Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Archive Index

The Establishment "accepts" Trump

Somehow, I don't think all the news about the establishment's "acceptance" of Trump is going to help him.[1] Just think about what happened to the people the establishment has "accepted" so far. First, there was Jeb Bush, then Rubio, then Kasich.....and now Trump. Truth be told, I think this meme is just self-generated media buzz. Reporters are going around asking Republicans something along the lines of, "If Trump is the nominee, would you accept him?" The answer is "of course." What else could they do it that situation? Jump up and down and stamp their feet?

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

Setback

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

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

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

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

Indiana

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

John Stossel's political betting website indicates that Trump has a 22% chance of being president and Biden has a little less than 1% chance of being elected.[3]
If Trump is elected say goodbye to political correctness. I think conservatives and other opponents of liberalism will become more bold. Trump would also eat up media time as far as liberal political causes. RINOS would suffer too and maybe lose control of the GOP for years.Conservative (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2016 (EDT)
Biden's net favorables are +10.[4] Trump is at -28.[5] I'll be a walkover. PeterKa (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Biden is a goofball and weak. I don't he would have ever ran to be president. Conservative (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Biden can't tie his own shoe laces. Hillary won't be indicted. In an election season where conventional wisdom is non-existent...don't rely too much on unfavorables. Most people have their minds made up by now.--Jpatt 01:03, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
The big money donors won't be opening their wallets for Trump.[6] If he can win without money, that will definitely smash conventional wisdom. PeterKa (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
I think Ronald Reagan's unfavorables in spring 1980 were even higher than Donald Trump's today. Then, as now, fatigue with liberals will set in and people like voting for a Republican entertainer, as Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger proved by landslides.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Here is something on Reagan's favorability. In early 1980, it was 70 percent positive, 32 negative. Trump's numbers are 34 positive, 62 negative. See also this chart of Reagan vs Carter matchups. PeterKa (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
For the record, if Trump has a -29 net favorability rating before the California riots have been factored in, it should be noted that under the same time period Cruz has a -25 net favorability rating. VargasMilan (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Cruz's unfavorables went up just recently. I assume that reflects the effect of Trump's Cruz bashing on Trump supporters. Trump's numbers have been stable since September. PeterKa (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
PeterKa, that poll of Reagan's 70% approval speaks more about media bias; go back and look at the hate filled venom directed at Reagan and Reagan supporters that mainstream echoed from DNC talking point in the Spring of 1980. Rob Smith (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

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

Trump says:
"Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, whom Trump last month declared “is not doing a great job,” became a “great” governor. He dubbed Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) “a great guy” instead of “Little Marco.” And he called Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) – whose cellphone number he once gave out at a rally -- “a nice guy.”
“Once I defeat them, I like every one of them,” Trump said. “I don’t like Lyin’ Ted … but in about four or five weeks from now, I think he’s going to be one of my best friends.”[7]
I have my doubts that this strategy will work. Conservative (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Drudge Report has Trump considering Cruz for the Supreme Court, which would be helpful if Cruz's supporters becomes an issue. VargasMilan (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Trump is going to say that he is going to nominate "Lyin' Ted" to the US Supreme Court if we wins? I think Trump may have burned this bridge. I think he went over the line and the situation may be very difficult or impossible to repair in matter of months. Cruz's current refusal to say whether or not that he would endorse Trump if Trump were nominated is no accident. Trump's hardball campaign against Cruz virtually insures the Cruz will stay in the race as long as he possibly can. Cruz has a never back down personality.
On the other hand, Sanders, the FBI situation, and attacks on Hillary could cause Trump to win.
I think the race is going to be partly won on who is disliked the least. Trump and Hillary have high unfavorables and they have been both in the public eye a long time. To reposition a candidates longstanding brand in a matter of months is difficult.
Credible allegations of crook are a powerful brand changer though and if the FBI recommends indictment or the FBI employees do a number of leaks or the head of the FBI resigns that could cause a political firestorm. I have my doubts that Obama's DOJ will indict though given the corrupt nature of the Democrats/Obama administration.Conservative (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Dozens of FBI agents are working on it. Something will happen. "Don't be shocked … if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen." So says Boehner.[8] PeterKa (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

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

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

Another news pick

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

Ben Rhodes

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

If Hillary was going to be indicted by the DOJ, then why has Obama done fundraising for her campaign? It seems like the fix is in.
How much control Obama has over the FBI is another question. The FBI has a solid reputation that they may not want to tarnish so they can recommend indictment and/or their employees can leak to the press. Conservative (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2016 (EDT)
It was Valerie Jarrett who took the email issue to The New York Times in the first place.[10] So Obama has been pulling the strings all along. The hacker Guccifer has been extradited from Romania -- and he is ready to testify that breaking into Hillary's email server was as easy as entering "an open orchid on the Internet."[11] PeterKa (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2016 (EDT)

The Donald Trump insult generator

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

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

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

Leave it to a liberal company to come up with this. Still, that is funny! Whether he be incessantly calling Cruz a liar, or be implying that Cruz's father or perhaps Cruz himself was the the zodiac killer based only on a photo conatining someone who looked something like Cruz's dad, he just keeps farming the insults, doesn't he? We do need someone who is not afraid to bruise a few egos to get the job done, but this seems over-board. --David B (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2016 (EDT)
It sounds like material for a cartoon villain running for president, doesn't it? Of course, Trump's "good friend" Hillary is even worse. Accusing Trump of being an ISIS recruitment tool was also both ridiculous and pretty low. I'll probably end up voting for Gary Johnson, a Libertarian and a former governor of New Mexico.[12] The Republican Party has cycled back to 1976 with Lion Ted in the Reagan role. He'll be back in four years. PeterKa (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2016 (EDT)

Typo

The news section has an entry which contains "..as RINOs show their true colors by refusing to endorses Donald Trump" however, "endorses" should not grammatically be plural.--David B (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2016 (EDT)

Fixed. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2016 (EDT)

Obama and Trump

There is no room for Trump in the White House because these are "serious times," not time for "entertainment" and "reality TV," or so says Obama.[13] I don't know if he was kidding or not, but these remarks betray a shocking lack of self-awareness. The man is clearly obsessed with pop culture and sports, and he has appeared on an astonishing number of talk and reality shows.[14] PeterKa (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2016 (EDT)

At heart Obama is an egotist. He is the serious one in the room and only liberalism is the serious political philosophy.
In addition, because Obama's foreign policy hasn't panned out, the only way he can make himself look good is to denigrate people with opposing views and pretend to himself that he is serious. In short, it is projection.
Also, it's just bluster and posing. My guess is because ObamaCare was not passed in a bipartisan manner, I don't think Obama would be surprised if it is given the axe if people sour on the Democrats if the economy takes a dive. Conservative (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2016 (EDT)
Says it all. Rob Smith (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

Why isn't someone holding Target criminally accountable for such cases?

Is it because criminal responsibility generally lies with the individual who commits the crime, not with the owner of the building the crime is committed in? GerryV (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

uhh, cause the owner of Target is the Democratic Governor of Minnisota? (he never got elected to anything despite spending the family fortune trying until after he got out of alcohol rehab). Rob Smith (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

Transgender bathrooms

I have to confess here to a certain personal bias - my closest friends adopted a baby girl from China (their second kid, having had difficulty conceiving after their first born) and by the time she was four she was screaming if Mommy put her in dresses. The tomboy years followed and by the time she was 9 she only wanted to be referred to as 'David' and completely identified as a boy, looked like a boy, dressed like a boy, behaved like a boy. Clearly a case of 'nature, not nurture' - they are strong Christians and their other son is as normal as can be. All of our group of friends have watched this happen and are tremendously sympathetic and supportive. Anyways, what I don't get about the 'bathroom' issue is this: if a boy is trans, and wants to use the girls bathroom, there's only going to be stalls with doors, right? And if a girl is trans, she hasn't the 'equipment' to pee in a urinal, so will have to use the stall with a door. So what on earth is the problem - they both get total privacy, and why would anyone have a problem? Either way, they're going to behave and look like the gender of their choice - that's kind of the point. Plus, if they're school kids, they're going to be shy and self-conscious as all get out. I just don't see the problem here. Bringreaganback (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

The problem is that in many high schools, the doors on the partitions have been removed to prevent smoking in the bathrooms. Similarly, teachers are assigned to patrol the bathrooms to deter smoking and other misconduct. JDano (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2016 (EDT)
OK, I get that. But it doesn't change anything. In in either case, they're sitting down, and - not to get too descriptive here - everything is concealed in those situations anyway. I just think people should be allowed to be whatever gender they want, that's all. Our country was built on such freedoms. Bringreaganback (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2016 (EDT)

Another day, another low for Hillary

Why did the oil sheiks give Hillary $100 million? My guess is that they want a ban on fracking. I have a slogan for Trump: "A vote for Hillary is a vote for a higher gas price." This election is all about democracy. Will America vote for someone who represents our interests, or for someone who will help foreigners gouge us? Guess what? Mexico knows who it wants. PeterKa (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

As best as I can tell, Hillary says that fracking bans are a state and local matter, while Bernie is in favor of a fracking ban. A good part of the Obama economic recovery is due to low energy prices, which is in turn due to fracking and greater efficiency in oil and gas production. It is one thing to set climate change goals for 2030 or 2050. It is something else to say we are going to raise energy prices immediately no matter what effect it will have on the economy so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (when existing technology and existing regulation of drilling practices could achieve the same results.) JDano (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2016 (EDT)
The sun is going into a cooling phase with fewer sunspots, so I don't think we have to worry about warming.[15] Even if we did, no way is the decision to frack or not to frack going to be enough to have any measurable effect on the climate. Everyone involved is using climate as a pretext to promote some other agenda: socialism, global government, opposition to economic growth, more money for the Saudis and Iranians, etc. PeterKa (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2016 (EDT)

Grammar

Should "Target's CEO defense" be "Target CEO's defense" in main page right? JDano (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2016 (EDT)

Missile Defense

If anyone remembers the 1980s, no Reagan initiative infuriated liberals more than missile defense. The project was an affront to physics and settled science, a ridiculous and gigantic waste of money. Ted Kennedy labeled it "Star Wars." Now it's reality: "U.S. Missile Shield Goes Live." PeterKa (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2016 (EDT)

This isn't the same project at all. Reagan's Star Wars initiative was based on a network of laser equipped satellites which could identify and shoot down incoming missiles from the edge of space. This is a ground based detection and defense system, not Star Wars at all. But, good on the Govt for getting this up- I wouldn't trust the North Koreans not to try anything, though I doubt the Russians would. Bringreaganback (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2016 (EDT)
They activated a missile shield against North Korea a few years back. The one that is in the news now is based in Romania. It's designed to intercept Iranian missiles. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative was renamed twice and is now the Missile Defense Agency, the group responsible for this project. Reagan never specified space-based weapons or called it "Star Wars." Here is the way he explained it in his 1983 speech:
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack; that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies? I know this is a formidable technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it is reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades, of effort on many fronts.[16]
PeterKa (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2016 (EDT)

Shoppers flee to the Web

It's not just the perverts in the restrooms. Criminals and other low-lifes are chasing white women out of the malls altogether in this post-Ferguson era. Shoppers are increasingly going online. Macy's, The Gap, and J.C. Penney are all collapsing in the face of Obama's campaign to create a gangster's paradise.[17] Oh, I'm sorry. We can't call them "criminals and other low lifes" anymore. They are "justice-involved individuals," or so says Obama's Department of Education.[18] PeterKa (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2016 (EDT)

Who is Trump?

What is this glittering spectacle in the midst of our national politics? In short, who is Trump? Is a Republican? A Democrat? Pro-life? Pro-choice? Here's a guide to navigating this complex terrain: "Donald Trump’s Greatest Self-Contradictions."

If it's still too soon to sort out that big stuff, perhaps we can straighten out some smaller items. Does he cheat at golf? What does he think of shaking hands? Is he into arm punching and towel snapping? (Answers: Yes, "barbaric", and Yes). See "Nine Tales of Trump at His Trumpiest" in Weekly Standard.

If Trump is a creation of the media, a record of his tabloid headlines may shed some light on the real Trump: "Shameless Mogul Found in Breathless Tabs!"

What about daddy issues? Fred Trump, Donald's dad, made his fortune building for the federal and state housing authorities. Donald inherited Fred's political connections. Daddy was one tough nut and sent little Donald off to the New York Military Academy. His fatherly motto was, "You’re a killer. You’re a king." Aside from the $150 million he inherited, Donald also benefitted from Fred's cosignature on his early deals, including the famed 1976 Grand Hyatt deal that put him on the real estate mogul map. Donald was worth nothing at that time; No would have signed with him. Politico collected the top Trump experts to run this all down: "Trumpology: A Master Class". PeterKa (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2016 (EDT)

The man is a dangerous, unhinged lunatic, with very few, if any conservative principles actually held. If anything he's more like a small Govt Democrat, but he's clear on raising taxes, on abortion, on many positions no true conservsative can agree. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him, and I think we ought to get Garland into the SCOTUS as fast as possible, because when either Hillary or Trump get in, hold on to your hats, it'll be a nightmare scenario - Trump is as likely to choose a socially liberal justice as Hillary is. Bringreaganback (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2016 (EDT)
There is mountains of evidence indicating that if Hillary Clinton became president she would be one of the most crooked presidents that the United States has ever had. She also appears to be vindictive and would probably use the IRS to punish her enemies.
In addition, as a secretary of state, she was a disaster. Her Middle East policy was a joke and so was her "reset button" as far as Russia. She should have had a more realistic view of the Russians and just tried to work with the Russians when it is possible to do so.
She rarely takes responsibility for her screw ups too. So the chances that she would grow as a president are minimal. On the other hand, there is evidence that Trump is learning from his mistakes as a politician. For example, his ground game appears to be better and he is bringing in more seasoned political professionals as far as his campaign.
As far as political promises, even Trump's biggest claims appear to have some basis in reality. For example, he can put pressure on Mexico in terms of restricting wire payments to Mexico and there are other ways he could force the Mexicans to pay for a wall too. Trump has also proposed selling off some US government assets to pay down the debt which does appear to be a practical idea. On the other hand, given that the Democrats have shifted to the left, it would appear as if the US Federal debt would climb higher and higher under Hillary.
In terms of voting, choosing Trump over Hillary is a no brainer.Conservative (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2016 (EDT)

Also, we know who Trump is. He is: a nationalists, a successful businessman with a big ego, a gregarious person who insults his political opponents, a right leaning candidate who is not a doctrinaire Republican/conservative, and a man who has gotten more conservative as he has aged (which is very common for people to do). Conservative (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2016 (EDT)

  • Anything beats Hillary. After all these years in the wilderness, she's become a vengeful fury. Bill sicced the IRS on the American Spectator after the Troopergate expose. Obama has shown that a president can use the IRS to attack conservative groups on a wide scale and get away with it. The Democrats would like to take all conservative money out of campaigning and lobbying so that the labor unions can gain monopoly control over the political system. It's only the 5-to-4 Citizens United vs. FEC decision that stands in the way. PeterKa (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2016 (EDT)

NTSB finishes investigation of Philadelphia train derailment

USA Today story on the NTSB report. Thanks, GregG (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2016 (EDT)

The NTSB report is an absolute farce. It is so pathetic in its conclusion that it may not even merit ridicule on the Main Page.Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2016 (EDT)--

Bill "in charge of the economy"

In a second Clinton administration, Bill will be “in charge of revitalizing the economy,” or so says Hillary.[19] What happened to all the debates in which she positioned herself as Obama's surrogate? I don't think this is a good time to make Obama angry, dearie. Here is Trump's response: "Crooked Hillary said her husband is going to be in charge of the economy. If so, he should run, not her. Will he bring the "energizer" to D.C.?" "The Energizer" refers to Julie McMahon, Bill's most frequent mistress. PeterKa (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2016 (EDT)

Shows how out of touch they are; they still think he's an asset. Geez, the only reason she's running is trying to salvage his reputation for posterity. RobS Pat Nixon for President 16:33, 18 May 2016 (EDT)
Her supporters respond to stories of her as a victim, especially as Bill's victim. The story of her under sniper fire in Bosnia was perfect -- aside from the minor detail of it not being true. No parent wants Bill back in the White House. Older feminists fondly recall the glorious moment when she turned it around for her husband by attacking the "vast right-wing conspiracy." But Millenials aren't part of this and just think it's tawdry to stand up for abusers. PeterKa (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2016 (EDT)
I don't know. I read some garbage today that says the Clinton's "business marriage" is an asset. RobS Pat Nixon for President 18:31, 20 May 2016 (EDT)
  • I should add that it's not as if as anyone thinks of Bill as an economics genius. His policies were based on the advice of Dick Morris, a pollster who taught him to "triangulate" between his liberal base and the Republican Congress. If any of his policies were good for the economy, that was more or less a side effect. By bailing out Long-Term Capital Management in 1998, he established the "too big to fail" principle. PeterKa (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2016 (EDT)
Too big to fail goes back to the Mexican Peso bailout. It wasn't the Mexican Central Bank that got bailed out so much as the Wall Street Banks, like Bob Ruben's Citibank that made bad loans to the Mexican Central that couldn't repay. After Congress voted down a bailout, the Treasury probably illegally misused the Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail it ou. In the case of LTCM, it wasn't even a regulated bank that got bailed out, it was hedge fund run by a bunch of Clinton & DNC donors who took big executive bonuses after the bailout and it went bankrupt anyway. RobS Pat Nixon for President 00:35, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

Superdelegates

Can we get a link from MPL or MPR to Superdelegates? It's a hot button issue right now and has gotten about 1200 hits in 4 days. RobS Pat Nixon for President 20:24, 18 May 2016 (EDT)

Done.Conservative (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2016 (EDT)

Young mass murderers

Did you know Young mass murderers are listed twice on MPL. RobS Pat Nixon for President 11:10, 19 May 2016 (EDT)

Thanks. Fixed. Conservative (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2016 (EDT)

The race tightens

Hillary's lead over Trump has narrowed to 3 points.[20] I guess we no longer have to worry about Trump triggering 1964-style losses in state or congressional races. Early matchup polls do not have a good track record in terms of predicting general election outcomes. This year could be different because both candidates are already extremely well known. PeterKa (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

Trump's surge is being interpreted the end of "NeverTrump," i.e. the vote is normalizing with Republicans declaring for Trump and Democrats declaring for Hillary.[21] PeterKa (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2016 (EDT)
There is one thing to consider. Some of Hillary's scandals happened before the growth of the conservative media and social media. There is extra mileage available as far as Hillary's email scandal in terms of new developments. So the crookedness of "crooked Hillary" in people's minds has room to further deepen. Conservative (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2016 (EDT)
Hillary's lead has now narrowed to 1.6 points.[22] So it's a dead heat -- and it's no longer based on an outliner Rasmussen poll either. ABC/Post is also giving the edge to Trump. The FBI will be completing its investigation of Hillary in a few weeks. That can only boost Trump. Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees has been reviewed favorably in the conservative press, so there is finally a reason to vote for him. PeterKa (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

Peter, you said: "The FBI will be completing its investigation of Hillary in a few weeks", I am not disputing your claim. But last I heard, the FBI was not giving a time when it would be done or even an estimation. Has the FBI changed its position? Is the source the underlings of the FBI director who are leaking when it will be done? Conservative (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

Peter, please see: FBI's Comey: I feel 'pressure' to quickly finish Clinton email probe Handling investigation 'well' is top priority, FBI director says, rejecting any 'external deadline' - date of story - 05/11/16 Conservative (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2016 (EDT)
Interviewing the principle is the last stage of an FBI investigation. So when they interview Hillary, we know it's crunch time. Here is a story that claims she will be interviewed soon. There were similar stories in late March, so it could be just same old, some old. If the investigation is being driven by politics, as I assume it is, the logical time for Obama to strike is soon after Bernie is eliminated. PeterKa (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

The Bill Nye bet

He has made two bet offers, totalling $20,000, to Joe Bastardi, see: http://time.com/4301258/bill-nye-sarah-palin-climate-change-bet While he hasn't extended the bet offer to all comers, this might be an opportunity, like the Richard Lenski controversy, to bring publicity to CP. SamHB (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

I think this would require Conservapedia to create an extensive article on Bill Nye and to promote it very heavily. I don't see that happening for two reasons.
No it wouldn't. My point is that the publicity would heavily promote all articles at CP. People would come to see the article on which the admins take up the bet, and then they would look around at everything else. The Bill Nye article isn't very extensive, but people would see plenty of much more extensive articles. Many of them by you.
One, he no longer has a television show. I think that is why he took Ken Ham's offer to debate. Ken Ham just completed building his $100 Million ark replica, so I think Ham is on his way up as far as his public profile, and Nye is on a descending path. Ham could decide to expand globally as well given the fast rise of global creationism.
Watch your commas! Three independent clauses! I apologize for altering someone else's talk page comment.
Two, I don't see anyone wanting to create an extensive Bill Nye article. Who wants to write about a boring agnostic nerd who wears a bowtie? For example, his romance to his "ex-wife" who married him for 7 weeks sounds very boring (marriage license was declared invalid).[23] Conservative (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2016 (EDT)
I think the bowtie looks stupid too. But this is real money. You don't need to expand the article about someone you think is a "boring agnostic nerd", just accept the bet. I realize that $10,000 for one of the bets may be more than Conservapedia admins want to put up, but you may be able to make a smaller offer. SamHB (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

SamHB, I really haven't followed the global warming debate that closely.

That's too bad. If you did, you might be able to stay on topic, and not stray into irrelevancies like Sun Tzu, Christianity in China, or conservative religious immigrants. Of course, if those topics are what you are interested in (and they obviously are), write about them, and maybe look for people willing to make bets with you, so you could make a little money.

I figured that economic pressures (jobs) and the Democrats eventually losing a presidential election would reverse global warming economic schemes.

Are you saying that political/economic "schemes" are going to affect temperatures? If so, I guess it would make sense to wait until after the election before taking the bet.

With that being said, I think one of the controversies associated with the global warming issue is how are the temperatures measured (faked results). See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

The method of evaluating and authenticating the temperatures are described in the video. If you think his proposed methodology is flawed, feel free to make a counter-bet with a different methodology.

Second, Sun Tzu said, "And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him." I would rather take a bet where I where the liberals have less control on how things are measured. For example, will Christianity continue to grow rapidly in atheistic China? Will secular Europe have more conservative religious immigrants in the next 10 years who are creationists and will they have more children per capita than irreligious Europeans in the next 10 years? SamHB, contact Nye and see if he will take bets related to these two desecularization issues. :) Conservative (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

Sure, if you are interested in bets on other topics (which doesn't surprise me in the least), find someone with whom to make such bets. That would bring publicity to CP also. I seriously doubt that Bill Nye is the person for such a thing. But there are probably other people willing to take you up. Heck, I'd bet that some folks at RW would take you up. But you'd have to set the evaluation criteria extremely carefully. Bill Nye was able to do this because temperatures are fairly easy to measure. "Desecularization" might not be.
Good luck. SamHB (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2016 (EDT)
SamHB, I am a Protestant. I will make my money the old fashioned way. I'll earn it! See: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.  :) Conservative (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2016 (EDT)
Cons, I am too. And I also make my money the old fashioned way. I apologize for suggesting that you do something that you are religiously/philosophically opposed to. I'm not going to take bets with Bill Nye or anyone else. But good-natured challenges ("gentlemen's bets") are another matter. I believe I issued you some challenges a while back. No money would have changed hands. SamHB (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

I was merely making a joke. While I am not a fan of gambling (casinos, lotteries, etc.), I am not against people taking gentlemen bets and bets when they believe they are favored to win. Conservative (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2016 (EDT)

"Cruz-supporter Rush Limbaugh"?

To my knowledge, Rush never endorsed or disproportionately supported any candidate, and in fact I think he usually does not. Did I miss something? He was reporting for a while on just how much the left and RINOs hated Cruz, but he has also spoken in favor of Trump at times, and against Cruz. It was from him that I first found out the Cruz had flip-flopped on the Southern boarder fence and abortion, while Trump seemed to has a clear opinion. --David B (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2016 (EDT)

Rush Limbaugh on February 10th said:[1]
And I opened the program yesterday saying, “You will never, ever have to worry about that with Ted Cruz.” And then I expanded on it. And let me say one thing: If conservatism is your bag, if conservatism is the dominating factor in how you vote, there is no other choice for you in this campaign than Ted Cruz, because you are exactly right: This is the closest in our lifetimes we have ever been to Ronald Reagan.
--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2016 (EDT)
Interesting--I must have missed that entirely. I'm also a little surprised he was so direct in supporting someone, since as I said, he usually refrains. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up.
Clearly you and I still disagree on who would have been better. In my opinion, Rush was right. However, the foul play and dirty deeds are done, and we now have Trump. I guess I'll have another election where I hold my nose and vote republican. Trump might be good, but might not be. He's already lied repeatedly and flip-flopped on the foolish bathroom fight going on now. I hope you are right that he will turn out to be good. (Also, I still really want to know how he's going the make the Mexicans pay for the south boarder wall. They've already said no, though forgive me for linking to CBS. For goodness sake, the Mexican govenment is bussing their people to the boarder so they can come over. Why pay to stop such a great deal? I also wonder how many other promises Trump has made that he will need to break.) --David B (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2016 (EDT)
Cruz and some of his supporters are showing their true colors by continuing to act in an anti-Trump manner. Trump defeated Cruz fair and square, despite all of the underhanded tactics by Cruzites in picking delegates and running state conventions. Now, Cruz still won't even concede and endorse Trump. Cruz would run the conservative movement into the ground if given the chance.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2016 (EDT)
  • Yeah, Rush supported Cruz. But I don't its fair to describe him as "anti-Trump." Not many people gave Trump better coverage than Rush did. If Cruz is a snit now, it just shows he's human. After all, that was one vicious campaign. We need to get on message and focus on Crooked Hillary. PeterKa (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2016 (EDT)
  • http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/10/rush-limbaugh-ted-cruz-is-the-closest-were-going-to-get-to-ronald-reagan-in-our-lifetimes/