humanity would get, very bluntly, that they were responsible, almost pouring salt on the wound. And I wouldn't even BOTHER asking about where Adam and Eve were if I were in God's position either, or wondering why they were naked as well, I'd bluntly reveal it before they even asked in a demonstration of my omniscience as well, yet again, rubbing salt on the wound for them. I wouldn't go for the gradual approach, I'd go for the instantaneous approach. Besides, what makes you think the world would have had no sin or death even if Adam and Eve didn't eat from it? As far as I know, God, being all powerful and all knowing, would have made sure those were created simply because, as much as he likes creating good, he also enjoys destroying it as well simply because he could precisely because he's all powerful and all knowing. I know if I were in God's position, I would declare my creation good, but then decide to destroy it because I just find destroying even things I myself declared good creations fun especially if there's death and destruction, wouldn't even need Satan to rebel against me to do it. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
The Young Earth people can compute how much change in the moon's orbit would be needed to shift from a 70 mile wide path of totality to a pencil thin path of totality. If you assume that there was a constant gradual change since Adam and Eve, you can calculated the orbital shift per year. Without doing the math, I am sure that the change would be measurable, and has not continued during the 100s of years that man has recorded astronomical measurements. There is a tension between Young Earth viewpoints and this example of intelligent design. I would resolve this by rejected the claim that the eclipse is evidence of intelligent design. This is particularly true because there are many occultations that do not involve the Sun and the Moon, and there are not similar relationships with respect to shadow length. Thanks, JDano (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
@Pokeria1: God makes clear in his Word that sin and death came into the world because of what Adam and Eve did (see Romans 5, for example). Also, you may have written Genesis differently is you were God, but this is irrelevant because we are not God. God has His ways, and he chose to have Genesis written the way it is. Why that, over what you think it should/could have said? I don't know, but I obviously know what how it is already written.
@JDano: if you can fill me in with any young Earth scientific theories on this topic, I would appreciate it. The purpose of Intelligent Design is to show that there must be a creator behind the creation. Do you really think that it just happened that the Sun and Moon look the same size to us on Earth (and I don't really care about anyone's quibbling about how sometimes it looks just a teeny bit larger/smaller due to the elliptical orbit -- I accept that). Why isn't either the Moon or Sun look 2X, 5X, 20X, etc. larger than the other from our perspective? Coincidence? I think not. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

Jonah and the Solar Eclipse in Ancient Nineveh.[4]

“An archaeological find of cuneiform tablets was found in the 19th century describing events in Nineveh. A famous eclipse mentioned in the tablets was known as the Bur-Sagale eclipse, which is verified by NASA as occurring on June 15, 763 BC. The path of totality was right over Nineveh. God had declared the sun and the moon were for signs, and now the Ninevites saw the wrath of God coming even before Jonah arrived a couple months later. When Jonah arrived, they were ripe for repentance.”[5]

Solar eclipse 2017 is a warning![6]

The next solar eclipse to hit North America is 2024.

Can a Solar Eclipse Trigger an Earthquake?.[7]

Mega earthquake in Cascadia fault line is predicted to hit Washington, Oregon and Northern California and it is going to happen sooner than scientists previously believed and it was previously believed not to be even a future threat. [8][9][10] The next Cascadia earthquake is expected to be one of the the largest earthquakes on the planet and up to a 9 richter scale earthquake. There is a 33% chance of a mega Cascadia earthquake in the next 43 years.[11] Waves of biblical proportions would be created. Oregon and Washington have the highest rates of irreligion in the United States.[12] If only atheists understood geology better! MarkLM8 (talk)

For what it is worth, I increasingly have the view that interesting phenomena like eclipses and many other aspects of nature and mankind are for the interest, amusement, or humor of God, much as mankind creates games and contests for our human amusement. The sun and the moon appear to be nearly the same size to create a spectacular eclipse, and equanimity at other times. A 2x difference would be boring and poor artwork in comparison.
Racial diversity is impossible for an atheist to explain in a plausible way. It's not explained by the Book of Genesis either. But it is easily explained by realizing that God made his creation an interesting place for Him and for us.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
That is an interesting comment. I wonder if you could comment further on how atheistic theories fail to explain racial diversity, or on how you feel that diversity arose (again? or for the first time?) following the Flood. From context it sounds like your mechanism would be supernatural.--Brossa (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
Evolutionists originally thought that putting a blond person in Africa, or a black person in Sweden, would result in changes in skin color over many generations. It doesn't, and atheists have no plausible way of generating a blond from two black parents, or a black from two blond parents.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
The origin of the human races by Creation Ministries International. MarkLM8 (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
MarkLM8, that article is interesting, but it appears to contradict Aschlafly's point above. The article refers to reproductive isolation, genetic variation, and differential survival of offspring to explain the development of racial characteristics, but these are the mechanisms that an evolutionist would cite (they would perhaps add genetic drift), and they are purely naturalistic processes. Ashlafly says above that there is no naturalistic way to generate a blonde from black parents, or vice versa. Perhaps I misunderstand his claim, but he seems to say that racial characteristics can only arise via divine intervention.--Brossa (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
My main point is that there is no plausible atheistic explanation. It's a double standard to criticize faith-based explanations when atheistic alternatives are entirely implausible.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
I offered no criticism of a faith-based explanation. I'm not even sure that you've offered one yet. I pointed out to MarkLM8 that the CMI explanation was incompatible with your earlier statement, since the mechanisms cited by CMI are all naturalistic. --Brossa (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

Creationists believe in adaptation. Natural selection was advocated by the creationist Edward Blythe before it was advocated by Charles Darwin. Darwin engaged in plagiarism.[13][14]

Adaptation/variation is not evolution.

In 1988, the prominent Harvard University biologist/evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote in his essay Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?: "Among all the claims made during the evolutionary synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided. ...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution."[15] MarkLM8 (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

Creationism/ID are going to win in the end.
Antulio J. Echevarria, Director of Research, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College said about the "war of ideas": "Hence, physical events, whether intended or incidental, typically play determining roles in the ways wars of ideas unfold, and how (or whether) they are end." Britain/Germany/France have been the big historical players when it comes to evolutionism/atheism in the West. And all those countries are being overrun by Muslim/evangelical creationists (see also: European desecularization in the 21st century). Should Jesus tarry, evolutionism will be voted out of the schools in the Britain/Germany/France just like it was in Turkey.MarkLM8 (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

Robert Lee

ESPN assigned Lee (who is Asian-American) to a different game, so there is no impact on his income or status. Perhaps we should change the MPR bullet to say "reassigned". Thanks, JDano (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

But it's correct he was removed from a particular game, right? As to income or status, that was never the issue or anyone's concern here. It's still political correctness run amok, which even liberals would agree does happen, right?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2017 (EDT)

IRS problems continue

It has been reported that IRS commissioner John Koskinen re-hired 212 employees that were fired for things such as "tax evasion, theft, and abuse of taxpayer data."[16] Personally, I wish Trump would have fired Koskinen, even though I do know that his term ends this year. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2017 (EDT)

Border crossings and Hurricane Harvey

THe ACLU tried to get the DHS to close the border crossings in Texas due to Hurricane Harvey (even though the Hurricane was north of the border). If it had done so, anyone probably could have just crossed the border, and it would have been easier for illegals to cross over. The DHS refused the ACLU's demands.[17][18] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

Posted. Thanks for the tip.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
Just an illustration of just how stupid - and I really mean STUPID - liberals can get. Opening a national border so illegals can move into the path of a hurricane? That's just a massive amount of idiocy there. Karajou (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
Wow! I just couldn’t let this one slip by. Please look at a map and realize the hurricane made landfall at the gulf coast of Texas, not the Texas/Mexico border. Border Control check points are located at least 25 miles and up to 100 miles from the border. The ACLU wanted the Border Control to relax enforcement at the check points north of the border, not the border itself. There actually are limits to the stupidity of liberals, even the ones comprising the ACLU. --GinnyS (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2017 (EDT) [19] [20]
Border patrol texas.png
You are indeed correct, GinnyS. The pic is from Google Maps, showing the majority of checkpoints as being between 60-100 miles inland. The marked one is from the Corpus Christi checkpoint, which is where Hurricane Harvey's eyewall went ashore. The one actually at the border is in Brownsville. But there are a couple things you missed. First is the fact that the border itself is patrolled; they're not going to abandon the border at all just to inhabit office space 80 miles inland and expect illegals to announce themselves there. Second, crossing the border to go north still sends them into the hurricane's path, and the best way to avoid Harvey is to go the opposite direction. Third, demanding that the borders be open for anyone to just waltz in is not acceptable under any circumstances, and no one here is going to support the ACLU's insistence that we should just look the other way, hurricane or not. Karajou (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
I didn’t miss the fact about the southern border being patrolled; there are actually limits to my stupidity also. Is there any evidence the ACLU wanted the CBP to abandon or open the Texas/Mexico border? I don’t know of any, but based on your no-holds-barred assertions, I’m sure you could provide a quality reference. Conservapedia is the only organization making the claim the ACLU wants the CBP to open the Texas/Mexico border. Even the lunatic fringe whack-jobs aren’t making this claim. Before you insist the people or organizations you despise are stupid, you may want to get your own ducks in a row. --GinnyS (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
How is Conservapedia the only one making this claim? Is their no news link listed? Do the links provided here [21] consist of news, or are they just figments of the imagination of someone who needs his ducks in a row? Karajou (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
Groan… You are making a completely unreferenced assertion, namely; ‘Opening a national border so illegals can move into the path of a hurricane? That's just a massive amount of idiocy there.’ I have yet to find any reference for the ACLU wanting the Texas/Mexico border to be opened. CP is the only one. Your list of references did NOTHING to back up your claim. The ACLU wants the border check points opened, not the border itself. You’re saying liberals are idiots because of your ludicrous argument. Incredible, you’re so blinded by partisan outrage your reasoning is completely screwed up. I rest my case. Time to watch the Belgium Grand Prix. --GinnyS (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
The only one who is partisan is you; the only one who is blinded is you. Reasoning screwed up? What would an illegal do at an open border checkpoint some 100 miles from the border itself? You honestly think such an illegal would check in?
Since you're here just to argue with your arrogant liberal superiority complex, you now have your chance to watch the Belgium Grand Prix over and over again, without interruption. Conservapedia will be better off without you. Karajou (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

"No you" says Karajou one minute before he bans GinnyS. New user, not liberal at all, and I've only lurked for a little but, but this seemed like an angry overreaction. Does anyone else feel this way? Bucktheducks (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

Considering that the banned user in question later came back with a sockpuppet account, pretending to be someone else (my guess, anyway) and basically made an obscenity-filled death threat against Karajou and made other obscene posts on his and other admins' talk pages as a highly immature form of lashing out in retaliation for the ban (that sockpuppet also got banned quickly as a result), I'd say that the ban was very justified. Northwest (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2017 (EDT)

Jackson and the $20 bill

Mnuchin has announced that the next round of design changes to the $20 bill will focus on "security purposes," i.e. adding anti-counterfeiting features.[22] That suggests that the portrait of Andrew Jackson, a Trump favorite, gets to stay. Obama wanted to replace Jackson with Harriet Tubman. I would not rank Jackson highly as a president. His crusade against paper money wreaked the economy. That he appointed Roger Taney, author of the Dred Scott decision, is another strike against him. But Jackson was an outstanding soldier who defeated the British at the Battle of New Orleans. PeterKa (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2017 (EDT)

North Korean nuclear test

This latest blast is not likely to be an H-bomb or "ICBM ready," but it does appear to be North Korea's first unambiguously nuclear blast. At magnitude 6.3, it's more than 100 times more powerful than North Korea's 2006 test (magnitude 4.2). Scholars estimated the 2006 blast at 0.48 kilotons. If this is the same test site, or at least a site the same seismic characteristics, the yield was around 50 kilotons. Hiroshima was 16 kilotons. An H-bomb is at least 20 times more powerful than this blast. PeterKa (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2017 (EDT)

  • So what can we do about this problem? It's pointless to talk to the North Korean puppet state when we can deal directly with the Chinese puppet master. Tell the Chinese that this is their problem. If they don't accept responsibility, Chinese banks that do business with NK can be sanctioned as “primary money laundering concerns” under Section 311 of the Patriot Act.[23] In 2005, Bush successfully brought China to heel by sanctioning a little bank in Macau favored by Pyongyang.[24] That's just a taste of what might happen if the U.S Treasury applied the same tactic to a major bank. PeterKa (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
China will likely* do very little; they're content with the status quo. If the present Pyongyang regime falls, China will have millions of refugees pouring into their country, and the prospect of a unified Korean peninsula that will enable a US military presence on their border. The US can threaten a trade war with China, but China knows that's a war it would win. Unfortunately, decades of kicking the problem of North Korea into the long grass - while China increased its own economic clout - has led to the West unwittingly painting itself into a corner. (*Of course, I'm neither an expert nor a clairvoyant; China - and Russia - may yet surprise us. Again.) NeilWalker (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
The Iranians endured punishing UN sanctions for years in order to better serve Allah, or whatever. The Chinese are not like that. Everyone's in it for the money these days. Look at Xi Jinping. His foreign policy is take his graft earnings and stuff them in his overseas accounts, as the Panama Papers show. Nobody makes money in a trade war. Potential refugees and U.S. troops in the North will not be decisive factors. The other option is war, so have to hope banking sanctions work again. PeterKa (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
"The other option is war..." That's a false dichotomy; war is not an option, and hasn't been for many years. This is what China thinks about sanctions, and you can guarantee that whatever trade they're openly admitting to is just a fraction of what they're actually carrying out. NeilWalker (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
Did you tell the North Koreans that war isn't an option? They have sacrificed a great deal to obtain these weapons. They are going to do something with them once they have them. The threats against Guam and LA might be bluster, but Japan is a more realistic target: "NKorea missile fear sets pre-emptive strike debate in Japan." Trump used the intellectual property issue to force China to agree to UN sanctions last month. Banking sanctions would pack a bigger wallop than IP retaliatory tariffs.
This issue is usually portrayed as those crazy Norks pushing the limits and China going along for the ride, just worried about refugees. The Norks have a system that doesn't work or produce anything of value. No way could they build a nuke on their own. You remember the Sony hack? That was blamed on North Korea too. But it was done by a group based in Shenyang in northeastern China. China made a decision to ramp up "trade" with North Korea sometime around 2011. The timing shows the motivation: They knew Obama was not ready to sanction them the way Bush did. In short, the current crisis is something the Chinese have been planning for at least six years.
If the Chinese fomented this crisis, the obvious question is, what's in it for them? If you go by the domestic Chinese press, the big foreign policy issue these days is THAAD, an anti-missile system that the U.S. is installing in Korea.[25] Perhaps the idea was to blackmail the U.S. and South Korea concerning this system. Hey, it's a plan that might have worked if only Hillary had been elected. PeterKa (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
North Korean rockets consist of parts made in China with the North Koreans snapping the parts together, at most. See "North Korea’s rockets get an important boost from China." PeterKa (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
  • Nothing newsworthy is happening in Korea, at least according to the Chinese press. There was nothing about the crisis yesterday or the day before. Today, they finally broke the story this way: "China lodges representations to DPRK embassy over nuclear test." That rated third item on People's Daily and fifth on Xinhua. The nuclear test can't compete with the excitement of the BRICs business forum in Xiamen. Communist news has always been an oxymoron. With a party congress scheduled for October 18, censorship is tighter than ever these days. PeterKa (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

Undoing DACA

I thought Tucker Carlson did a good monologue on Friday about how the GOP might cave in and pass amnesty that it said it opposed for at least four years. If Trump were less timid and chose just to repeal DACA on day 1 with no delay in the repeal, he would not have encountered as much opposition as now. In fact, he should have done pretty much everything on day one -- no need to delay and let the opposition gain strength. But oh well, we can't change the past -- at least Trump already did as much as he did up to today. In general, however, it seems to me that many conservatives fall for trying to look like they "have a heart" and act so timid that they are unable to advance conservative policies.

I've already seen mixed reviews from conservatives on the Politico report that Trump will undo DACA, but with a six-month delay.[26][27][28] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2017 (EDT)

Liberals are going nuts: "Ending DACA would be Trump’s most evil act." The idea that Obama's powers as president were limited comes from the constitution, a document written by slaveholders. What could be more evil than reversing Obama's unconstitutional executive actions? PeterKa (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
This is why Trump should have done everything on day 1. Liberals are probably going to say that every one of Trump's major decisions is his "most evil act." Their argument, as stupid as it is, gets stronger the longer Trump hesitates. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
Perhaps the Washington Post meant to write "most evil act yet." I am waiting for the headline: "Trump: Not as evil this week as last week." When Trump talks about voter fraud, the media reaction is even more hysterical than when he talks about immigration. Historically, the Democrats were the party of the white working class. Now it's the party of illegal immigration and voter fraud. If we pass laws requiring that voters present ID and proof of citizenship, the party, at least in its current anti-American form, is finished. PeterKa (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2017 (EDT)
  • Something about DACA really brings out the stupid. Here is USA Today: "DACA could be ruinous Prop 187 moment with Latinos for Trump and GOP." According to this article, Hispanics who were fine with the wall and Trump's rhetoric up to now will turn against Republicans over DACA and hand permanent control of the federal government to the Dems. This Anne Coulter column annihilates the Prop. 187 myth: (1) Most Hispanics aren't single-issue immigration voters. (2) Those that are are already firmly in the Dem camp since no Republican can outbid the Dems on this issue. Despite his pro-amnesty views, McCain generated zero Hispanic buzz when he ran for president in 2008. So there is no basis to think pandering on this issue will result in any payoff for Republicans at the ballot box. As for Prop. 187 itself, Pete Wilson rode it to reelection victory in 1994. One third of Hispanic voters supported Prop. 187, a higher percentage of the Hispanic vote than Romney got. PeterKa (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
The Associated Press referred to DACA recipiants as "undocumented citizens. The Left's desire to remove any meaningful definition of citizenship and legal status has reached a new level. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2017 (EDT)
The latest is that Trump will "revisit" DACA in six months.[29] This is being widely interpreted to mean that he might not cancel the program. If so, it undermines the logic of the original announcement, which was to force Congress to act before the six month deadline elapsed. No Republican congressman will go out on limb as long as there is a chance that Trump will come along six months from now and saw that limb off. Perhaps the DACA announcement was just a way to distract the media while Trump capitulated on North Korea. PeterKa (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2017 (EDT)

Why liberals can't be trusted to fight terrorism

Because their children join terrorist groups: Tim Kaine's son is a member of Antifa. PeterKa (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

NYT Best Seller list loses credibility

Regnery Publishing is no longer allowing its writers to brag about being on the NYT Best Sellers list due to its bias in choosing which books to include on the list: [30][31][32][33] The NYT once was considered arguably the most authoritative publication in the U.S., and it's good that the media market is much more competitive in that respect. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2017 (EDT)

The problem is that authors like John Wesley Rawles can manipulate the list by organizing a one-week long concentrated bulk purchase of a book. See The New York Times Best Seller List. JDano (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
I think there are bigger problems with the list than Rawles. The real problem is more with who is excluded, rather than who manipulates data to be included. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
Regnery is switching to Publisher's Weekly: [34] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2017 (EDT)
Because of people like Rawles, they now mark entries that they catch with a dagger or exclude them from the list altogether. JDano (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

A worrying survey shows declining numbers of white Christians

I am concerned to see the results of this survey. I myself am of an older generation, and I can see the lack of young people in our churches. It's sad - I do hope we don't all disappear. JanW (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

I have been noticing the same. However, I think it is important to trust God. He has sent revivals before, and he may do so again. Even if he does not, his spirit is still working--they may be few, but he will not allow the good news to die out. It is still our responsibility to keep up the good work, but ultimately he is in control. --David B (TALK) 14:55, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
JanW, if you're a Christian, you can be confident. Just read Revelation, for example. We know that God will win (we can even put that in the past tense). Or, just go to a country like China, where Christianity is severely persecuted (I've been told by a Chinese Christian friend that it depends on the province) -- the number of Christians is dramatically growing, possibly at 100 million by now. The number of people who call themselves Christians is decreasing, and it is bad that the culture is going away from the faith, but I think it is also true that those that remain have a serious faith, rather than being just cultural Christians. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2017 (EDT)
Even some irreligious scholars are indicating that the USA will hit peak secular by 2043: United States, irreligion vs. religion and demographics. Hispanics and Hispanic evangelicals are rising and Hispanics are more resistant to secularization: Atheism and Latino Americans
In addition, the United States has 17 trillion dollars of debt. Countries are moving away from the USA dollar as a world reserve currency at an increasing rate and this will likely have a major negative effect on the USA's economy within a generation or sooner. [35] In the 2030s the USA could have a major economic depression worse than the 1930s economic depression.[36][37] Historically, evangelicalism has often thrived during times of economic/political uncertainty.[38] And America has gone through periods of religious revival. In the United States, there were a series of Christian revivals/awakenings between 1730 and the 1970s (see: First Great Awakening and Second Great Awakening and Third Great Awakening and Fourth Great Awakening and Jesus Movement).Conservative (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Consider these 2 matters:

1. As far as the United States:

In June 2016, American Interest reported:

"First of all, religious belief is still very powerful and widespread, and there is nothing inevitable about its decline. In fact, the proportion of people who say they believe in God actually ticked modestly upward, from 86 percent to 89 percent, since Gallup last asked the question in 2014.[39]

In 2017, the atheist activist Lee Moore declared about American atheist organizations:

"If you look at the major atheist groups right now, like the national groups, the ones that are doing the real activist work... They are not bringing in the kind of donations they used to. Most of them are starved for cash. They're downsizing left and right. Because people aren't just giving like they used to. And I talked to a lot of the major donors out there and they said, "Well, we're kind of tired of seeing the atheist community just fight amongst itself and not really get anything done. We'd rather not give money if we don't think it's going to go somewhere."[40]

General Douglas MacArthur declared: "The history of war proves that nine out of ten times an army has been destroyed because its supply lines have been cut off...”

2. We live inn a world of globalization (global communications, immigration, global trade, easier travel, etc.).

So what happens elsewhere in the world is going to have an effect on the USA.

Here is what is happening in the world:

I hope that lets you have a big picture view of things. If you apply systems thinking, looking at major trends and multivariable analysis to the issue of what is the future of Christianity in the United States, it can give you a more realistic appraisal of things. Conservative (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Anti-white supremacist resolutions

While the ideology they condemn is evil, the resolutions themselves, such as a bipartisan one introduced in the Senate, are not much better. Political correctness is still a strong force, and while the Antifa is almost never condemned, the definition of a "white supremacist" is in danger of being widened to include people who don't actually hold to that ideology -- essentially what liberals frequently do. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

The top Dems in the 2020 race

The Washington Post says it's Bernie Sanders vs Joe Biden for the 2020 Democratic nomination: "The top 15 possible 2020 Democratic nominees, ranked." Uh, Joe Biden? What happened to Elizabeth Warren? I guess America is just not ready for a fake Cherokee nominee. PeterKa (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2017 (EDT)

Biden has run for president several times already. Each time, he has been promoted by a circle of opinion makers based in Washington. But he has never generated any excitement among primary voters, much less won a primary. Judging from her recently released book, Hillary has a huge grudge against Sanders. If she backs Biden, he will presumably go further than he has in the past. Still, he's 74 and has no outstanding accomplishments to boast of. Instead, he is known mainly for making dumb comments. The one I found most amusing was about how "clean" Obama is. Do Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton smell bad? In any case, Obama must have realized the guy was an idiot and would pose no threat to him as vice president. According to Biden, he was the only member of the cabinet to oppose the Bin Laden raid. Panetta was the only one who supported it. That implies Hillary and the other cabinet members were useless seat warmers who simply occupied space. PeterKa (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2017 (EDT)
I find it hard to believe that Bernie Sanders has a decent chance in 2020. He's already 76 (today is actually his birthday, and he'll be 79 in 2020), and I would think that he would let the other "progressive" socialists run in his place. I personally think Kamala Harris would do well in the Dem primaries. I don't see Biden running either. He's a spent force. I would think that they would step aside for the newer politicians to run. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2017 (EDT)
So if Sanders is elected in 2020 and serves two terms, he'll be 87 at the end of it. When they were running against McCain in 2008, the Dems told us America was "no country for old men." He was 72 at that time. IMO, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker is their best shot at the title. But 2020 is likely to be another tough year for the Dems. So why not let the Sanders wing of the party have some fun? It's smarter to keep Booker in reserve for 2024, assuming the North Koreans don't blow us up by then. After the 2016 election, the Dems vowed to get a woman elected. That moment seems to have passed. PeterKa (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2017 (EDT)
Kamala Harris may have it locked up already. She's got all big money donors who soured on Hillary and has Sanders backing. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 07:11, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
Isn't Harris the candidate of the Hillary wing of the party? That would suggest she's up against Sanders (or Warren, if Sanders decides not to run.) PeterKa (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
I thought she was more in the Warren/Bernie faction. If she has the support of both factions, then she probably has it set. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
  • There is new buzz about Michelle Obama: "Michelle Obama outshines all Democratic prospects for 2020." I'd say the nomination is hers for the asking. What's with Dems and the wives of former presidents? Aside from great poll numbers, Michelle has no experience or qualifications whatsoever. It reminds me of the Peróns in Argentina. PeterKa (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

Trump's pivot

Trump is clearly in the midst of a full Arnold Schwarzenegger-style pivot. He rolled over on North Korea, dumped the Republican leadership in Congress to make a deal with Pelosi and Schumer, failed to prosecute Hillary as he promised, and he's spinning so fast on DACA who knows what he'll end up doing. The latest is that he won't prosecute Lois Lerner.[41] I say impeach him now before the Dems make him their hero. PeterKa (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

It's not like we didn't see this coming. His biggest problem is restoring trust with members of Congress, let alone voters. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 07:16, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
Trump thought he could outflank Mueller by pardoning Arpaio. Mueller countered by teaming up with the New York state attorney general. A Trump pardon would not affect a state prosecution. So the new plan is, "If you can't beat them, join them." PeterKa (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
I think it's too early to call this a "pivot" or that Trump is turning into a liberal again. His administration still has quite a few conservatives (along with the liberals, I'll admit), and those conservatives are still making policy in their departments. I recently read that there was another memo for departments to cut their regulatory burdens, and one of the topics for the cabinet meeting today is how to reduce the departments' regulations. Ultimately, Trump will have to keep his base happy, and I don't think he'll go too far to the Left. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
Most voters do not judge on a "conservative/liberal" basis. They judge on a "effective/ineffective" basis. Avoiding a government shut down and a default on Federal debt is more important than the U.S. (instead of Mexico) funding the border wall. So, Trump is being effective in this case, and did not have a viable alternative. NeilG (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
If Trump does not enact his campaign promises, he will be ineffective. Why vote for someone when they don't do what they said they'd do? While I don't really oppose Trump's deal with the Democrats, he did have a very realistic alternative siding with the GOP and Mnuchin. I don't think Trump made this decision because of fears of a government shutdown, or at least entirely. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
The Republicans could not repeal and replace Obamacare. Neither Ryan nor McConnell have publicly stated that they had the votes in hand to raise the debt limit and pass a continuing resolution. The fiscal hawks had enough votes to block a Republican bill, but there were not enough votes to pass a fiscal hawk bill. What path did the Republicans offer that would work? NeilG (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
Q. Why is attaching a $15.25 billion 'temporary, emergency' spending measure to the debt ceiling & CR bill a bad idea?
A. Because it permanently enlarges the federal budget. As part of a 'continuing resolution' the $15.25 'temporary' enlargement becomes 'permanent' in the next continuing resolution. Following this basic formula, $15 billion is only a fraction of the estimated $150 billion needed for Hurricane Harvey, and guesses at this point on Hurricane Irma damages are three to four times that, with a combined total as high as $600 billion, possibly. That's nearly 1/7 of the entire federal budget. Following the budget process laid out by Pelosi, Trump, and Schumer, if it were to continue, none of these 'temporary, emergency' measures will ever end, and all will be funded in perpetuity by 'continuing resolution'.
IOW, Trump, Pelosi, and Schumer did not just grant emergency relief, they permanently expanded the federal budget.
What you all witnessed in the Trump/Pelosi/Schumer deal was a 'backdoor' way to increase government spending, control, and taxes. I lay it on the doorstep of the Tea Party Freedom Caucus, which disrupted the budget process when it voted to save Obamacare in March 2017. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:21, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
I don't think you can blame the Freedom Caucus. Congress generally requires presidential leadership to pass major legislation, which has been lacking of late. Jonah Goldberg has a good analysis. Nixon's pivoting didn't save him. Rank and file Dems hate Trump even more than they hated Nixon, if that's possible. PeterKa (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
Based on everything I've read this year, the Freedom Caucus has been very pragmatic and supportive of Trump -- Mark Meadows has been in contact with Trump this whole time and has said is caucus would be OK with things such as not fully repealing ObamaCare and raising the debt limit, just as long as they got something in return. It is false to accuse them of Trump's pivot, if it is real. We should blame the moderates, who all of a sudden oppose repealing ObamaCare and advancing conservative agenda items. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

Now we know why Obama bowed to the Saudi king

Revelations from the secret "28 pages" of the 9/11 Commission's report continue to dribble out. When Obama bowed to the Saudi king, he was expressing his respect for a terrorist who hates America almost as much as Obama himself: "Saudi government accused of funding dry run for 9/11 jihad attacks." Killing Bin Laden must have pained Obama deeply. But sometimes you do what you have to do to get reelected. PeterKa (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2017 (EDT)

We can thank Obama for gutting missile defense and creating the North Korean crisis: "How Democrats left us vulnerable to North Korea's nukes." I'd like to think that that this policy was motivated by something other than a concealed desire to see the U.S. nuked. PeterKa (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
Bin Laden was in bed with Iran in an anti-US, anti-Saudi jihad. Obama re-cemented the US-Saudi alliance against Iran with a covert action finding to funnel arms to the groups which became ISIS to counter Iranian influence in Iraq and Syria, and Iranian support of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The arms were funneled through Qatar. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:08, 11 September 2017 (EDT)

Hillary's blame game continues

Now Clinton is blaming, of all people, Chief Justice John Roberts for her loss. I've already seen reports of her blaming almost everybody else, Democrats and Republicans, for the loss in her book, but John Roberts is unexpected. Apparently, his court decisions from 2013 were purposed to keep her from winning the election.

Also, I read that Clinton is calling in her book for the Democrats to adopt a test to see if all their candidates support abortion: [42] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2017 (EDT)

As I read the source, she is trying to out-left Bernie. The thirty percent of Democrats who are pro-life are apparently not pure enough for her.[43] So much of Democratic politics is driven by this type of purity thinking. Once you've established your left wing cred, you can do what you like, even ally with Hitler as the communists did in 1939.
Hillary is blaming Roberts for allowing the states to pass voter ID laws and crack down on voter fraud. It's a backhanded admission that fraud is a key pillar of Democratic success at the polls. PeterKa (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
People tend to love leaders who take responsibility for failures rather than blame it on their supporters, allies and others. When Robert E. Lee lost at Gettysburg he said, "It's all my fault". Harry Truman had on his desk, "The buck stops here".
Once Hillary Clinton started blaming her fellow Democrats for the loss, I began doubting if she was a viable candidate to win the Democratic nomination for president again and then go on to beat Trump in 2020. Not blaming your supporters for a political loss is Politics 101 and Leadership 101. She would have made a horrible president if she had won in 2016.Conservative (talk)
Hillary Clinton reminds me of the villains in the cartoon Scooby Doo who typically said things like: "And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids." I love Wikileaks! :) Conservative (talk) 21:54, N11 September 2017 (EDT)
Hillary's staff and donors declared for Kamala in July.[44] So she burned her bridge to 2020 a while back. Now she is crossing the ultimate red line by blaming Obama: "Yup, Hillary Clinton Blames Barack Obama." To my mind, the elephant in the room is, Were Comey and Obama trying to sabotage Hillary when they reopened the email investigation just before the election? PeterKa (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
Somehow, I don't think Obama attempted to sabotage Hillary, since he made clear he wanted Hillary to win rather than risk his own legacy being undone by Donald Trump. And this is speaking as someone who utterly loathes Obama and Hillary. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
Perhaps he is happier where he is: Remembered as a bright shinning Camelot in the history of American liberalism. In his will, Lenin dumped on Trotsky, Stalin, and the rest of the Politburo. None of them were worthy. I suspect Obama feels the same way. PeterKa (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
Well, yeah, but Lenin didn't need to worry about someone winning an election and literally undoing everything he had created and restoring the monarchy since there were no elections in the USSR. Donald Trump would have been considered the more serious threat to Obama's legacy, while even Hillary, while not necessarily his first choice for a successor, would still have far more of a chance at preserving his legacy. Pokeria1 (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
I could only guess why Hillary Clinton is digging her own political grave. I guess she realizes if she couldn't win in 2016, it's over. I don't think it'd be a good idea for Bernie to run again given his age, so I'm really wondering who the Democrats are going to get next election. In her new book "What Happened" Hillary blamed Bernie Sanders; not a good move if you want to reconcile with the left who supported him, who weree more concerned with Trump's initiatives at the moment. I've seen some hateful leftists on places like Facebook redirected their vitriol from the President to Hillary Clinton, going so far as to going back to clashing with her supporters. KommissarReb (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2017 (EDT)

Hillary is digging her own political grave because she is a bitter narcissist with poor emotional control. She is still somewhat in denial about the election, but has largely moved into an anger stage concerning the election (Hillary Clinton says she will contest the election if Trump-Russian collusion regarding the 2016 U.S. presidential election is proved).

For your listening enjoyment: Why Aren't I 50 Points Ahead? (Hillary Remix). :) Conservative (talk)

Thanks for the lulzy video Conservative! XD Hopefully the Democrats do a better job next time, lest they get another candidate who speaks and acts in the name of the wicked. KommissarReb (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2017 (EDT)

Non-citizens voting

The town of College Park, Maryland, voted to allow non-citizens to vote in its upcoming municipal elections. This is yet another step down the slippery slope of globalism. Most, if not all, liberals think that the concept of nation states with immigration controls, and criteria for citizenship besides living in the state, are outdated. Thus, they push for no border/immigration controls and blurring the line between citizens and non-citizens, and they support mass migration, which reduces national unity and completely changes society (making it ripe for more extreme realizations of globalism). Bottom line: what is happening in this town will happen more and more frequently all across the U.S. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

It is a college town. Foreign students pay higher tuition fees. Academia is liberal too. It would not surprise me if the university staff in College Park, MD (which is no doubt influential) was largely in favor of the new policy proposal. Conservative (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
Personally I think the current administration has been rather lenient with them. Posts on social media don't compare with taking the opportunity of having a Republican-controlled House & Senate to attempt to stop that. Then again, I probably don't know enough about the intricacies of what you can and can't restrict a state from doing. Would it be possible for Trump and the other branches of government to stop Maryland from doing that, as well put some legal or law enforcement muscle on Sanctuary Cities? I know the LAPD isn't reliable from what I've seen them do in the past. KommissarReb (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
Even if it was appropriate for Congress to do something about it, most of its members have no desire to help advance Trump's agenda. Even many Republicans have a very globalist outlook, similar to the European "conservatives" (aka liberals) like Merkel. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

It appears that non-citizens won't be able to vote in College Park after all.[45][46] It seems like the city's charter is preventing this from happening. Of course, it will only be a matter of time before these impediments to these kinds of policies are removed, similar to how the Commerce Clause was perverted over the years to how it is today. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

California 2020

It looks like California will hold its primary early in 2020, right after South Carolina: "How California could jolt the 2020 presidential race." Not many candidates can afford California's multiple media markets. It would be the end the retail presidential candidate who makes his mark one town hall at time. The move is apparently intended to give Kamala a lock on the nomination. The plan could backfire if Bernie runs since he also has a high level of name recognition in the state. PeterKa (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

I'm more worried about what the early primary would mean for the GOP. California Republicans tend to be more liberal (look at Schwarzenegger and the most recent gubernatorial candidate in 2014). This would not be good for conservative Republicans. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

Suggestion on what to do about North Korea's recent behavior.

If the US government is still giving things to North Korea like Food Aid, why can't it just be rescinded and pressure China that if it doesn't stop North Korea from firing missiles and provoking us and our allies, we won't trade with them anymore. Would it be a good idea for the President and the rest of the government to do this? The last thing our country needs is to be at Kim Jong-un's mercy (well...among other things). KommissarReb (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

That seems like a simple solution. But...and it's a BIG but - The US already owes China $1.14 trillion. And US companies export some $124 billion of goods to China. Nobody - seriously - wants that debt called in and those exports lost. A trade war between the US and China would absolutely hurt both countries, but it would hurt the US *significantly* more than it would hurt China. And the Chinese regime are far more willing to see that hurt passed on to their citizens than the US are to theirs. We're talking global recession and a US recession unlike anything in living memory. 15, 20, years ago, it might have worked, but that horse has bolted, been captured, been slaughtered, and sold back to the world as prime beef already. NeilWalker (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
As an addendum, I also think that we are 10-15 years past the point where unilateral military action against NORK would be possible/successful. Back then, the US military might was sufficient to hold both China and Russia in check. Both have made significant bounds in capability since. Had Bush 2 intervened militarily in the Korean peninsula instead of embarking on the longest war - and most pointless and futile waste of American lives and money - in US history against Afghanistan, followed by a war against Iraq to remove their non-existent nukes... who knows? IS/ISIS certainly wouldn't exist. He could even have gone after the Saudis - the financiers of 9/11 - next... NeilWalker (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
I'd use section 311 of the Patriot Act to sanction Chinese and Russian banks that do business with North Korea. See this article. North Korean military capabilities are being vastly overrated. Delaying action will only make them more dangerous. China is not going to war over this issue, certainly not a military war and probably not a trade war either. Why not? What the Chinese government fears most is the return of public opinion, which would surely arise if there were significant causalities or economic disruption. Putin will gin up an international crisis so he can use it to domestic advantage. The Chinese government is not like that. They don't tell the Chinese anything. As far as the average Chinese is concerned, international relations is about THAAD and Taiwan. There is no psychological preparation that would allow them to go to war over Korea. Of course, the party can crank up the propaganda machine at any time. So that could change quickly. But so far they haven't, and I assume for good reason. PeterKa (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

At what point

...do we think Donald Trump will be added to Category:RINOs? NeilWalker (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

When he starts acting like globalists like Jeff Flake and Evan McMullin. I'm not particularly enthused about Trump working with Democrats, but let's remember that many congressional Republicans don't support his agenda either. Many of them are like the European mainstream "conservatives" (Merkel, Cameron, Macron), who really agree more with the leftists than the nationalist conservatives. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
I'm undecided if that is an example of No true Scotsman or nay. NeilWalker (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
No it's not -- read about Flake's immigration, trade, border security, and globalism positions -- very important positions and very liberal. Look at McMullin's defeatist views on gay "marriage" (if he thinks that way, how can anyone trust him to not give up on any other issue) and his immigration, trade, border security, and globalism positions -- they're also very liberal. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
Also, do you seriously think that Flake, McMullin, Merkel, Cameron, and Macron are conservatives? Sure they support a (relatively, compared to socialists like Corbyn and Bernie Sanders) free market, but this position alone doesn't make one a right-wing conservative. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

How Twitter commercializes your prose, one slur at a time

Did you ever want to send an ad to 14.5 million people who like using the N-word? Twitter can help. If, on the other hand, you wish to contact people who want to "burn jews," perhaps Facebook is more your thing.[47] PeterKa (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

It's not just Twitter and Facebook either. If you type "Why do Jews ruin everything" into Google, appropriate ads pop up.[48] I guess it's all amusing and harmless enough. But a Kamala Harris administration could use this technology to round up "climate deniers" and other dissidents. PeterKa (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

Dem strategy for 2020: Lose at all costs

Will the Dems be able take advantage of Trump's unpopularity in the upcoming election cycle, or ever? With the Democrats lining up behind Bernie's "Medicare for All" plan, they have apparently forgotten that the primary purpose of a political party is to, you know, win elections. Check it out: "The Democratic Push for Single-Payer Could Hand Trump a Second Term." The problem is not just that single payer would be wildly expensive and hugely unpopular, although it would be. It's that such a platform represents a surrender to the intolerant left. These people don't want a party contaminated with racists, sexists, pro-lifers, and other deplorables -- even if that means losing the election, as it certainly will. PeterKa (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

Trump's gaining in the polls since the Pelosi deal. He's likely to continue picking up moderates and Hillary voters, allowing the Millennial Progressives to gradually become the new DNC establishment, but a still a minority in the general electorate, barely counting for 40%. The Progressive DNC is moreless a permanent shift to the extreme left, abandoning moderates and the center completely. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:59, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
A Progressive dominated DNC is an ideological youth movement that will loose members as they grow up and embrace money and corruption that would be necessary to hold power and control the party. They constantly need new members as people mature, have families, vote Republican, or abort their children. The Democrats committed themselves to depending on immigration for growth and constantly creating new identity group constituencies decades ago. Trump & Bannon threw a monkey wrench into that basic strategy. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:05, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

U.S. to stay in Paris climate deal

If this story checks out, I'm off the Trump train: "Trump Administration Won’t Withdraw From Paris Climate Deal, EU Official Says" PeterKa (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

The Trump Administration has appointed far too many liberals and globalists, and with John Kelly severely restricting access to Trump, these people are better able to influence him now. This is what happens when they are in these positions of power. Hopefully, Sebastian Gorka is right: that Trump will fire a lot of them soon.[49][50] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
The White House has denied this story. But they also denied the DACA story three days before Trump personally confirmed it.[51] As Ann Coulter sagely puts it, "At this point, who DOESN'T want Trump impeached?"[52] PeterKa (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
quod vide The Greatest Con Ever: Donald Trump Convincing Conservatives He’s Not A #RINO :
Either you’re already aware of it or you’re a Trump apologist who does one of three things: (1) Ignore the facts because Trump is going to make America great again. (2) Suspend disbelief by falling for the idea that a hardcore Democrat for several decades saw the error in his ways just in time to get onto an easily manipulated ticket. (3) Cover your ears, avert your eyes, and post memes on Facebook about Donald Trump’s awesomeness, incredibleness, supermegacoolness, or whatever it is you have in those single-panel cartoons with small writing, all caps, bad font, and grammatical errors. (RedState, January 19, 2016)
NeilWalker (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
@NeilWalker: you're British, so maybe you don't know this, but we should keep in him that redstate.com is a NeverTrump website. It strongly opposed Trump during the 2016 election, when it was especially clear that Trump had conservative positions (people who have doubts on Trump's conservatism are comparing some of his actions as president to his campaign promises, which were very conservative). I'm not going to say that it's a completely bad website or anything like that, but let's have some context here. I've seen a lot of NeverTrumpers (most of whom are RINOs) cast themselves as the "real" conservatives, despite opposing border security, supporting globalism, DACA, homosexual "marriage," etc. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2017 (EDT)

Politically incorrect Dairy Queen

Four years ago, the owner of a Dairy Queen in eastern Wisconsin put up a sign warning customers that they would hear politically incorrect things like "Merry Christmas" and "God bless America."[53] For some reason, the media only found out about this now. It's very nice to see this, and the American Dairy Queen Corporation is not going to stop it, apparently. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

Trump's stable poll numbers

Despite all the hoopla, Trump's poll numbers have been astonishingly stable. There was a Charlottesville related dip and recovery in August 14-25. Otherwise, his net approval has been chugging along at minus 15 to 16 points since May 17.[54] Rasmussen's "Approval Index" is at minus 20, same as at was on May 18.[55] PeterKa (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2017 (EDT)

Obamacare deadline looms

There's one last chance for the Senate to repeal Obamacare by majority vote as a "budget reconciliation" measure. After September 30, Senate rules will require 60 votes for repeal. See "The Last Best Hope to Euthanize Obamacare." PeterKa (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2017 (EDT)

The permanent state

This is a very interesting article of Sebastian Gorka's account of how he saw, firsthand, the deep state (or the "permanent state", as he calls it) undermining Trump: [56] Hopefully, Trump will wise up and fire many of the people surrounding him and the others in his administration. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2017 (EDT)

Trump tapes

Think Obama wiretapping Trump was a bunch of fake news? Think again. CNN reported that the Obama Administration wiretapped Paul Maneforte, including during a time when he was talking with Trump: [57] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2017 (EDT)

Stanford University AI researchers on Lesbians

A couple thoughts on this recent post:

Stanford University artificial intelligence researchers: "Lesbians smile less than heterosexual women". See also: Lesbianism and obesity
  1. There is no stated or implied link in this report between homosexuality and obesity. Although there may be an argument here, I don't see the relation between this and the news report. It is really a good idea to distract people from the issue at hand with this alternate issue?
  2. I'm sure this will be slanted to say that it is because of "persecution" and "bullying" rather than poor life choices. I have heard many well-planned arguments using reports like this to say we need to go even farther out of our way to accommodate gender confused people.

--David B (TALK) 15:37, 19 September 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for the input. The post has been appended.Conservative (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2017 (EDT)
For the foreseeable future, anti-homosexuality sentiments in the world are going to rise due to the growth of evangelical Christianity and Islam and their dim view of homosexuality. And liberal/leftist spin/propaganda and identity politics (and its attendant cries of victimhood) are going to be powerless to stop it.
For example, in Tanzania it was reported this week that 20 men were arrested related to homosexuality and dozens of men were medically tested at hospitals via forced @#@# exams.[58] Tanzania has significantly Muslim and fundamentalist Christian populations.
It is also commonly argued that once pro-homosexuality advocates in the Western World started fining/jailing individuals who had unfavorable views about homosexuality (Christian wedding cake bakers, etc. etc.), it caused anti-homosexuality backlash in non-Western countries because they worried that religious discrimination relating to homosexuality could eventually occur in their countries.
I realize that pro-homosexuality sentiments are popular in Europe and spread to the United State, but the pendulum is starting to swing due to growth of Islam and pentecostal/fundamentalist Christianity in Europe. Both legal and illegal immigration to Europe and the higher fertility rates of members of conservative Abrahamic religion are poised to change the public attitudes of homosexuality in Europe. See: European desecularization in the 21st century
In addition, Asia traditionally has been resistant to pro-homosexuality sentiments and East Asia is seeing rapid desecularization (see: East Asia and global desecularization). And there are plenty of signs that China, where evangelical Christianity is growing very rapidly, is going to be a superpower to be reckoned with in future years. There are scholars indicating that the 21st century is going to be a Asian Century.
While it is true that Europe could expel Muslims from Europe (like Spain did within their country previously) and dramatically cut back immigration, it would take a religious revival to turn around Europe's sub-replacement fertility levels in order for immigration to not be needed. Either way, homosexuality does not appear to be have a bright future in this century.
On top of this, around the world the liberal media outlets (which are pro-homosexuality) are less and less trusted according to polling around the world.[59] As far as pro-homosexuality and liberal Hollywood, the Emmy's viewership recently cratered.[60]
In short, religious and social conservatism are going to be strong in the 21st century and liberals/leftists with pro-homosexuality views are going to be in a downward spiral in terms of political power.
Eventually, homosexuality could spring up again because in the end times the Bible indicates that the world will be a very corrupt. Conservative (talk)
Thanks for David's astute comments. Still, the report is startling, and apparently is scientific. The obesity point seems to be that lesbianism is linked to other characteristics also.
While liberals may try to spin the science in their favor, they cannot deny that lesbianism does have consequences, or at least is so correlated. But thanks for your feedback.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2017 (EDT)
Previous research indicates that educated and attractive women are more likely to say they are 100% heterosexual.[61]
Are studious, slim and happy ladies with long and flowing hair more likely to be straight? Are obese and unhappy ladies with butch haircuts more likely to lesbians? Conservative (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

THESE slim, smiling, young earth creationist ladies are straight as an arrow![62] Please notice how much they are enjoying the Question evolution campaign and the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer! Conservative (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

Time for you to do some oversiting Conservative. Look at those pictures carefully, take note of the light reflecting off the screens? I do not know if this is your work or you have been duped but these photos have been photo-shopped, they are fake.--YohanB (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
I am sure if I dig around I can find the original photo, in particular the fair ground photo, that would be embarrassing.--YohanB (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
Then find it instead of coming here trying to be the tough guy. Karajou (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
Not so much a tough guy, more of someone who can spot a fake a mile off.--YohanB (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
You ain't much of anything; just a repeated troll bent on hating us for posting evidence against your sacred evolution. Find the pics or leave. Karajou (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
I will leave, and all evidence of the photos will be oversited, mark my words. Then you will have your answer.--YohanB (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
So you can't even follow through on your little statement? Not even to the point where those pics in question could easily be downloaded from where they are, and ungrouped within photoshop? You're nuts. Karajou (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
Any graphic designer worth half his salt would be able to Photoshop something without so obviously degrading the quality. I'm not going to dive down the rabbit hole of this argument if the evidence being used is a photo. However, unless such an alleged editor was trying to use reverse-psychology, there is no way they would botch up an edit in this way. Grasping at straws doesn't begin to define your argument against its validity. Go inspect it pixel by pixel and find your proof, or get the original copy. As it is, you are just making a fool of yourself again. Good riddance. --David B (TALK) 03:18, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

There's something worse than that here. Just as Sigmund Freud was too concerned with writing a diatribe against his own Jewish people than paying attention to the fact that the Nazis were coming to his town, this clown from Britain is just too concerned with hating us than he is about the Muslims his kind let into his country in droves, and they make no compunction about what they intend to do there. Being completely stupid is something he enjoys. Karajou (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

Liberals VERY often project. He knows evolutionism is rife with fakery and people distrusts atheists for good reason (even fellow atheists tend to distrusts other atheists). See: Distrust of atheists.
There are plenty of attractive ladies who disbelieve evolutionism. I cite: "Out of all the contestants in last night’s Miss USA pageant, only two affirmed they thought evolution should be taught in schools."[63]
Also, consider: Conservatives really are better looking, research says. Conservative (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

How long will Kelly last?

Chief of Staff John Kelly is once again publically making peeved expressions in public while Trump is speaking.[64] (he also did this when Trump spoke about the Charlottesville incident). Apparently, not even Kelly's very rigid WH organization can stop the president from speaking his mind and remaining a conservative nationalist. I wonder if Trump will tolerate Kelly, considering his expressions? I hope not. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2017 (EDT)

The swamp isn't empty yet, so I hope Trump keeps draining it. --David B (TALK) 03:21, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
Only 35% of Americans want Trump's border wall.[65] I do think that Trump is correct and that through tariffs, taxes on money wires to Mexico, etc., the USA could get Mexico to pay for the wall.
66% of Trump supporters want the DACA young people to be able to stay while there are plenty of Trump supporters who vehemently want them to go.[66] Trump is in a no-win situation when it comes to DACA.
It looks like the border wall and amnesty for DACA young people may incinerate a large section of Trump's most ardent fans. It is looking like Congress will push DACA on Trump's desk and that he will sign it without getting a wall. This is the sense I am getting about DACA from Trump and Trump's press secretary.
Maybe Trump is hoping that DACA will die on the vine just like the repeal of ObamaCare. Obama could not DACA/amnesty through Congress.
Trump would have to get on the bully pulpit and explain why the wall is needed, but it doesn't seem like he will do it. He didn't do it to repeal ObamaCare and I don't think he is going to do it for his wall.
Call me a cynic, but I am guessing Trump knows the level of public support for the wall due to Trump having advisors. If he doesn't know the level of public support for the wall, it would be a case of political malpractice.Conservative (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
The statistics he should be concerned with are those of the election--he made promises which were very politically incorrect. He got elected based on those promises, and should carry through on them. I'm afraid he is getting dragged down by the political agendas of others. Statistics can be misrepresented and fake, and surveys can be targeted. The plain and simple fact is that he said he would, and the people supported him. When he does, those same people should in general continue to be supportive. He needs to do his job and stop worrying about what people say and think about him--he started out that way. --David B (TALK) 14:43, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure 66% of Trump supporters supporting DACA is accurate (despite the polling). Polling stations can manipulate the responses based on how the question is worded -- and there are many different polls. Also, the GOP is weak right now -- they are not effectively arguing why DACA is bad and should be undone. Breitbart and other similar outlets have to do that work alone. If you only hear one point of view and not the other, of course, you're going to side with that pov.
Half the country is going to hate Trump regardless of what he does, even if he shifts to the Left (he's probably going to have to go extremely far-left to get them to support him, and even then, his previous right-wing positions would still stop leftists from supporting him). His 35-40% base of supporters will be with him just as long as he largely sticks to the agenda they elected him on. Because voter turnout in U.S. elections goes nowhere near 100%, those 35-40% of Trump supporters will win him the election if they are enthusiastic about Trump and go out to vote.
Trump should have ended DACA immediately upon taking office and offered strong reasons for undoing the program, rather than fighting on the Democrats' turf. It would have pleased his base and helped him avoid all the media coverage he's receiving now about DACA. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

The poll about the wall was done by Pew Research which is not an overtly partisan outfit and it does respectable research.

Legal immigration in the United States is at high levels. In Western countries, I don't see a strong backlash enough backlash about immigration to reverse things yet. It is probably going to take further Muslim terrorism in Europe to cause this. And even then, barring a Christian religious revival, maybe Europe will still do high levels of non-Muslim immigration due to their sub-replacement levels of fertility. It seems to me that that the business class does a lot of work on lobbying and shaping public opinion on immigration and they want cheap labor.

Trump is a businessman, builder, promoter and salesman with some political experience because real estate development is partly a political endeavor. As far as Trump passing DACA if it appears on his desk, these point to it happening: the salesman part of Trump (sometimes telling people what they want to hear), his concern for how the media covers him (he watches a lot of televised news), his willingness to change his ideological positions more than many politicians, and the recent proclamations out of the Trump administration about DACA.

Ann Coulter, one of Trump's biggest supporters, is now publicly speaking out against him due to his recent statements on DACA and due to his administration's statements on DACA. Coulter is not misguided in her criticism. Conservative (talk)

@Conservative: Still, even if the poll is done by Pew, that does not explain away the fact that the GOP (and Trump himself) has done terrible (if anything at all) at arguing the case for why DACA must go. There are very good arguments for reversing DACA, and outlets like Breitbart have written about it, but the GOP and Trump himself have bought into the Democrat's emotionalistic and shallow arguments.
I personally think Coulter should tone it down. Yes, it is good to make sure that Trump remains committed to the principles that he was elected on, but she is forgetting Trump's later statements promising a bill with tough security measures, his discussions with Tom Cotton, and his UN speech. Besides, what good it is to constantly criticize someone if that might just turn them off and push them even further left? Trump is still more conservative than most of the GOP challengers he faced in the election. Even despite his apparent shift to the Left, he has still done A LOT of things that his challengers would never think of doing: pulling out of the TPP, leaving the Paris agreement, cracking down on illegal immigration, supporting the RAISE Act, challenging political correctness, his inaugural, Poland, and UN addresses, etc. Also, would Jeb Bush or John Kasich even think about advocating for stopping chain migration like Trump did? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2017 (EDT)

China tells banks to halt business with North Korea

This sounds like a big win for Trump: "Beijing Takes A Knee – China Central Bank Tells National Banks To Halt Business With North Korea…." The major banks in China are all state owned. A directive to the banks is how they make economic policy when they are serious about getting it done. In China, things gets decided at secret party confabs, not by law or regulation. So we will have wait for the trade stats before we know for sure. At any rate, the North Koreans are already squealing in pain. PeterKa (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2017 (EDT)

A whiff of banking sanctions was all it took to make China see the light. Here is the Washington Times: "Trump’s financial strategy persuades China to put screws to North Korea." PeterKa (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2017 (EDT)
NK may be losing bank loans and Chinese subsidies, but they are king of the hill in another field: insults. After Kim called Trump a "dotard," Americans are scratching their heads as to what this unusual word might mean. Obama gave the North Koreans everything they wanted. Here's how they thanked him: “… still has the figure of [a] monkey while the human race has evolved through millions of years. … It would be perfect for Obama to live with a group of monkeys in the world’s largest African natural zoo and lick the bread crumbs thrown by spectators.” ("Beyond ‘dotard’: A history of epic North Korean insults") PeterKa (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2017 (EDT)
The walls close in on Kim Jong-un: "China limits oil trade to North Korea and bans textile trade" (BBC). It's time to start thinking in terms of regime change and post-communist North Korea. Christianity is very popular in South Korea and Taiwan. The North could be the future of the church, a base from which to Christianize China. PeterKa (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2017 (EDT)
The Korean papers are talking war: "U.S. Military Strikes on N.Korea Get More Likely by the Day." China has given the U.S. a green light, according to this article. Kim, go find a retirement home in Russia or something before you end up like Saddam. The Korean pundits have seen it all before. They don't talk about war lightly. Chosun Ilbo is Korea's top paper. This isn't Wolf Blitzer letting his id do the talking. PeterKa (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2017 (EDT)

The German election

In the recent election, Merkel's CDU/CSU party got a lower percentage of the vote than Trump's lowest ever approval rating. But don't worry. Being rejected by two-thirds of the voters won't stop Merkel from continuing to serve as Germany's chancellor and Europe's top dog for another four years. The ads for the right-wing populist AfD party featured a "delightful blend of Islamophobia and misogyny," according to Vox. AfD was the No. 1 party among east German men. It will be the third largest party in the new parliament. Best of all, the election broke up the left-right "Grand Coalition," or GroKo. This will presumably boost the influence of the conservative CSU at the expense of the left-wing Social Democrats.[67] PeterKa (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2017 (EDT)

It was a good election overall. Germany finally has a nationalistic-conservative party in the Bundestag. Like usual, the MSM is framing the AfD as some reincarnation of the Nazi Party and using silly terms like "far-right" to describe it (even though the AfD is comparable to mainstream conservative Republicans in the U.S.).
However, I Don't think the CSU has much influence at all, even with the AfD in the Bundestag -- and even if the CSU gets more influence, that doesn't take away the fact that Germany has over 1 million (maybe 2 million already) more migrants in its (practically nonexistent) borders since 2015.
The only thing I did not like about the election is the fact that the SPD stated they will not take part in the governing coalition -- they took away the AfD's chance to be the official opposition party. It will be interesting to watch the coalition talks -- Merkel and the FDP will have to find some way to appease the Green Party to enter into a coalition. If talks break down, things will get interesting. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2017 (EDT)