Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Archive Index

Contents

Happy Conservapedia Day! 10 years and counting!

Exactly 10 years ago, this encyclopedia was founded, and we're still going strong. According to Alexa, our popularity is increasing big time. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2016 (EST)

As far as factors boosting the popularity of Conservapedia in recent months: the 2016 election; new content; Trump's running causing an increase interest in right wing politics; a potential big loss for Hillary Clinton, Obama the Democratic party; news regarding Phyllis Schlafly and her legacy, and politics shifting rightward in Europe, are all factors which boosted the popularity of Conservapedia in recent months.
It will be interesting to see how long Trumpism and European politics moving to the right will boost interest in Conservapedia.
In addition, the failure of the mainstream media to largely predict the Trump's election victory and their excesses in the 2016 election, is a boon to politically right leaning websites.
Lastly, I think political conflict in the USA creates an increase in interest in U.S. politics. And unfortunately, I see a lot of political conflict happening in America in coming years rather than people amicably working out solutions (racial conflict, class warfare, etc.). U.S. demographic changes combined with identity politics, unresolved issues as far as immigration policy, changes in the global/US economy, the popularity of Bernie Sanders and a large U.S. federal government debt point to and increase in future conflicts in U.S. politics. Conservative (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2016 (EST)
Many religious conservatives backing Trump is probably another reason why interest in Conservapedia rose. The Hillary's/Democrats hostility to religious conservatives and traditional morality, the Republican Party platform, Trump's list of potential Supreme Court judges, Trump's vow to fight religious persecution of Christians in the world and his promise to push for the overturn of the Johnson Amendment, enabled Trump to win the votes of the majority of conservative evangelicals/Catholics even though Trump isn't very religious. Conservative (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2016 (EST)
Can someone add Conservapedia's 10-year anniversary to the newsfeed? This has to be mentioned. Also, speaking of Trump, he won a higher percentage of evangelical Christians than any other presidential nominee in U.S. history [1] (of course, only evangelicals who happen to be white are counted, but I think this fact is true regardless). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2016 (EST)
Fabulous suggestion!!! Done.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2016 (EST)
Thank you, Mr. Schalfly! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2016 (EST)
  • The Alexa link above suggests that Poe's law is by far the most popular article on the site, followed by RINO, race baiting, and Saul Alinsky. PeterKa (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2016 (EST)
    • Post 2013, there was an increase interest in Poe's law on the internet.[2] During the same time, Google trends indicates that there was no corresponding interest in the topic of fundamentalism.[3] Conservative (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2016 (EST)
      • Our Poe's law article is linked at "Know Your Meme," which is probably why Google is sending readers here. PeterKa (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2016 (EST)
Good insight there, PeterKa!
It's an open question as to what the most influential topics/entries are on people. Shroud of Turin does not have a large number of visitors, but the Shroud is known to convert some hardened atheists to Christianity.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2016 (EST)

In order to better know how much impact various articles have had on people, you would need to know how many page views articles have received in total and on a monthly/yearly basis. In addition, you would need to know how long people stay on article (Free analytics programs can give you this info). Furthermore, you would need to know, the impact on people/societies.

I can tell you that Conservapedia receives about 40% of its traffic overseas now. For example, the popular French website Telerama (which is one of the top 5,300 websites in the world in web traffic and one of France's top 250 websites in popularity) did a recent article on Conservapedia located HERE.

Here is an excerpt from the article (translated via Google translate):

"Onservapedia is fast becoming a benchmark in the ultra-conservative sphere in the United States and today has more than 100,000 records and 581 million page views since its inception. The most read, besides the homepage, the one on the "homosexual agenda", atheism, Barack Obama, Adolf Hitler, and ... Wikipedia. The ascent of Donald Trump has shed new light on the site, which is often cited in the conservative Glenn Beck radio show, and is referenced on many pro-Republican websites, convinced that all mainstream and Internet media In general are leagued against conservative ideas. More worrying, Conservapedia is still used as a working tool at Eagle Forum University, an online education program created by the conservative and creationist lobby of Phyllis Schlafly."[4]

The Atheism and suicide article may have hit an emotional hot button for that Frnechman given its prominence in the Telerama article (picture atop Telerama article, citing of the article).

The world's political pendulum seems to be swinging to the right. Immigration, the global resurgence of religion (particularly evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Islamic religion) and growing problems with various liberal policies (ObamaCare, governmental debt growing, failing welfare states) seem to be fueling the growth of the political right. Conservative (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2016 (EST)

Archive talk page?

Would someone archive these discussions? There are 107 separate discussions on this talk page right now, including this one. For symbolic value, would someone archive every discussion until the 10-year anniversary discussion? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2016 (EST)

Done.Conservative (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2016 (EST)
Thanks! Much appreciated! --1990'sguy (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2016 (EST)

No shrinkage of Antarctic ice in last century

Isn't it time to prosecute those responsible for the global warming hoax? "Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years". This story is based on a peer-reviewed reexamination of the Scott and Shackleton logbooks, so it seems to be pretty conclusive. The first step is to get the hoaxers off the dole: "Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’" PeterKa (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2016 (EST)

Cuba announces the death of Fidel Castro.

No further details have been released. Castro was 90. --WashingtonRepublican (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2016 (EST)

Why the U.S. electoral college system will probably not disappear

To find out why the U.S. electoral college system will probably not disappear, click HERE. Conservative (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2016 (EST)

The problem with abolishing the Electoral College is that it would be an invitation to voter fraud. Every state would be motivated to get out as many votes as possible, legal or otherwise. Under the current system, the states are the final authority on which votes count. You could avoid this outcome if federally-mandated anti-fraud measures were part of the deal. The proposals I've seen in the media are all "sore loser" stuff and don't recognize that the Electoral College has any upside. To Democrats, anti-fraud measures are "voter suppression." So they are on a pretty high horse about this. PeterKa (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2016 (EST)
Your reason is good but there are additional compelling reasons also. A national recount in a close election is unworkable. The outcome could change with every recount, which would take months. A national crisis would result. Also, the Electoral College helps bind a massive, diverse, democratic nation. Without the Electoral College requiring geographic diversity in order to win, the 49 states other than California (with its massive immigration and lax voting system) might not want to have California repeatedly decide their future.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2016 (EST)
With California, Clinton wins the popular vote by 1.7 percent. Without it, Trump wins by two points. California has millions of non-citizens and it does not require that voters present ID. Many California Republicans don't bother to vote anymore since the system is so rigged. They are still counting votes in California. So a popular vote election could take weeks to resolve, even without a court case in the mix. PeterKa (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2016 (EST)
After several embarrassing failures, Gallup no longer asks Americans about presidential preferences. But they do ask about the Electoral College: "Americans' Support for Electoral College Rises Sharply." PeterKa (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2016 (EST)

France turns right

If, as expected, "Thatcherite" rebel François Fillon defeats establishment favorite Alain Juppé in Sunday's The Republicans primary, French voters will have two right wing candidates to choose from in next year's general election.[5] Fillon was primier for Sarkozy, Juppé for Chirac. In the general election, the Republican nominee will face "Frexit" supporter Marine Le Pen of the National Front. In American terms, Fillon is France's answer to Ted Cruz while the National Front corresponds to the Alt Right. The party has been prominent in French politics for many years, but shunned by the mainstream as far right and neo-Vichyite. France's problems with Islam and ISIS are more serious than those of other Western nations. Incumbent President Hollande has been unable to adequately address them. As a result, Hollande's Socialist Party has all but dissolved, and the country is experiencing an extreme version of the populist reaction sweeping the globe. PeterKa (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2016 (EST)

The Right wing is ascendant in France. Breitbart is soon coming to France. Brexit and Trump. No wonder that popular French website had an effete, godless liberal feature an article bashing Conservapedia. :) Conservative (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2016 (EST)
Fillon won The Republicans primary with 66.5 percent of the vote.[6] So establishment favorite Alain "I am not Hillary Clinton" Juppé has been eliminated.[7] There is a non-partisan primary on April 23 between Fillon, Le Pen, and several minor left-wing candidates. The run off (if required) is May 7. PeterKa (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2016 (EST)
Of course, France is shifting to the French version of the "right", which is the political center by American standards. Fillon says he opposes abortion, but he also says that he will not vote for abolishing it. Europe makes America look like a very godly nation. Another thing: Fillon does not appear to oppose the socialist, globalist European Union. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2016 (EST)
Abortion is legal in France only for the first twelve weeks. That's way stricter than anything anyone is talking about in the U.S. PeterKa (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2016 (EST)
That's a fair point, and I did not know that. However, in many ways, France and Europe are, at least outwardly, much more secular overall. In several European countries, church attendance is about 2%, and there are very low levels of morality. On other issues, the U.S. doesn't (yet) have to deal with a socialistic supranational union like the EU that is actively trying to politically unite all the nations into one country. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2016 (EST)

Liberal Canadian PM calls Castro a "remarkable leader"

See HERE. It's not an exaggeration to say that liberals love Castro. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2016 (EST)

Trump claims voter fraud

The media is freaking out over this Trump tweet: "In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally." Here is a typical example in Politico: "Trump's baseless assertions of voter fraud called 'stunning'." I don't know how many people voted illegally, but I can tell you this: The Dems have been pushing hard to make voter fraud easier for many years. If it was all a "myth," they wouldn't bother. Whenever a Republican tries to crack down on voter fraud, they become hysterical. Investigators in New York City got a group of people to vote illegally as a test. They got away with it 97 percent of the time.[8] The city's Democratic administration responded by asking the attorney general if the investigators could be prosecuted. So the Dems are fine with fraud, and no one is minding the store. Why anyone object to an ID check? The Dems' attitude makes sense only if voter fraud is significant, and benefits them. PeterKa (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2016 (EST)

Obama encouraged illegals aliens to commit voter fraud.[9] But as the Scripture says, "Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain."
Trump will probably erase a very large portion of Obama's legacy. ObamaCare was major legislation slammed through without bipartisan support (it will probably be repealed or drastically altered) and Obama's executive orders will be immediately overturned. Obama's Supreme Court nominees will largely be the only thing left of his legacy if you don't count a much large national debt, fallout from a poor foreign policy and the lost GNP growth potential that was never released during his presidency. Conservative (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2016 (EST)
I sure hope the GOP will be able to erase Obama's destructive legacy. Hopefully they'll also be able to combat voter fraud without liberals getting in the way. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2016 (EST)
I certainly hope the GOP does do something about voter fraud--I'm honestly surprised that Trump did win, considering the massive amounts of it going on. Just in this election, a bunch of polling moderators were caught by a low-level assistant filling out a very large pile of absentee ballots. Of course, that never made it to the news, and the assistant was promptly discharged. Now that Republicans have everything, there is, as Rush says, "no excuse." --David B (TALK) 12:09, 28 November 2016 (EST)
Soros pledged $5 million to fight anti-fraud laws back in July.[10] Soros is a guy who expects return on investment. More fraud has got to mean more votes for Democrats. There is no other reason Soros would care about this issue. PeterKa (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2016 (EST)

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Nov. 26: Trump ridicules the idea of holding recounts.

Nov. 27: Trump alleges massive voter fraud.

Aye, you've picked yourselves a good 'un here, chaps. A totally balanced and stable personality - real commander-in-chief material. JohnZ (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2016 (EST)

JohnZ, all I will point out is that California is the state that most likely has voter fraud with illegal immigrants voting, but the Dems and Greens want to recount Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Trump is referring to two completely different situations in different states. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2016 (EST)
What on earth would be the point of using illegal immigrants to run up the score for Hillary in California? It's 55 Electoral College votes regardless of the margin of victory. JohnZ (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2016 (EST)
No point from Hillary's POV. But the state is full "sanctuary cities" that encourage voting by noncitizens. PeterKa (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2016 (EST)
JohnZ, you are not being reasonable or balanced. And I think you are well aware of not being balanced.
Obama publicly encouraged voter fraud and there is a video tape of it which I cited in the above post. James O'Keefe did a sting which caught a high level Democrat operative confess to wanting to engage in voter fraud and Democrats having a tradition of it. it was so embarrassing/scandalous the operative was fired. Conservative (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2016 (EST)
In addition, Trump campaigned as a strong leader and "alpha male". There is nothing inconsistent with him mocking the Dems' desperation. At the most, the recount appears to be based on the Green Party wanting to generate cash and Russian hacking fears (fears but no evidence of hacking in those states). I personally have no problems with a recount given the slim margins and long as the recount is monitored closely.
And "desperate" is not too strong a word. The Dems don't have a strong bench to pull from as far as presidential politics. And in 2014/2016 they received a shellacking. They also seem overly reliant on identity politics and even Sanders admitted this. Check Schumer said in 2012 that the Democrats are not paying enough attention to the middle class. Conservative (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2016 (EST)

"The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results 'accurately reflect the will of the American people.'" - New York Times, 3 days ago.[11]

"Michigan election director: No election hack evidence.[12] - Detroit News, 5 days ago.

Hillary is desperate. She sobbed the night of the election and could not pull herself together to appear on election night so Podesta made an appearance instead. This is not strong leadership.

Engineers and system designers typically do stress test to determine how sound a system is. Election night 2016 and Benghazi attack (and the events leading up to the attack} show that the voters who voted for Trump made the right choice. Conservative (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2016 (EST)

Considering Obama and his goons threatened to prosecute anyone reporting voter fraud in this past election, I think its safe to say he believes in voter fraud more than you do, JohnZ. --David B (TALK) 20:43, 28 November 2016 (EST)
Hillary's campaign was largely based on identity politics and also reactive. Trump had a core message and was often proactive. Even many pro-Hillary advocates now admit she had no real message. For example, "I'm with her" is an uninspiring campaign slogan.
Trump had more rapport with the common man. He has been around construction workers, etc. all his life. He connected with crowds. Hillary is a liberal elitist. She certainly is no Joe Biden when it comes to relating to the common man.
Hillary deserved to lose the election. She is a Michael Dukakis/John Kerry liberal elitist type candidate. It was foolish to have her run in a world currently very receptive to populist candidates. Conservative (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2016 (EST)
Cenk Uygur, of Young Turks which is a YouTube political channel, wanted Hillary to win the election. But even he admits that Hillary Clinton was the worst presidential candidate in modern politics. He pointed out that she had the media, Hollywood and others solidly behind her, but still lost the election.Conservative (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2016 (EST)
The famous strategist Sun Tzu stressed the importance of preparation before battles as often the battle can be lost before it has even begun.
Clinton's private email server, her high paid speeches to corporations and the way the Clinton Foundation was run was very bad preparation. She sabotaged her campaign before it even began. Conservative (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2016 (EST)

Gregg Jarrett: Did Hillary Clinton just squander her "get out of jail free" card?[13]

Hillary swinging her stick at the Trump hornet's nest is another demonstration of her incompetence and desperation - especially when the chance of her winning this gamble is exceedingly low. Conservative (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2016 (EST)

  • When Trump says he won the popular vote, he is referring to allegations that non-citizens illegally voted for Hillary. The proposed recounts address allegations of Russian hacking. It's two different issues that JohnZ is mixing together. PeterKa (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2016 (EST)
    • That reminds me, why is an obvious leftist like JohnZ on here? I can understand SamHB being on here since he was vital to Conservapedia's creation, but JohnZ doesn't seem to even remotely benefit Conservapedia at all. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2016 (EST)
As long as an editor does constructive edits and does not run afoul of the Conservapedia:90/10 rule, there is no problem with an editor's politics. JohnZ has done maintenance type edits to art articles, etc. Conservative (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2016 (EST)
Cheers. For the record, I believe Stein's recount efforts are sincere, but extremely unlikely to overturn the result. Trump's most presidential move would have been to let them quietly fizzle away to nothing, rather than blowing up on Twitter.
The fact that he's unable to let go of perceived slights should concern you all. Indeed, this is the man who felt the need to reassure the voting public re. the size of his manhood, all because of some dumb Rubio crack about the size of his hands. Hail to the Chief. JohnZ (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2016 (EST)
Conclusions are more effective when the arguments that precede them are true—unlike yours. VargasMilan (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2016 (EST)
Areet, son. For the record, it would amuse me enormously to watch you try and outline the "argument" you reckon I've outlined above. I'd intended a fairly bald assertion of fact, but looking back, I can see the bones of a logically valid syllogism in there. All yours from here. Divvn't spare the horses. JohnZ (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2016 (EST)

Future of liberalism/left

There are a number of articles on the death of liberalism/American liberalism that have been recently published.[14]

Death is probably too strong off a word, but liberalism - particularly neoliberalism/liberal elitism - has suffered a major defeat after Trump's victory and Brexit. And things don't look good for liberal elitism in France/Germany as far as upcoming elections.

People in the far right - particularly the alt-right and Vox Day - have been predicting a huge defeat and continued major defeats for the left. The left did achieve a victory over the alt-right recently as Trump recently disavowed the alt-right due to a neo-nazi faction (or neo-nazi like faction) of the alt-right getting spotlighted by the media (Richard Spencer's group gave Nazi salute. Spencer appears to be flirting with neo-nazism rather that being a full blown neo-nazi. He strikes me as being a non-serious person and he appears to have a small following). But non-racist alt-righters argue it is just a temporary setback and not the death of alt-rightism.

Newspapers are going out of business which certainly doesn't help the left. There appears to be a college loan crisis pending which could seriously negatively impact another stronghold of the left - namely academia and various liberal arts courses (people are defaulting on their student loans in the USA). And the school choice movement is making progress.

I have been pleasantly surprised about how fast the left has been losing power lately. It almost reminds me of the fall of the Soviet Union. And the pace of the decline of the left appears to be quickening.

So what do you think is the future of the left? Conservative (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2016 (EST)

The causes of the decline/fall of the left have been among other things: the right gaining more prominence on the internet/media (Breitbart, etc.), politics breaking into more factions (which is partly internet fed such as the alt-right) and economics (globalization affecting the working class).
Given the complexity of the internet/factions/economics and the fact that political elections are close in the USA and elsewhere in the Western World, it is hard to predict how fast the left will decline in power or whether they will eventually bounce back (or how long it may take for them to bounce back).
With that being said, Europe is facing an aging population and a declining share of the world population. And Europe is a large share of the secular left (see: Secular Europe). And China is seeing a rapid growth of evangelical Christianity and is expected to have the world's largest Christian population by 2030 (see: Growth of Christianity in China and Asian atheism). And the world is seeing desecularization and a rise of religious fundamentalism/conservatism. And in a world of globalization, this can't be good for secular leftism. So the future of secular leftism on the world stage looks unpromising in the 21st century. Conservative (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2016 (EST)
One thing I find humorous is the left's growing concern about truth/"fake news".[15] For years the left has pushed postmodernism, but now that they are losing power, truth is supposedly important to them. Conservative (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2016 (EST)
Yes, they have no problem pumping it out by the gallon, but when a few drops of genuine truth get through, they go hysterical. "Of course, we are the only sources or real information, fools!" --David B (TALK) 19:04, 29 November 2016 (EST)
It wasn't all that long ago that liberals were all 9/11 Truthers. Van Jones is a CNN commentator these days! These are the people who will decide what's fake news? As far as far I am concerned, global warming scare stories are the epitome of fake news. Trump's early prominence as a presidential candidate is due to coverage in CNN and other mainstream media. The fake news issue is a dodge to evade responsibility. PeterKa (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2016 (EST)
By the way, we have a Fake News article. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2016 (EST)
  • The decision to kill Bin Laden was agonizing for Obama. Like Jeremiah Wright before him, Bin Laden was his people. But in the end, OBL had to be sacrificed to ensure Obama's victory in the 2012 election. As penance, Obama walked away from the war on jihad and made Islamophobia his top priority. The current worldwide collapse of the left is the logical result.
    As far as the future of the left goes, we certainly haven't heard the last of it. Suddenly, the Democratic Party is full of Sanders' supporters saying, "I told you so." A sharp turn to the left, as seems likely, won't help the Dems get back into power. The schedule of what seats are up in 2018 favors Republicans. In addition, Sessons is likely to crack down on voter fraud as attorney general. In short, the midterms are already looking good the GOP. As far as 2020 goes, the feminists want a woman, the Blacks want a Black, and the Sanders supporters want a leftist. It's going be tricky to satisfy any of those groups unless Michelle runs -- and there is no indication that she is planning to do that.[16] PeterKa (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2016 (EST)

History seems to point to situation where the Republicans/Democrats take turns in terms of being complacent/proud. I think the zenith of leftist pride and complacency was achieved under the Obama/Pelosi leadership. And pride comes before the fall. Conservative (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2016 (EST)

Mattis for Defense

As widely predicted, Trump is nominating retired Marine General James Mattis as secretary of defense.[17] He is an outstanding choice, a "can do" general who is already widely admired for his work in Iraq. Some have complained that the nomination violates a 1947 law that bans military officers from the SecDef position until they have been retired for seven years. This law is unconstitutional and it should be repealed. The president needs to assert his constitutional duty to nominate whoever he believes to be best qualified for the position. PeterKa (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2016 (EST)

Instead of denouncing the unconstitutional civilians-only rule, Trump has requested a waiver. Senator Gillibrand has announced that they she will filibuster the waiver. The short version is that Mattis will need 60 votes for confirmation while Trump's other nominees require only 50.[18] (The Senate will have 52 Republicans, 48 Democrats.) PeterKa (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2016 (EST)
A lot of nonsense is being published which claims that appointing Mattis would upend American traditions. Washington's secretary of war was Henry Knox of Fort Knox fame. He was appointed in 1785 under the Articles of Confederation soon after he retired from the army. The prohibition against military officers as SecDef is based on studies of the Japanese system. Japan had a democratic system of government in the 1920s, but the country was militarized in the 1930s. This was blamed on the practice of appointing serving military officers as ministers. A Japanese minister would be assigned to another position in the army after he finished his tour as minister. So it's not at all the same as appointing a retired officer. PeterKa (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Clinton aides shout insults at Conway

Another reason Clinton lost: Her aides are rude and stupid. See this Washington Post article: "Shouting match erupts between Clinton and Trump aides." This was at a forum held at Harvard. “I would rather lose than win the way you guys did," Palmieri told Conway. Then the Clinton people started started calling the Trump people racists. What a bunch of jerks. This "racist, racist" stuff was a standard line of attack throughout the campaign. Not only that, but the Democrats have been doing this to Republicans for many years, regardless of who the candidate is or what his views on race might be. The campaign is over, they lost, and their only regret is that they didn't do enough name calling. Oh, and they also blame FBI Director Comey. That's sweet. I'm sure he didn't act on his own. After Comey's cowardly capitulation to Obama in July, it's not plausible to think he developed a backbone in October. The Clinton aides still can't wrap their heads around the fact that sneaky little Obama stabbed them in the back. PeterKa (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2016 (EST)

The 5 stages of grief are: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. The liberal elitists and secular left are still in the anger/bargaining mode. By Trump's inauguration, they should accept Trump's status as the 2016 presidential race winner and the fact that liberal elitists and the secular left have lost a significant amount of power.
The large anti-Muslim immigrant protests in Europe, the gains of right-wing parties in Europe, Brexit, the large amount of people attending the Trump rallies (and Hillary inability to frequently have big rallies) and Trump surging near the end, should have braced them for a Trump victory. Nevertheless, it caught many of them by complete surprise.
Given that in recent decades the left is far more focused at politics than the right, leftists should have been among the first to see Trump's upcoming victory, but pride and cocooning (not reading much material from the right) prevented them seeing a greater possibility that Trump would win the election. Conservative (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2016 (EST)

MPR spelling error

Hi,

I just noticed that Kellogg's is misspelled on MPR as "Kellogs". Thanks, GregG (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2016 (EST)

Thanks. I fixed it. Conservative (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2016 (EST)

Trump's Taiwan call

Trump will not be a status-quo president, and his call to Taiwan is another example of this. While I am not a fan of the current socially-liberal government of Taiwan, I am glad Trump is breaking the status quo and siding with a country that is more of an ally with us than the PRC is, a country to which we already sell millions and even billions of dollars in weapons. There are many things Reagan did not do that he should have. I hope Trump does those things. Along with his cabinet picks, he already seems to be succeeding. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Trump didn't make the call to Taiwan, he received a call. Consider this: in 1979 Carter made a call to Taiwan, and in 2016 Trump received the first call back 37 years later. It's little wonder the mainland Chinese–or any impartial followers of world events–are driven to ask themselves concerning the progress of diplomacy between the free nations of Taiwan and the United States: Is this too much, too soon? VargasMilan (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2016 (EST)
It's not like Trump didn't know the call was coming. Taipei Times published a story on the scheduled call before the call itself took place.[19] The call was apparently the idea of pro-Taiwan Trump adviser Peter Navarro. The ChiCom response has been pretty low key so far: "No need to over-interpret Tsai-Trump phone call." China and Taiwan signed a NAFTA-style trade pact in 2010. China spends two percent of GDP on the military, but it probably spends more than that on internal security.[20] What the Communists fear most is the Chinese people. The Cold War is over on the Taiwan Strait.
Navarro is the author of Death by China. This sort of rhetoric misunderstands the problem. The last thing China wants is an international confrontation. That would result in ordinary Chinese acquiring political opinions. Public opinion of any kind would undermine one party rule. Today's big unresolved U.S.-China issue is China's support for North Korea. The U.S. keeps 30,000 troops in South Korea -- and more in Okinawa as backup. So there are lives and big money in the balance. NK has no economy of its own and eeks along as a puppet state of China. If China knows Trump is ready to sell Taiwan the F-35, as Navarro proposes, it could be more conciliatory in this matter. PeterKa (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2016 (EST)
Bolton has advocated using Taiwan to get Chinese concessions on North Korea and other issues. Bolton visited Trump Tower on Friday.[21] PeterKa (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2016 (EST)
Sounds like Bolton may have advised Trump to call Tsai: "Bolton on Trump's Taiwan Call: China Doesn't Tell Us Who We Can Talk To." He cites the South China Sea issue as a rationale. While Bolton gets all he-man, Pence and Conway downplay the call as a courtesy.[22] They weren't part of the decision making, so they are minimizing the call's importance. PeterKa (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2016 (EST)
Now we find out that the Chinese were already fomenting a traditional test-the-new-president crisis before Trump's call: "China flew nuclear-capable bombers around Taiwan before Trump call with Taiwanese president." I guess Trump passed the test. PeterKa (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2016 (EST)

Indonesia and Islam

This is a somewhat interesting story going on in Indonesia. The governor of Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, who is a Christian, is being investigated by the Indonesian police for alleged blasphemy against the Quran (which is illegal in the country). Over 200,000 Muslims are protesting Purnama because of this. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2016 (EST)

A mixed bag in Europe today

Interesting day today in Europe with good news and bad news. On the one hand, a far-left candidate narrowly won the Austrian presidential election against a right-wing conservative who strongly opposes the EU, Norbert Hofer of the Austrian Freedom Party. The winner, Alexander Van der Bellen, is a member of the Green Party and is very left-wing, possibly even by European standards, I dare to say. He strongly supports unrestricted immigration and refugee entry, and he wants a politically united Europe, among other beliefs.

On the other hand, Italians decisively rejected a constitutional referendum proposed by the liberal, pro-EU PM Matteo Renzi, which would have increased the power of the PM. After the results came in, Renzi announced he would resign, per a promise he had made before the referendum. National elections may be held early, and the populist Five Star Movement party, which opposes the EU, could win.

I wish Hofer won the Austrian presidential election, as he and his party are very conservative and could do a lot of good for Austria and even Europe, but God didn't want it to be so. God is in control, and He is working all these events for His glory. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2016 (EST)

These trends insure the political right will grow in Europe: Lower than replacement fertility rates in Europe by secular leftists; higher than average rates of fertility by adherents of fundamentalist religions; immigration due to replacing older workers combined with increasing problems associated with fundamentalist Muslims and the increasing failure of the welfare state (aging population in Europe among other things will put increasing strain on the system).
In short, the rise of the right-wing politics in Europe is only starting. Conservative (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2016 (EST)

Trump reminds Boeing who the next president is

Twenty two minutes after a Trump-bashing interview with Boeing CEO Muilenburg was published in the Chicago Tribune, Trump went on Twitter and threatened to cancel Boeing's Air Force One contract.[23] With any luck, this interview could turn into the New Yorker cartoon of 2016.[24] For those who have forgotten, the magazine published a cartoon of Barack and Michelle on its cover in July 2008. Obama got the executives of the entertainment and news industries together and read them the riot act. For the next eight years, they were his obedient lap dogs. Presidential humor had been a great American tradition, but suddenly it was no more. Jon Stewart was on the phone with the White House each and every day to get his political jokes approved. The Foreign Correspondents' Dinner, until then an annual presidential roast, became a Trump-bashing festival. PeterKa (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2016 (EST)

To what extent do you feel that the media was particularly sensitive to the fact that President Obama was the first African-American to hold that office? Making fun of George W. Bush's Texas origins was not considered to be in poor taste, nor was making fun of Gerald Ford's past as a football player. I believe that everyone should feel free to tell political jokes regardless of whether the President is a Republican or Democrat. JDano (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2016 (EST)
There were plenty of jokes about Bill Clinton when he was president. Jay Leno was famous for them. Certainly race is a factor, but I notice that doesn't stop the Carson jokes. Obama never respected American traditions like freedom of the press, so he felt entitled to issue edicts concerning press coverage. When Wanda Sykes made a disgusting joke about waterboarding Rush Limbaugh, Obama sat next to her, clapped, and laughed politely. It's the same mentality that led to the executive actions on immigration. PeterKa (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2016 (EST)
To be fair regarding Obama not respecting Freedom of the Press (even though I utterly hate the guy for his policies and am frankly angered that he isn't being impeached at all), I'm not sure what value there is with Freedom of the Press. Had I been president, I'd do away with the press entirely, not even have a propaganda arm, because I view the press simply as being lying crooks who would actively try to lie to its populace for its own gain, even orchestrate riots. I if anything would get rid of the press entirely precisely BECAUSE I hate liars, even those that act on my behalf. I've read up in Demonic how Freedom of the Press led to King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinet being slaughtered and how that led to the chaos that was the Reign of Terror. They had lots of liberties there, and in fact, they followed Voltaire's model, who actively encouraged lying about the Church specifically to tear it down. And the bit about Walter Cronkite getting away with lying on the air about the Tet Offensive due to freedom of the press makes me see how meaningless said freedom truly is. I'll respect it if I must, but I honestly don't see the meaning in it, just see it as the freedom for people to publish lies towards others and start riots. Heck, ABC and other network news fanning the flames of the Trayvon Martin incident among others just reinforces to me how freedom of the press, heck, freedom of speech seems meaningless and probably something we're better without. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2016 (EST)
One of the biggest big lies reported is Hitler's quote on the Big Lie. Hitler spoke of the 'Big Lie' in Mein Kampf as the 'lie', in his words, that Germany lost the First World War. And that if the lie was repeated often enough in the press millions of people would believe it. So he dedicated a whole chapter on propaganda and using the 'Jewish press' (his words) own tactics to defeat it. The Big Lie is Hitler didn't invent the Big Lie, Hitler stole the tactic from his enemies and the newspaper editors of his day to use it to elevate himself and his movement. RobS#NeverHillary 15:05, 7 December 2016 (EST)
In other words, Hitler never created the Big Lie, but just exploited it. Fair enough, though I'm not sure how that addresses my point on how freedom of the press was meaningless and that the press itself should not even be allowed to exist, either as a free identity or as a state-run institution. Besides, if ANYONE invented the Big Lie, it was Voltaire and Diderot, since they were the first to exploit that kind of aspect and did a six step plan to accomplish demonizing Christianity, which ultimately bore fruit during the French Revolution and arguably during the various Communist Revolutions. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2016 (EST)
People believe what they want to believe, and when facts are inconvenient, they dismiss it. That's why the 'Big Lie' has to be repeated over and over again. For example, that Watergate was about a third-rate burglary. Sure, Nixon had Washington enemies going back 25 years, but the actual events that led to a determined effort to get rid of Nixon occurred after the burglary.
When Nixon was reelected in 1972 with the largest mandate since George Washington, Nixon determined to "drain the swamp" of New Deal & Great Society Washington establishment bureaucrats by asking for all 3 million administration employees resignations so he could reappoint them with his own cronies and machine. Nixon could argue he had the vote and the will of the people behind him. But the establishment bureaucrats, backed up by a Democratic Congress, were more determined to see him go before they would ever go. So they had to trump up some bogus garbage, coupled with a relentless PR campaign savaging the man. The motives for driving Nixon out of Washington had little to do with the break-in. RobS#NeverHillary 17:10, 7 December 2016 (EST)

The public criticism of Boeing is directly related to rethinking the Iranian nuke deal. The only reason Hillary & Obama went ahead with it was to make Boeing competitive with Airbus who was seeking an Iranian contract. It's interesting, while Trump seeks to encourage US manufacturing for the domestic market, who other than the Clinton Foundation and Boeing workers benefits from the Iranian deal? RobS#NeverHillary 14:13, 7 December 2016 (EST)

Yes, it's true. Republicans eat their own children

Imagine that. Now, the same people who brought you the Benghazi video lie, documented as fake news in Hillary's emails, would have you believe the outrageous, scandalous notion that Trump wanted a security clearance for this purveyor of fake news who was busted red handed. RobS#NeverHillary 14:54, 7 December 2016 (EST)

"Fake news" turns out to be a liberal conspiracy

That's right. Fake news sites were created by liberals in the hope of discrediting the right wing blogosphere. Check it out: "We Tracked Down A Fake-News Creator In The Suburbs. Here's What We Learned" Here is the money quote: "The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could kind of infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction." Once that job is done, the next step is to create a "Fake News list" to ban all right wing sites from the social media. Melissa Zimdars has already created such a list, and New York magazine is using it.[25] PeterKa (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2016 (EST)

This should be added to the Fake News article, if it hasn't already. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2016 (EST)
I'm just in shock that this was published by NPR. You're right, though, this should go in Fake News.--David B (TALK) 23:36, 7 December 2016 (EST)
I found a WaPo article about another fake news writer who also opposed Trump but still wrote to discredit the Right. I added it to the Fake News article. Someone should add this to the newsfeed. This is huge. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2016 (EST)

The real money quote:We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out. --Unsigned comment by User:Pruno, December 9, 2016.

It just means this crew wasn't good at writing it. There are two liberal sites on Zimdars' list: Addicting Info and Being Liberal. Buzzfeed surveyed some liberal Facebook sites and found that 19 percent of the "news" was fake. Despite the fact that the major media companies cater to liberal readers, there is still an unmet demand for material that is even more partisan. PeterKa (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2016 (EST)

Trump cabinet nominations: HS, EPA, SBA

Another great batch of appointments today. retired general John Kelly is a strong opponent of illegal immigration. Trump's pick for EPA director, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, is one of the strongest critics of the EPA and Obama's environmental regulations. Trump's choice of Linda McMahon as Small Business administrator also seems like a good move, as she is a businesswoman, not part of the swamp, and she supports deregulation of business. [26] Trump could be an even more conservative and effective president than Reagan. It's a real possibility. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2016 (EST)

Many people who are not of Reagan's generation miss the point how much Reagan loved and was inspired by FDR. And how representative he was of the attitudes, thinking, and values of the generation who voted for FDR. Reagan and other Reagan Democrats felt the Democratic Party had gone off the rails with the New Left and Great Society. Let me be the first to go on record how much Trump's style is like FDR and Reagan, and no other president in between them. The myth of Obama being a transformational president has been exploded. Ultimately Obama will be remembered like Carter and the Bushes- wasted time and wasted opportunities. Trump, as a real estate developer, very much fits the mold of a Visionary president whose vision will be emulated by presidents for decades to come. RobS#NeverHillary 00:42, 8 December 2016 (EST)

Wilders convicted

A Dutch court convicted Wilders of ‘inciting discrimination’ against Moroccans.[27] He asked the crowd if they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in The Netherlands. It's all politics. He's an AlwaysTrumper. He wants to “Make the Netherlands Great Again.” It's been a long time since the Dutch were great. Maybe the VOC can be rechartered. PeterKa (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2016 (EST)

Without a Christian renewal, the Netherlands will never be great again. The Nertherlands, like most irreligious countries, has a sub-replacement level of births (1.72 births per woman in 2012 as far as the Netherlands). This is ultimately why Muslim immigrants are coming into their country. If only Europe decided to bring in more Bible believing Christians from Africa/Latin America and China instead of bringing in troublesome Muslims. All these Muslim problems could be avoided! Conservative (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2016 (EST)
It just amazes me how strict and expansive "hate speech" laws are in Western Europe. People should obviously speak in a respectful, godly manner, but these laws are ridiculous. In the UK, a pastor was almost found guilty for criticizing Islam, even though his criticism was based on theological grounds. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2016 (EST)
"Almost found guilty" is an interesting concept. Gotta think about that. AlanE (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2016 (EST)
What I meant to say is that he was tried for something that I don't think anyone should have even considered trying for in the first place (and there were many people, I'm sure, who wanted him convicted). In that sense, he was "almost found guilty." In a more sane world, this would have never happened. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2016 (EST)

Political realignment

An example of the political realignment in the U.S., Trump broke a 144-year Democrat winning streak in Elliott County, KY, the first time the county every voted Republican in its history. The shift away from the Dems in Coal Country started probably in the late 1990s, but it is now complete, as this was the last rural Southern county outside the Black Belt to have voted Democrat. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2016 (EST)

Personally, I think there's more of an ideological realignment going on than a party realignment. Both parties will emerge in time with new and different principles, and this isn't just switching between parties. The voters themselves are questioning and reassessing their fundamental beliefs. I don't know what you'd call such an ideological realignment, because the parties are not simply trading beliefs. RobS#NeverHillary 17:22, 10 December 2016 (EST)
I honestly don't see how that is the case. Many people in the South or Coal Country have had socially conservative views (pro-gun, pro-life, pro-religious liberty) before and after the rise of the Republican Party. Also, from what I've seen and heard, it doesn't seem like the disaffected Democrats-turned-Republicans in Coal Country specifically really agree with the Republicans on economic issues, but they agree much less with the Democrats overall. They seem to be old-fashioned New Deal Democrats, and they really don't want to switch parties. That's why many of them voted for liberals like McGovern and Mondale, and that's why a very large amount of them regularly voted Democrat until after Obama became president. They are only switching to the GOP because they have to if they want to keep any of their lifestyle and any of their values. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2016 (EST)
Yes, that's what I'm saying. The Republican party itself disagrees with itself on economic issues now. I agree with some assessments that say Trump didn't really win, Hillary lost. IMO, some traditional church going Democrats which Kentucky is known for were disgusted with Clinton corruption, and Trump had a clean record by comparison. RobS#NeverHillary 23:08, 10 December 2016 (EST)
OK, got it. I thought at first that you were saying the voters themselves were changing their beliefs, which doesn't seem to be the case. The GOP should watch itself in the coming years, because these voters could switch back to the Democrats if a candidate that appeals to them comes along (and that doesn't seem likely at all, considering their social policies). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2016 (EST)
Well actually I am saying that. Everyday that passes, it's seems pretty clear we've reached a milestone, the passing of an era, not just the change of a presidency. And both parties are ideologically shifting to something neither party is familiar with. The GOP has the jump on the Democrats right now, who will be forced to abandon old beliefs and forge new views, whether they like it or not. Even many voters don't know or are confused about what they believe.
Underlying it all is the issue of leadership. It's been many, many years, if not decades, since America had any leadership. This is Trump's challenge, To articulate a vision in the mold of FDR, JFK, or Reagan. I believe he understands that. Obama built his legacy on sand, choosing Executive Orders over legislation, bipartisanship, and compromise, which will swept away with the stroke of a pen on January 20th, 2017. RobS#NeverHillary 00:05, 11 December 2016 (EST)

Abortion and religious liberty in France

The French Senate and National Assembly passed a bill that makes it a crime to post pro-life information on the internet. The NA and the Senate now will reconcile their versions of the bill, and it is very likely to become law. The pro-life movement has basically been criminalized, at least on the internet, and people with pro-life views do not have any freedom of speech on this issue, even though it does nothing against pro-abortion sites. There have also been fears that the wording could be used to extend the ban to churches. Another example of what's going on in Europe. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2016 (EST)

Russian hacking and the election

The latest in fake news from the Washington Post: "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House." It's possible there are people at the CIA who think this, and no doubt they have produced a report of some kind. But to attribute this view to "the CIA" is bogus since it does not represent the views of senior people. See "DNI Clapper: We ‘don’t have good insight’ into alleged Russian hacking." The emphasis on Russian hacking is straining at the gnat and ignoring the elephant in the room: Obama manipulated the election far more than the Russians. Hillary could never have been nominated if Comey didn't vouch for her. PeterKa (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2016 (EST)

So if it's not about Putin anointing Trump as his U.S. puppet, why did the Russians show so much interest in the U.S. election? They assumed the fix was in and that after all the shouting Hillary would win, just like Putin wins every time in a Russian election. It was all about getting back at the U.S. for various grudges. As secretary of state, Hillary said some things about the 2011 Russian parliamentary election that Putin didn't appreciate, among other beefs. Ironically, the WP itself explained it back in September: "Putin wants revenge and respect, and hacking the U.S. is his way of getting it." PeterKa (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2016 (EST)
Russia (and others) are well atuned to the US election cycle. For example, in August of 2008, Putin intervened in Georgia, a Nato ally, and carved out the new state of Abkhazia. This occured late in the tired Bush administration when, even if Bush wanted to honor Nato commitments, a war weary Congress and publuc would never go along. The new Obama administration would be forced to accept it as a fait accompli. And this was only the first salvo in the new Russian adventurism.
Again now, the seige of Allepo is being replayed with the same effect in the waning days of the Obama administration.
It's no coincidence China took stern anti-democratic measures against Hong Kong legislators at virtually the same instant Americans were preoccupied with voting. This may be a harbinger of further deve!opments. In all three of these examples, Russia and China know full well the same actions at other times during a president's term of office could draw a more risky response rather than a yawn. American poliymakers are aware of these defects in our electoral system, but the public and media are oblivious. RobS#NeverHillary 23:01, 10 December 2016 (EST)
  • BUSTED: The anonymous sources that the Washington Post treats as CIA spokesmen are actually under Pentagon IG investigation for "manipulation of intelligence."[28] This might be relevant as well: "CIA Director John Brennan Proudly Acknowledges That He Once Voted for a Communist." PeterKa (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2016 (EST)
    • The Russian hacking revelations originate with Brennan, the commie CIA director. They aren't based on new evidence; He's just "concluding" whatever Obama tells him to conclude. Or so says Comey: "Comey to Trump: The Russians Didn’t Influence the Election." Clapper leads the U.S. intelligence community, not Brennan. (I linked to his testimony above.)
      What a sad story Comey is. What he wanted most was the approval of liberals. But they wouldn't have him. Now that all else has failed, he's stuck playing it straight. I hope he gets the Romney treatment. PeterKa (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2016 (EST)

Tillerson

With Tillerson as Secretary of State, it appears Trump is seeking improved relations with Russis. Tillerson negotiated the first Exxon deal with Putin in 1995; [29] he's managed Russian operations for 20 years. Exxon has joint ownership in some of these projects with people who are on the sanctions list. So it appears there will be efforts to review the sanctions imposed over the Crimean annexation. The first hurdle to overcome is the recently passed 2017 Defense Authorization Act forbidding military cooperation with Russia; if Trump is to hold to his promise to destroy ISIS, he cannot do it without Russian cooperation. RobS#NeverHillary 22:04, 11 December 2016 (EST)

I doubt the Russians will be much help against ISIS. This story makes them sound pathetic, or at least not interested in fighting ISIS: "ISIS recaptures Palmyra in Syria despite Russian bombs." They have their own priorities in Aleppo, on the other side of Syria. Regardless of the ISIS/Syria issue, we will need Russia's help in any showdown with Iran. The people at Forbes know Tillerson well. They make a good case for his appointment. The liberal media is reacting as if he will be Putin's puppet because of ExxonMobil's business ties. If you hear him speak, he's clearly an American first.
In the primaries, Trump took every position and the opposite. Who knew if he was liberal or a conservative? Now he is picking a cabinet that is more straight-arrow conservative than Reagan's was. PeterKa (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2016 (EST)
Last August, Trump, jr. explained Trump's political positions to Chris Christe and concluded, “Well, I guess that means we’re conservatives!”[30] The family had freshly chosen an ideology at that time. Liberals and Bushites were so strongly opposed to Trump that conservatives are what he's left with. Just think: If liberals hadn't gone bananas over the birth certificate issue, Trump might still be a liberal. PeterKa (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2016 (EST)
Russian help in a showdown with Iran? Don't bet on it. The Russia-Iran-China-North Korea alliance (known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) aims today to never allow NATO to have the power it once had just 15 years ago. The rise of ISIS, and the disinterest and unwillingness of NATO to do anything about it, demonstrates NATO's impotence and inability to dictate international borders that it once had in the last half of the 20th century. Each of these major SCO members have their own territorial designs, and won't ask NATO's permission for changes.
Read the link I posted above about Tillerson; he is not a "friend" of Putin as is being reported now. Tillerson and Putin were chief negotiators between government and business in an adversarisl role with each other.
Now it's pretty obvious why Trump had Romney in for discussion. He wanted to clear his plans with Romney first. When Romney comes out in support of Tillerson in the coming confirmation fight, that will confirm Romney's onboard with Trump hitting the Russian reset button.
Putin has been begging for cooperation and assistance from NATO since ISIS shot down the Russian Metrojet in October 2015. The sanctions have been the main impediement.
It looks like Bolton will basically be running the State Department from an Undersecretary position, while Tillerson is called in to serve as a personal emissary between Trump and Putin. This task should take about 18 months; beyond that the job may be open again, and Bolton finally graduate to No.1.
Oh, and we should not talk about the Russian/Uranium One Deal as a scandal (other than the Clinton Foundation payoffs and conflicts of interest). The reason being, Russian control of US uranium mines is just the shoe on the other foot of Exxon part-ownership in Russian oil wells. RobS#NeverHillary 21:35, 12 December 2016 (EST)

Labor and bikinis

Trump will nominate Carl Jr. executive Andy Puzder for Labor secretary. “I like beautiful women eating burgers in bikinis. I think it’s very American.” No kidding. It's what his TV ads are full of. You can see his work here. PeterKa (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2016 (EST)

A mentor of mine once co-authored a book entitled, Motivation in Advertising. If he were only alive to see this. RobS#NeverHillary 08:42, 11 December 2016 (EST)
Reminds me of an old Bill Hicks gag. Had a look for the clip and it appears someone was way ahead of me. JohnZ (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2016 (EST)

Beautiful renditions of Christmas songs

It would be nice to hear these "renditions". Strangely, the powers that be at Tea Party have decided I am some sort of danger to them and have blocked me from accessing their site.
Why? The only times I have accessed that site is through CP as a result of something on Main Page Right.
I emailed but did not have the courtesy of a reply.
Perhaps one of the overlords at CP can enlighten me on my wrongdoing.
AlanE (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2016 (EST)
Try it again. Maybe the website was down. I went to the website recently and the website was down which is extremely rare for the website. Conservative (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2016 (EST)

Hillary continues to contest the election

Who was that woman who thought that not accepting the election result in advance was "horrifying"? That's what Hillary said in the last debate -- and it was probably her most memorable campaign promise.[31] Let's get up to date on that: "The Incredible, Spineless Hillary Clinton." Earlier, she denounced Comey for intervening in the election. Now she calls on the intelligence agencies to brief the electors. That would be a more direct intervention than anything Comey did. PeterKa (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2016 (EST)

If Russian government hackers got inside Hillary's emails, the DNC and Podesta's emails, they have nobody but themselves to blame. Sound computer security is not that hard to implement.
This proves once again that American liberals hate science - including computer science! Conservative (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2016 (EST)
There is a proposal to put a famous cyber-security expert like Hillary Clinton in charge of the investigation into Russian hackers. RobS#NeverHillary 05:51, 13 December 2016 (EST)

Green Party recount failure

A federal judge effectively ended any recount of the votes in Pennsylvania today. Also, Donald Trump actually increased his vote margin in Wisconsin, the only state that actually recounted their votes (and the recounting ended today). The only state the Greens were actually able to succeed in recounting actually widened Trump's lead. Wow. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2016 (EST)

Obama's worst mistake

So what was Obama's worst mistake? The Iran deal? Blaming an innocent video maker for the Benghazi attack? Politicizing the IRS? Enacting a health insurance program that appears to be in the process of destroying itself? Not releasing his birth certificate in a timely manner? Inciting anti-police riots in Ferguson? Not investigating Clinton's email usage while she was still secretary of state? With so much bumbling incompetence, its not easy to pick just one example. But that's not the way Obama looks at it. "Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya,” is what Obama told Chris Wallace.[32] He thinks of himself as a grandmaster-level Chess player who occasionally neglects to think three or four moves ahead. PeterKa (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2016 (EST)

I'll list off 3 of them here, but they all ultimately represent a chain of disasterous, irreparable events for world.
  • Complete disengagement from Iraq. Led to the rise of ISIS and the demonstrable impotency of NATO and the West. Obama did this allegedly cause he's a pacifist, but that didn't stop him from going on the senseless war-mongering path in Syria & Libya.
  • "Asssad must go." Again, demonstrated the abso!ute futility of America's influence in the world, the short-sightednes of Obama/Hillary foreign policy, and strengthened Putin, Assad, and Iran.
  • Libya. The murder of Khaddaffi demonstrated, not only the backstabbing nature of how the US treats its allies (Khaddafi was an ally), but North Korea now can never be talked out of giving up its nukes.
The net result of this sequence of events is the Syrian and European refugee and humanitarian crisis'. 11 million Syrians are homeless and dispossessed, and half of those have flooded Europe, destroying Europe's social systems. These actions were either infinitesimally stupid, or were premeditated to weaken NATO and cause a permanent upheaval in Europe's Christian and Social Democratic heritages. The Syrian & Libyan disasters (and both actions are illegal under US law), were attempted, as best I can figure, in the hopes they'd be successful and portray Hillary Clinton as a great world leader, and for no other reason. RobS#NeverHillary 01:42, 14 December 2016 (EST)
  • No. 1 is the Iran Deal, which allowed the Iranians to buy the S-300.[33] No. 2 is the fall of Mosul in 2014, which could have been prevented if a special forces team had been in Iraq at the time. We were told the U.S. couldn't send forces to Iraq because the Iraqi parliament wouldn't agree to a SOFA. There is still no US-Iraq SOFA, but the special forces are again active in Iraq. So that reason was always bogus. No. 3 is the mess in Syria. All of Obama's national security advisers favored sending more aid, sooner to the Syrian opposition. He vetoed the lot of them, apparently based on Valerie Jarrett's advise. Doesn't a former Chicago slumlord know everything there is to know about Syria? PeterKa (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2016 (EST)
Yes. We're talking about individual decisions, but they are all inter-related which cummulatively have made Iraq and the entire region surrounding Iraq a worse place than Bush & Cheney made it, with millions of more victims and hundreds of thousands more dead, and have strained relations more with what once were loyal allies, and has multiplied jihadis exponentially, globally. Clearly, the world is worse off, a more dangerous place, America's ability to manage events, and confidence globally in the United States is far worse today than when Bush left office. And adversaries have become emboldened. And none of this is because he was a coward or pacifist, as is commonly believed. We just don't have a common phrase for his worst mistake yet, other than, "Obana foreign policy". And it should not be forgotten either this was the eork equally of Hillary Clinton, Joseph, Biden, and John Kerry, as well. RobS#NeverHillary 20:56, 14 December 2016 (EST)
His ego doomed himself from day one.--Jpatt 23:47, 14 December 2016 (EST)
Running for an office he was not prepared for. Of course, one could argue he isn't even qualified to hold public office. Stirlitz (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2016 (EST)Stirlitz
He governed like a city councilman. He could never get beyond the issue of commumity/police relations. Forget being president of all the people, or leader of the free world. RobS#NeverHillary 14:32, 17 December 2016 (EST)

"Trump has liberals fearing ... big government!"

[34] That's why it's always good to watch what you wish for. It seems like politicians (or most people) only look at the short term when wishing for a political change and forget about the long term consequences. Based on what I've seen so far, Trump is going to be a great president, and I don't buy any of the leftist hysteria, but the leftist hypocrisy still shows that when you increase government power, it can allow destructive politicians to be just as effective and powerful as beneficial leaders. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2016 (EST)

A world without hope

That's the world Michelle lives in: "Anti-Science Michelle Obama: This Is 'What Not Having Hope Feels Like'." This is both narcissistic and a confession that the Obama presidency was a failure. As Obama's legacy is written in blood in Aleppo, it's getting harder to claim it was success. Michelle hates Hillary, so this is strictly about herself. The first time she felt proud of America was when Barack clinched the Democratic nomination in 2008. That is to say, when he shlonged that non-transformative whitey Hillary. PeterKa (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2016 (EST)

Ambassador to Israel

Another great pick by Trump. One of the most pro-Israel people in this country [35][36]. Earlier in this election, there were fears that Trump leaned towards the Palestinians in the conflict, but once again, his choices show he plans to govern like a conservative. Would McCain or Romney have made such a pick? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2016 (EST)

It's hard for a Republican to pick an ambassador that is even slightly pro-Palestine. For the liberal democrats it's no problem, but honest conservatives it really makes them look terrible. McCain and Romney would have picked a pro-Israeli ambassador, but they would have likely been more "moderate", but still on the Israeli side of the fence. Stirlitz (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2016 (EST)
I'd have preferred to see Steve Bannon in that job. That's one way to get him out of the White House. RobS#NeverHillary 08:23, 18 December 2016 (EST)
I doubt Bannon is anywhere near as influential as he is presented. The éminence grise pulls the strings behind the scenes. To announce with fanfare that so-and-so is your éminence grise suggests that he isn't. It's more likely that Jared Kushner is pulling the strings while Bannon serves as his lightning rod. PeterKa (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2016 (EST)

China steals unmanned U.S. sub

The Chinese military is doing its traditional testing of the incoming U.S. commander in chief. Trump was on the ball and showed that you really can rule the world from a Twitter account. Obama, meanwhile, was woefully outpresidented: "HERE WE GO! Trump Found Out What China Did – Takes Matters Into His OWN Hands!" Trump must be getting his news from Drudge. They give this news a huge red headline. Chinese complained that the U.S. "hyped up" the issue. That sounds like Trump and Drudge put the squeeze on them. Obama certainly didn't interrupt his vacation. Here is a picture of the sub. It's apparently not sophisticated technology. It just measures ocean conditions. PeterKa (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2016 (EST)

What are you saying? I measures ocean temperatures in support of the Chinese global warming hoax? RobS#NeverHillary 08:21, 18 December 2016 (EST)
I mean, they are calling it a "sub" as if it was a high-tech piece of machinery. But it looks more like a canister with a thermometer inside. At any rate, it gives the U.S. Navy a pretext to patrol the area. Shortly after Obama was inaugurated in 2008, there was a series of Chinese attacks on U.S. oceanographic vessels. A trawler tried to steal an array cable from one. They must have concluded that Obama was a wimp. This is presumably more of the same. If Trump wants to say "New sheriff in town," he can send a destroyer passed Mischief Reef, where China is building an island in Philippine waters.[37] It's something Obama never dared to do. PeterKa (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2016 (EST)
What's more likely is we'll re-arm Japan for the first time since 1945, rebuild their navy, and let Japan patrol the straits. The Japanese are our secret weapon we've been sitting on all these years. RobS#NeverHillary 13:37, 18 December 2016 (EST)
The reason that the U.S. has never done anything like that is because Chinese and Korean public opinion are likely respond quite strongly. A China-North Korea-South Korea alliance against Japan is a big fantasy in popular culture. The pundits often tell us how explosive the Taiwan issue is, but that's small beer compared to feeling about Japan. China cynically turns outrage over Taiwan on and off, like "two minutes hate" in 1984. Confrontation with Japan would be harder to control. Ask a Chinese about war and the answer is almost always Japan, not Taiwan. PeterKa (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2016 (EST)
It's a new era now. This isn't just a change of administrations. It's time for Japan to give us a hand dealing with China and North Korea, and help patrol the Indian Ocean and Persisn Gulf. We don't buy Saudi oil, but we spend an awful lot to gaurd oil shipments from the Persian Gulf to Japan. China now likewise has become a beneficiary of our defense spending in the Persisn Gulf. Japan can guard the Spratly's, and give a hand in the Global jihad. They too have had some of their own beheaded by ISIS. RobS#NeverHillary 02:04, 20 December 2016 (EST)
Wow, China has already handed over the drone/glider/Maltese Falcon thingee despite Trump daring them to keep it.[38] Trump really does know how to negotiate. What China cares about these days is business and money -- although that could change if Japanese warships start patrolling the nine-dash area. PeterKa (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2016 (EST)
It's Flynn & Mathis making these decisions. Don't fool yourself thinking that was Trump. RobS#NeverHillary 01:03, 21 December 2016 (EST)
HuffPost says the Chinese privately agreed to return the drone before Trump started tweeting. If that's true, why did the Chinese continue to make belligerent statements about this issue even after Trump tweeted? Losing your cool over some Trump tweets certainly doesn't sound very professional. PeterKa (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2016 (EST)
I think there is a lesson to draw from all this: Unlike Mexico, China has sent us their best people. The dimmer bulbs have stayed in Beijing to run the foreign ministry. PeterKa (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2016 (EST)
What's interesting about this incident is, it was done to see how Trump would react at a time Trump was powerless to do anything. IOW, the Chinese probably do not know what to make of Trump. They probably never studied him c!ose!y (as they would with others) anticipating him being President someday. What they know of Trump they've read in US media, which they are smart enough to know is totally distorted and wrong. RobS#NeverHillary 20:05, 25 December 2016 (EST)

304 electors vote for Trump

Despite the best efforts of the Dems and the media to undermine American democracy, only two Republicans voted against Trump.[39] One voted for Kasich and the other for libertarian quack Ron Paul. (You read that right -- not Rand.) Michael Moore was offering money in public: "Michael Moore Appeals to GOP Electors: Go Rogue and I Will Pay Your State Fine." What do you suppose these people would say in private? PeterKa (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2016 (EST)

They would say in private whatever works. The words mean nothing--only the results. Sometimes they go public with it under that same mentality. Ick! --David B (TALK) 11:13, 20 December 2016 (EST)
I'm just glad the vast majority of Trump electors didn't fall for the Democrats plan (the Trump elector who voted for Kasich and posted an op-ed in the NYT collaborated with Clinton's campaign). But I still have to wonder about why a Republican elector would not vote for Trump, considering he is not less conservative in any way compared to Romney or McCain, and considering he picked a cabinet much more conservative than the other two would ever consider picking? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2016 (EST)
Now why would Republican Electors go along witb Democrat plans? What the Democrats wanted to do is illegal. Oh yea, I forgot, that is a primary difference between Republicans and Democrats. RobS#NeverHillary 00:59, 21 December 2016 (EST)

By the way, would someone please update the electoral map on the 2016 presidential election article to show the faithless electors? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2016 (EST)

Tea Party Crusaders

Every time I check this site from whatever device, cellphone, laptop, desktop, work, public library etc access is denied. Is it for US eyes only? Thanks. PS, Muslism?--AaronC1 (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2016 (EST)

Berlin Attack

The Daily Mail article linked after the line that describes the driver as a Muslim does not mention the race/religion of the attacker. In fact, the article states that the Berlin police admitted the Pakistani asylum-seeker they initially arrested and questioned was not the perpetrator. MatthewT (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2016 (EST)

Here is a source that states that the attacker was an asylum-seeker from Pakistan (even though there are doubts if he is the actual person). Either way, this other article from the leftist The Guardian states that "the similarities are striking" between Nice and Berlin. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2016 (EST)
Looks like Angela Merkel's out of a job. Maybe she can get hired at Carl' Jr. to run a store with all the executive management experience she's got. RobS#NeverHillary 00:56, 21 December 2016 (EST)
It turns out the German authorities were wrong. The likely suspect (and the MSM is still calling the suspect a "suspect" for now) was actually an asylum-seeker from Tunisia, who was supposed to have been deported earlier this year [40]. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2016 (EST)

NeverTrump "conservatives" are liberals

In case nobody's realized it yet, "conservatives" who strongly oppose Trump, like Evan McMullin or Chris Suprun are proving that they are in the wrong party. I have nothing against a conservative who doesn't fully trust Trump and thus won't vote for or fully support him, but will still give him a fair chance (I am close to a few of them, by the way, so I mean it). However, if someone calls themselves a conservative and is now plotting a way to impeach Trump as soon as he takes office, or someone who borrows directly from the Democrat Party's attack book (as McMullin did, shown in the article above) to criticize Trump, is showing that, ideologically speaking, they are more in line with the Dems. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2016 (EST)

Republicans and Democrats ars very different today from what they were 6 weeks ago, and are permanently changed. RobS#NeverHillary 00:54, 21 December 2016 (EST)
I disagree. I do think this election will be remembered as a defining or realigning election, but Republicans and Democrats are still pretty much the same as they were before the election (with the exception of, possibly, infrastructure spending and trade agreements). The parties positions on Obamacare, illegal immigration, school choice, abortion, homosexual "marriage," and defense spending are still the same. The only difference, for now at least, is that Republican leadership is actually more representative of the party base. Trump's movement has rooted out the liberal do-nothing Republicans like McMullin. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2016 (EST)
According to the New York Times, for the first time in the history of either party, the GOP did better among the less affluent than it did among the rich, The Dems, it appears, are now the party of the country club set, and the GOP is the party of common people. RobS#NeverHillary 20:34, 25 December 2016 (EST)
This appears to be the trend throughout much of the world. It is definitely the case in Europe, where the affluent tend to be more pro-EU and the blue-collar workers vote more for right-wing Eurosceptic parties rather than socialists. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2016 (EST)
Seriously, do you think the EU can survive another 30 years? Reports we see in the US do not look very good. RobS#NeverHillary 21:40, 25 December 2016 (EST)
The EU is in serious danger, and right-wing parties that once were considered extreme fringe parties are now mainstream and the largest parties in their countries. They could win in elections in France and the Netherlands and do very well in Germany next year.
However, I still have a feeling that the liberal elite will find some way to overcome this and still manage to create the United States of Europe. Immediately after Brexit, they proposed even further integration. They are ruthless fanatics and will not stop until they have achieved total political unification under their socialist government. Their massive immigration schemes are completely upheaving the traditional demographics of Europe. I don't think the right-wing gains will destroy the EU. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2016 (EST)
A big shift that may be taking place is the right wing populist movements are becoming the parties of women's rights. This appears to be the case in Germany and Sweden, I think. I don't know about France and England or other places. Traditional leftist parties evidently have not responded to the rape crisis. RobS#NeverHillary 22:36, 25 December 2016 (EST)
And a brief observstion: German domestic political trends have for many decades moreless lagged behind America by about 1-3 years. The upcoming German elections appear to be a replay of the US elections, with the establishment candidate and establishment media cock-sure of themse!ves, the name-calling, and a thoroughly fed up electorate tired of political correctness and being ignored. RobS#NeverHillary 03:09, 26 December 2016 (EST)
As for the women's rights, that may be the case as the right-wing populists are the only ones who truly seem to care about this issue, which is oftentimes the fault of refugees. However, the mainstream parties couldn't care less. In their eyes, right-wing populists are the equivalent of Nazis because they oppose the holy and sacred ideas of open borders, unrestricted immigration, and eventual political unification.
As for the German elections, I think you're right. I predict big gains for the AfD in Germany, as well as the National Front in France and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. However, we should remember that the political system in Germany is much different than the United States. First off, the German parliament uses proportional representation. Also, in recent years all throughout Europe, the "center-right" and "center-left" parties (which do have basically the same liberal views) have been forming governing coalitions in order to keep right-wing populists out of the government. Thus, the AfD could become the largest party in Germany, but the "mainstream" parties will still find away to keep them powerless.
However, we'll see what actually happens. I could be wrong (and I hope I am). --1990'sguy (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2016 (EST)
The mainstream German media is being manipulated in virtually the same fashion as we saw in the United States the past 15 monthes, false narratives, attacks, etc. Forget the merits of any issue, this sort of press manipulation outrages people. Why the vendors of such garbage can't see and understand that, I have no idea. RobS#NeverHillary 23:20, 26 December 2016 (EST)

What liberals mean by "consensus"

They mean you're fired if you don't agree: "Congress: Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans." PeterKa (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2016 (EST)

This fact is obvious. If you don't agree with the liberal agenda, you're called "racist," "sexist," "homophobic," "bigoted," etc. Everyone who disagrees is chased away and marginalized, and the remaining people, who all happen to agree with the liberals create a "consensus" among themselves, as if everyone had a say in the first place. This has been going on for a while, unfortunately. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2016 (EST)

Democrats in 2020

The party's in sad shape. The grassroots wants Michelle Obama or "someone entirely new."[41] As far as a candidate a Democrat might actually be able to vote for goes, Biden tops the list. He'll be 78 in 2021. PeterKa (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2016 (EST)

True, I don't see Biden running again at that age, and no other candidate (with the exception of Jim Webb, who probably can never win a Dem primary) can win a presidential election, it seems. However, we should be cautious: many people probably thought the same of the GOP in 2009, but look what happened. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2016 (EST)
Elizabeth Warren. She can recite all the communist mantras and talking points by heart but also, more importantly, appears to want the job of top dog. RobS#NeverHillary 09:12, 24 December 2016 (EST)

General Relativity

Why is Conservapedia against General Relativity? Not only is it said to be one of the best proven theories, but it was also proven by the recent detection of gravitational waves. Besides that, it's necessary for Dr. Russell Humphreys time dilation cosmological model. --Ambassador (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2016 (EST)

Electoral College Map needs to be updated to show faithless electors

Would someone update File:ElectoralCollege2016.jpg to show the faithless electors? Nobody has done that yet. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2016 (EST)

Obama lets the UN kick Israel

The West Bank is Biblical Canaan, and God says it belongs to Israel: "Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance: When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it." (Psalm 105:9-12). The recent UN Security Council resolution condemns Jewish "settlements" in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.[42] Is there any spot of land on Earth that the Jews have a greater claim to? Who is the UN to tell Jews where they can and can't live? I hope all 14 of the ambassadors who voted to condemn Israel are permanently banned from the United States. Let the UN meet in Geneva from now on. PeterKa (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2016 (EST)

Would be fitting if the UN was relocated to Geneva, since Geneva was the birthplace of that puerile, monstrous philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who was pretty much responsible for the French Revolution and Reign of Terror. Personally, I'd want the UN completely dismantled, not just banned from the US. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2016 (EST)
Here is a great tweet: "I hope the UN building is a Trump hotel by 2020."[43] Fourteen of the fifteen Security Council members voted in favor. Only the U.S. abstained. There was sustained applause afterwards. The UN is a Nazi organization these days. PeterKa (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2016 (EST)
Not surprising. It just shows the racism, anti-Semitism, and bigotry at the core of the Democratic party and Obama administration. Where's the mainstream media now on this? The good news is, the public can decypher the truth now by itself and doesn't follow mainstream media lies and brainwashing. RobS#NeverHillary 09:25, 24 December 2016 (EST)
If there is a policy rationale for this move, no one in the Obama regime has articulated it.[44] It is a cathartic "Screw you America, screw you Jews" outburst. It reminds me of Bill Clinton's behavior when he left office in 2001. PeterKa (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2016 (EST)
The cowards who run the Obama administration could not restrain their hate and Muslim agenda forever. On their way out the door, they spit in the eye of 40 years of US policy and Israel. RobS#NeverHillary 02:01, 25 December 2016 (EST)
What would "Mr Smith" do if "Mr Jones" built a greenhouse in his garden. The local council is largely on Smith's side but the most powerful council member sided with Jones and the greenhouse was allowed to stay on the reasoning that Smith was only a tennent on his land. Who's side would you be on? This is moral relatavism, something Conservapedia claims to abhor. One rule for the people you like, another for the people you don not.--AaronC1 (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2016 (EST)
If "Mr. Smith" is the Jewish people, then they own title to the land of Israel; they are not mere tenants. Karajou (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2016 (EST)

Muslim registry

Did Trump actually "call" for a registry or database of Muslims? Or did a reporter put words into his mouth, as they so often do? I'm building an article, Muslim registry, trying to clarify this.

Near as I can determine in a few minutes of googling, a reporter made the suggestion and asked Trump to accept it or reject it. Trump attempted to dodge a yes/no answer, but the reporter took that as Trump didn't reject the idea -- and that turned into Trump supports the idea. Talk about fake news!

It's important because registering all members of a religion is "racist" - more precisely, it is religious bigotry, and smacks of the Nazi anti-Jewish campaigns of the 20th century. So if Trump were actually doing that, many conservatives would join liberals to condemn him.

What he's actually doing is proposing ways to stop terrorists. I'm sure he won't stop the FBI from using the well-known fact that most terrorists are Muslim. But that doesn't mean he'll make the obvious error of assuming that most Muslims are terrorists or that he'll force them to register. --Ed Poor Talk 13:26, 24 December 2016 (EST)

Islam is not (just) a religion. Islam is a political system, like communism or democracy. Under the McCarron Act of 1952, aleins were required to register annually at a local post office, and the dominant ideology of an alein's country of origin was enough for the FBI to keep track of them. RobS#NeverHillary 01:54, 25 December 2016 (EST)
In all fairness, technically if we go by the Talmud, Judaism's not (just) a religion, either, or even an ethnicity for that matter, it's a political system (the Talmud isn't exactly much different from the Quran in what it preaches. Heck, it even has a very similar ruling to Taqqiya, ie, it being okay to lie and cheat to a non-Jew if it advances Judaism.). But yeah, agreed on that front. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2016 (EST)
I fail to see how this is related to developing our Muslim registry article. It also isn't actually true. But if you want to write an article about religiously-sanctioned deception, please go ahead.
  • "Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Jewish tradition teaches that how you deal with your fellows is perhaps the most important aspect of your relation with your Creator. This idea has been expressed both in Jewish teachings as well as in personal example since almost the beginning of time." [45]
You could also write an Essay on moral equivalence between Islam and Judaism (or Arabs and Israel), but be sure to provide references. --Ed Poor Talk 12:50, 25 December 2016 (EST)
Read these if you truly don't believe me, and they have plenty of sources from the Talmud, and most of these are direct quotations:
  • http://rense.com/general92/talmud.htm
  • A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance. - Sanhedrin 59a
  • We beg Thee, O Lord, indict Thy wrath on the nations not believing in Thee, and not calling on Thy name. Let down Thy wrath on them and inflict them with Thy wrath. Drive them away in Thy wrath and crush them into pieces. Take away, O Lord, all bone from them. In a moment indict all disbelievers. Destroy in a moment all foes of Thy nation. Draw out with the root, disperse and ruin unworthy nations. Destroy them! Destroy them immediately, in this very moment! - Zohar, Toldoth Noah 63b
  • When the Messiah comes, every Jew will have 2800 slaves. - Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D
  • When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it. - Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156
  • If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth. - Choschen Hamm 388, 15
  • Happy will be the lost of Israel, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen from amongst the Goyim, of whom the Scriptures say: "Their work is but vanity, it is an illusion at which we must laugh; they will all perish when God visits them in His wrath." At the moment when the Holy One, blessed be He, will exterminate all the Goyim of the world, Israel alone will subsist, even as it is written: The Lord alone will appear great on that day! - Zohar, Vayshlah 177b
  • That the Jewish nation is the only nation selected by God, while all the remaining ones are contemptible and hateful. That all property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general. A Jew may rob a Goy, he may cheat him over a bill, which should not be perceived by him, otherwise the name of God would become dishonoured. - Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat, 348
  • If a goy killed a goy or a Jew he is responsible, but if a Jew killed a goy he is not responsible. - Tosefta, Aboda Zara, VIII, 5
  • Has it not been taught: “With respect to robbery – if one stole or robbed or seized a beautiful woman, or committed similar offences, if these were perpetrated by one Cuthean [non-Jew] against another, what is taken must not be kept, and likewise the theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained?” - Sanhedrin 57a
  • Everyone who sheds the blood of the impious [non-Jews] is as acceptable to God as he who offers a sacrifice to God. - Yalkut 245c
  • Extermination of the Christians is a necessary sacrifice. - Zohar, Shemoth
  • Even the best of the Goyim should be killed. (“Tob shebbe goyyim harog.”) - Soferim 15, rule 10
  • Why then should we not leave female animals alone with female heathens? said Mar 'Ukba b. Hama: Because heathens frequent their neighbours' wives, and should one by chance not find her at home, and find the cattle there, he might use it immorally. You may also say that even if he should find her at home he might use the animal, as a Master has said: Heathens prefer the cattle of Israelites to their own wives, for R. Johanan said: When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her. - Avodah Zarah 22a-b
  • All Israelites will have a part in the future world.... The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to hell. - Zohar, Shemoth, Toldoth Noah, Lekh-Lekha
  • Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night. - Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L
  • Everything a Jew needs for his church ritual no goy is permitted to manufacture, but only a Jew, because this must be manufactured by human beings and the Jew is not permitted to consider the goyim as human beings. - Schulchan Oruch, Orach Chaim 14, 20, 32, 33, 39
  • A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat. - Hadarine, 20, B; Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348
  • A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl. - Gad. Shas. 2:2
  • A male goy after nine years and one day old, and a girl after three years and one day old, are considered filthy. - Pereferkowicz, Talmud t.v., p. 11
  • R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition [intercourse], and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. - Sanhedrin 55b
  • Raba said. It means this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this [three years old], it is as if one puts the finger into the eye; but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as 'a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.'... - Kethuboth 11b
  • It was taught: Rabbi Judah used to say, A man is bound to say the following three blessings daily: "Blessed art thou … who hast not made me a heathen … who hast not made me a woman; and ... who hast not made me a brutish man. Rabbi Ahab Jacob once overheard his son saying “Blessed art thou ... who hast not made me a brutish man,” whereupon he said to him, “And this too!” Said the other, “Then what blessing should I say instead?” He replied ... “who hast not made me a slave.” “And is not that the same as a woman?” – “A slave is more contemptible.” - Menachoth 43b-44a
  • Show no mercy to the Goyim. - Hilkkoth Akum X1
  • A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean. - Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122
  • Source for quotes: http://researchlist.blogspot.com/2011/06/quotes-from-talmud.html
The Talmud also did the unthinkable especially in Abrahamic religions and said that God's basically weak, submissive, and subject to majority vote via a rabbinic council in order to do anything. I'm not kidding, read this:
  • Since God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai we no longer pay attention to heavenly voices. God must submit to the decisions of a majority vote of the rabbis.” —BT Bava Metzia 59b
  • Source: http://talmudical.blogspot.com/
Honestly, I would have preferred it if God reacted like Kefka did when a majority objected to his actions, even if Kefka was a psychopath, since it at least showed he was powerful, at least powerful enough to not be restrained by a majority vote by mortals.
That being said, I'll still choose Judaism over Islam regarding which one should be spared. But I'm doing it through gritted teeth. And even there, the only Jewish people I'd trust are those who adhere strictly to the Torah/Old Testament. And as such, I do think we definitely should mandate that Muslims enter registry. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2016 (EST)
The first quote I checked was incorrect:
  • Sanhedrin 59a does say, recording a conversation between two teachers, that one of them zealously said that a heathen who looks into the Law (the Torah, not the Talmud) should be guilty of death. It goes on to say, however, that the other teacher destroyed his argument, showing instead that a heathen who pries into the Law becomes as a High Priest. So this quote is taken out of context, just like some political candidates take their opponent’s comments out of context for their own ads.

[46]

Let's leave blogs out of this, and not defend ludicrous claims with unverifiable quotes - many of which don't even pertain to the question at hand. On the other hand, if Pokeria wants to write an actual article (or even start with an essay) on various, selected controversial quotes, I'd be happy to suggest a writing assignment for him.


The rationale behind a Muslim registry is that Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and the irreligious don't have a strong present reputation for engaging in terrorism while Islam does (On the other hand, secular leftists have a reputation for being high-handed and trampling over religious liberty and that is why atheists have a hard time being elected in the USA), but I strongly suspect given Trump's track record that this may be merely an initial bargaining position and that Trump probably knows that a Muslim registry is not politically feasible in the United States at this time (In addition, he may be just pacifying members of his political base which are anti-Islamic). After all is said and done, I think a Trump administration will probably monitor Muslim extremists to a higher degree than the Obama administration and will restrict immigration from countries with a track record of Muslim extremism.

Given 9/11, other acts of Islamic terrorism in Europe/USA/Israel/elsewhere, the US staunch support of Israel, the high cost of monitoring the Muslim population, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have significant immigration from Muslim countries. And the fact is, the problem of Islamic terrorism is probably going to get worse. Islamic fundamentalists have a high fertility rate and the Israeli settlements are going to keep expanding. In addition, there may be civil war in France in the not too distant future due to friction between French secularists/Muslims/French nationalists (Even CNBC acknowledges this matter).

Here is what is happening in Britain:

"Evidence gathered by Dame Louise Casey, the government’s community cohesion tsar, will lift the lid on how some Muslims are cut off from the rest of Britain with their own housing estates, schools and television channels.
The report will ‘send shock waves through the system’, a Whitehall source said.
Her report finds that thousands of people from all-Muslim enclaves in northern cities such as Bradford, Dewsbury and Blackburn seldom, if ever, leave their areas and have almost no idea of life outside."[47]

Secular leftists are under the delusion that Muslims will assimilate. The reality is that a great many will not (see: Multiculturism and European desecularization). In addition, secular leftists often hold to multiculturism/postmodernism which indicates that all cultures are equal. The truth is - they are not. The countries that are the freest and the most prosperous have a Protest cultural heritage or significant influence of countries which have had Protestant cultural heritage (see: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Protestant cultural legacies). And with the secular left losing power in terms of the press/publishing, indoctrination by the left is going to be increasingly difficult for them.

The books The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics by Peter L. Berger and The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order are notable books which so far have been very predictive and by all indications will continue to be predictive.

Liberals/secular leftists/academics (with the notable exception of Eric Kaufmann and a few other scholars), are currently in a state of denial - even after Brexit, the rise of European right-wing parties, Donald Trump's election victory and multiple cases of Islamic terrorism. The 21st century will be a century of desecularization (religious fundamentalists will grow in power) and secular leftists will lose power.

Putin (who is a former tool of the secular left and ex-KGB) is now firmly allied with the Russian Orthodox Church and is a Russian nationalist. He appears to have totally outwitted the leftists in the USA and many Democrats are hopping mad about this matter. After years of historical revisionism by the left as far as Communist atrocities and Russian history, the irony of this situation is delicious (see: Atheism and historical revisionism). Conservative (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2016 (EST)

I think there is enough evidence to show the storyline that Putin is ex-KGB is... well... KGB disinformation. And this is not an irrelevent point. In all likelihood, Putin is ex-GRU. KGB was foreign intelligence, GRU is military intelligence. Why is this a relevent point? Like in the US, CIA & KGB have reputations for political meddling and incompetence whereas GRU & DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) have strong reputations for professionalism and accuracy. It is no coincidence that Trump has dismissed reliance on CIA, and has entrusted national security affairs to a former head of DIA, now National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
KGB & the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) did not survive the Soviet Union. Soviet Military Intelligence (now Russian Military Intelligence) did, and moreless today makes up the core of Putin's leadership circle. RobS#NeverHillary 08:11, 26 December 2016 (EST)

Russian plane crash

Obama vowed reprisal for Russian hackers. Some people say the investigation is underway. RobS#NeverHillary 17:27, 25 December 2016 (EST)

Missing quotes

"occupied Palestinian territory" should have quote marks. East Jerusalem wasn't Palestinian before the Israelis arrived. It's just territory the Palestinians would like to have. PeterKa (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2016 (EST)

Which articles do you refer to? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2016 (EST)
"Fellow Democrats issue scathing statements towards Barack Hussein Obama over the US’s abstention from a UN Security Council vote demanding Israel stop building settlements in occupied Palestinian territory." It's now the 15th item, so it hardly matters anymore. PeterKa (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2016 (EST)
Quotes added as suggested. Better late than never!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2016 (EST)

New map image needed

Would someone please create a new version of File:ElectoralCollege2016.jpg that actually shows the faithless electors? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2016 (EST)

California legalizes child prostitution

This is what Democrats do when they have a two-thirds supermajority: "California Democrats legalize child prostitution" PeterKa (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2016 (EST)

Is there ANY way to get rid of the Democrats' stranglehold on California? Pokeria1 (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2016 (EST)
It will be very, very hard at best. If people get very fed up with what's going on in the state (and it seems likely), they will elect a Republican, but even then, it will likely only be a RINO who only is conservative on a few fiscal matters. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2016 (EST)
Maybe some hardline-conservative out of state should head to California and run for Governor there on a platform that makes clear it stands against liberal policies of any kind, and also make sure to get the message out, sort of like how Donald Trump won the election in America, and also make sure to place a lot of people at the ballot boxes with strict orders to see to it if there's any voter fraud being penetrated. California gave us Ronald Reagan, and I'm pretty sure there's still a chance at returning it to the state of Reagan Conservativism at the very least. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2016 (EST)
That would be a good idea, but only if they can advance to the runoff in the first place! (CA has a weird system where everyone runs on the same ballot and the top two winners, regardless of party, go to the runoff) In the 2014 gubernatorial election, Tim Donnelly, a Tea Party conservative was in the race, but he was edged out by Neel Kashkari, a RINO who is a leftist on social issues like abortion and homosexual "marriage." Many establishment Republicans such as Jeb Bush supported Kashkari because they thought he would win easier (he still lost in one of the most lopsided elections in CA history). Also, California's primary can allow two liberal Democrats to advance to the runoff, like it did in the 2016 U.S. Senate election. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2016 (EST)

Decriminalization doesn't make it legal, it lowers the penalty for getting caught. User:pruno

A child can now have three parents (biologically) in Britain

Wow, Britain recently legalized this practice.[48] Not only is this not natural, but an embryo is destroyed in the process. The first three-parent child could be born next year.[49] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2016 (EST)

How Clinton won the popular vote

The Democrats shamelessly added hundreds of thousands of illegals to the rolls in California. Breitbart has the details on how the state's let's-commit-voter-fraud-for-Hillary-law worked: California Licenses 800K Illegal Aliens as Motor Voter Law Looms." PeterKa (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2016 (EST)

I guess we should be thankful that this consciously-created problem exists is only one state (or at least in a state that already strongly leans Dem). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2016 (EST)
But Clinton won the popular vote by over three times that 800,000 voter figure. Even if this is true, it doesn't account for Clinton's victory. MatthewT (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2016 (EST)
One state? Hardly. At least eleven issue non-citizen driver licenses and allow people to register to vote with a driver license. But actually, you don't any ID to register, or vote, in many states. RobS#NeverHillary 19:52, 31 December 2016 (EST)
You're right, I stand corrected. I assumed that CA has the largest problems with illegal immigrants, partially because of its large I.I. population and its leftist politics. Other states such as West Virginia that also issue drivers licenses to illegals are quite different in other respects. Unfortunately voter ID laws are called "racist" and etc. by leftists and the courts they control. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2016 (EST)
Nationally, Trump in 2016 got 3 percent more votes than Romney got in 2012. In California, it was 4.5 million for Trump, 4.8 million for Romney. That's 460,000 missing California Republicans. If there had been a contested race in California, they might have shown up. PeterKa (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2016 (EST)
The Michigan recount revealed 60% of Detroit precincts had more votes than registered voters or inhabitants. No wonder the courts shut it down before it became it became a scandal. RobS#NeverHillary 07:20, 1 January 2017 (EST)

Conservative News and Views ISIS Article

Conservapedia linking to an article accusing the U.S. Government of funding/supporting ISIS as though that's a totally reasonable assertion... MatthewT (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2016 (EST)

ISIS is the only thing preventing Iran from establishing a Mediteranean seaport or marching on Saudi Arabia to retake Mecca from the takfir Saudis. But hey, this was Obama and Hillary's policy after they allowed Iraq and Syria to collapse. What are you complaining about? RobS#NeverHillary 19:27, 31 December 2016 (EST)

Nothing says "Happy New Year" like a Trump-Rooster

In China, 2017 is the year of rooster. So there's a lot to crow about. For example, a giant statue was erected in Shanxi Province that depicts Trump as a zodiac rooster. See "Ginormous Trump Rooster Statue Erected in Taiyuan" and "Giant rooster statue in China looks like Donald Trump." PeterKa (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2016 (EST)

Infowars debunks WaPo's fake news

When liberals can't get enough confrontation with Russia, they make it up: "Washington Post stirs fear after false report of power grid hack by Russia." It's yet another chapter in WaPo`s long and illustrious history of promoting fake news. The paper created the Valerie Plame affair back in 2003 by falsely claiming that Karl Rove leaked her name. The media bayed for the blood of "the leaker," as he came to be called. It turned out the leaker was actually Richard Armitage, Powell's deputy. Powell was a liberal hero, so Armitage got a pass. Plame's name was in Who's Who, so it wasn't much of a secret to begin with. PeterKa (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2017 (EST)

WaPo is little more than a CIA mouthpiece now. As it long has practiced externally, the CIA purchases a newspaper (like La Prensa in Central America) to shape its version of news to convert the masses to its policy perspectives. RobS#NeverHillary 07:14, 1 January 2017 (EST)

The October 1968 surprise revisited

The New York Times still has Nixon to kick around: "Nixon's Vietnam Treachery." This article recycles the old claim that Johnson was on the brink of a Vietnam breakthrough in October 1968, only to see it tragically nipped in the bud by Nixon. How dumb do they think we are? This was the original October surprise, a fake breakthrough designed derail the Nixon campaign immediately before the 1968 election. It had nothing to do with Vietnam and everything to do with getting Humphrey elected. The article does include this disclaimer: "Of course, there’s no guarantee that, absent Nixon, talks would have proceeded, let alone ended the war." No kidding. PeterKa (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2017 (EST)

Moral "high ground"

By believing that their leftist policies are the only acceptable view and calling anybody who disagrees (primarily conservatives and biblical or socially conservative Christians) a bigot or etc., the Dems are destroying themselves.[50] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2017 (EST)

I hope so, but they still have a powerful grip, especially on children and teens. Thankfully, enough people are waking up to this foolishness and pushing back that we're making progress--at least for now. --David B (TALK) 13:40, 3 January 2017 (EST)
Where the Democrats are concerned, their "moral high ground" is non-existent. For what it's worth. they couldn't even care less about morals or morality. Northwest (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2017 (EST)

White House report on Russian hacking debunked

The Joint Analysis Report that Obama used as a basis to sanction Russia and expel diplomats is a bust. So says Ars Technica: "White House fails to make case that Russian hackers tampered with election." Here's is the money quote: "The US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." AT itself has shown that Guccifer 2.0 is almost certainly a Russian speaker.[51] But what about the WikiLeaks revelations that repeatedly snagged headlines during the campaign? U.S. intelligence has no clue as to where that data came from.[52] Some of the most damaging revelations were about how the DNC stacked the deck against Bernie. So the data could easily have come from a Bernie bro and/or DNC insider. PeterKa (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2017 (EST)

Here is the best argument that Russia did not hack the election for Trump: They would be shooting themselves in the foot. Trump's energy policy is Putin's nightmare. He could double U.S. oil production and put Gazprom out of business. See "Our Frackers Beat Their Hackers." PeterKa (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2017 (EST)
What a farce, listening to Democrats express their love and admiration for the CIA. Talk about "fake news". RobS#NeverHillary 19:47, 5 January 2017 (EST)
The Department of Homeland Security has attached an unprecidented "as is" label to this report.[53] In other words, the JAR is being treated the way a store might treat a defective product. Get this: the FBI never examined the DNC's servers. The DNC says that the FBI never requested access. As for the FBI, they claim they, "repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated.” So either the FBI is the electronic Keystone Kops, or the DNC willfully destroyed evidence. The idea that the hacker was an insider looks more plausible all the time. PeterKa (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2017 (EST)
After the WMD fiasco, the disclaimer is the lawyers talking to protect civil servents jobs, a sign really how politicized the US intelligence community has become. Keeping tbeir jobs and benefits is more of a priority than made-to-order intelligence reports Congress or the administration requests. RobS#NeverHillary 09:38, 6 January 2017 (EST)

"Trump tweets his criticism of a self-serving amendment sought by the House"

I don't know much about this "independent ethics panel" but if the Democrats were against the movement, might there be a reason why this should have passed? From my standpoint of very little background information on this, it sounds like Trump helped the democrats. --David B (TALK) 13:34, 3 January 2017 (EST)

You raise a good point. But the House is not conservative, and unfortunately has a pattern of just helping themselves rather than advancing the cause. Trump's primarily criticism was how the House was acting first to help itself, rather than addressing massive problems confronting our Nation first.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2017 (EST)
They were allowing anonymous tipsters to kickoff investigstions. Who in politics doesn't have enemies who like to tie an opponent in knots with bogus allegations? RobS#NeverHillary 09:31, 4 January 2017 (EST)
Okay, you both make a good point. RobS, you're right--that could get very problematic. They probably would have used it against Trump and all other incoming conservatives as much as they could have. Still, it's interesting that the democrats opposed it. Do you suppose they were afraid it would bring out some of their own dirty laundry as well? --David B (TALK) 11:00, 4 January 2017 (EST)
A Congress's first order of business after election of officers is to vote on rules. There probably is a way to get the same 'reform', such that it is, in through an amendment to the rules later burried under a stack of other legis!ation, or under the Committee's own rules, or even as an unwritten policy. The objection here was timing, how this rules change dominated the news cycle and headlines. Republicans still have not mastered the PR game of manipulsting news reporting and headlines the way Clintonites and Democrats have. And the House Ethics Committee's oversite only applies to members of the House, not the Senate which has its own rules, or Trump whose in a separate co-equal branch of government. RobS#NeverHillary 20:01, 5 January 2017 (EST)
Not to drone on, but this is why Comgressional debates on every piece of legislation consist of exhaustive debates over "regular order" or a "motion to attach" an amendment. For instance, McConnell's big objection to Reid was over "regular order" which allows any member to attach amendments to bills. Reid's suspension of "regular order", "suspending the rules", operating under "special rules", in news reports is called "anti-filibuster legislation". Ted Cruz exhaustively explained how he attached an amendment to an immigration bill which contained a "poison pill" nullifying the entire legislation package. Then he can tell voters he both voted for immigration reform and authored legislation to oppose it. Make no mistake, this ethics change to rules will take place, the Democrats are just guilty of a cheapshot to grab headlines, which is the only way they can operate at the moment. RobS#NeverHillary 20:30, 5 January 2017 (EST)

Donald Trump achievements

I created Donald Trump achievements, which lists any successes (or failures) for Trump in bringing positive, conservative change to the U.S. Are there any other examples that can be added so far? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2017 (EST)

Self-introduction: Lord Zedd

Thought it'd only be appropriate to introduced myself. I go by the username Lord Zedd, although that is far from my only alias used online. I'm new to Conservapedia, though I've been an editor for some time on Wikipedia. I'm very interested in the influence of politics on everyday life and look forward to contributing information to this site, and hope to discuss a variety of topics with fellow users in a thoughtful and intellectual manner. Sincerely, Lord Zedd

Good luck. RobS#NeverHillary 22:23, 5 January 2017 (EST)

Mr Obama, tear down this wall!

Obama's DC house is getting a wall. It's a really thick wall too, like he's expecting the Goths to bring battering rams. Check it out: "President Obama Builds a Wall for Rental House." It's in the same neighborhood as the house Ivanka just bought. PeterKa (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2017 (EST)

Interesting how leftists want open national borders (actually, no borders as they want world government) but they try to secure their personal borders. The same hypocrisy is clear in gun control and school choice matters. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2017 (EST)

Would someone PLEASE update this map?

This is probably the 4th time I've asked, I believe. Now that Congress has made the electoral results official,[54] would someone please update File:ElectoralCollege2016.jpg? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2017 (EST)

I replaced it with an updated map. Conservative (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2017 (EST)
Thank you Conservative, but would you please invert the GOP-red, Dem-blue color scheme? I would have uploaded that same map, but to be consistent with previous maps, the colors should be changed. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2017 (EST)
Although I could learn how to implement your request. I don't know how to implement your request. More importantly, the general public generally associates "red states" with Republican states and "blue states" with Democrat states. As a result. I am going to keep it the way it is.
I am not saying this to be difficult, I just think it makes a lot of sense to have the map be instantly interpreted by the largest segment of the American public. Conservative (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2017 (EST)
If no one wants to change the map colors, than I guess it will stay as it is and I'll accept it. However, changing the colors would still be nice, as it would conform the map to other electoral maps (1980, 1984, and Civil War era) that we have. Also, changing the map would show readers even at a first glance that our article is not a copy of the Wikipedia article. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2017 (EST)
It makes sense, but I think that battle has already been lost. No one pushed back hard enough, and now doing this would probably just confuse readers. I'm not against the change, but I don't know if it is worthwhile. --David B (TALK) 09:50, 9 January 2017 (EST)
I guess so. I just wish someone told me that earlier so I didn't have to write 5-or-so different requests about this with no response. I even messaged the editor who originally uploaded the map to update it with the final electoral tally but got no response. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2017 (EST)
Hmm... I should have been more clear with my response. The battle I was referring to was the change of party colors, perpetrated by the media. My intention was to say that I think Republicans have already given in and accepted red, even though it was not their color. Therefore, changing the colors we use back to the original colors would probably just confuse readers. However, your understanding of my response is probably also true. It does seem like no response is considered a "no" here. --David B (TALK) 14:59, 9 January 2017 (EST)

Israel gets back at UN

Israel withdrew its UN dues yesterday.[55] Hopefully the U.S. will do the same soon, and hopefully Trump will move the embassy to Jerusalem as he's promised.

P.S.--Would someone please update the Electoral College map above? The results are completely certified, and it must be updated. I cannot do it myself because I don't know of a free version that follows the GOP-blue and Dem-red color scheme. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2017 (EST)

The rumor is, if the US were to withdraw its funding of the UN, Trump may be interested in the property to convert to a Trump Hotel. RobS#NeverHillary 10:09, 8 January 2017 (EST)
For multiple reasons, a hotel would be a better use than what we have now. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2017 (EST)

Former conservative of the year turns RINO

Until I read the main page In the News items [56], I thought that I was the only one here that noticed—Gov. John Kasich has been doing some strange things.

First he broke his pledge to support the primary winner, then I think I remember that he tried to run against Trump, and then he wouldn't speak at—or even attend—the Republican National Convention in his own state. Also Trump announced during the general election campaign that he was stopping his collaboration with the Ohio Republican Party, which was strange considering the party in Ohio would ordinarily be supposed to have provided much needed help in winning that crucial swing state. And now we learn Gov. Kasich was backing that same Ohio Republican Party in a dispute.

I guess it's official—Gov. John Kasich is not much of a conservative anymore.

VargasMilan (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2017 (EST)

I knew nothing about him when he was nominated, but I was hearing from some people that he was a RINO. I wish they weren't right, but it seems they were. I thought it was just because I was watching him in that light that some of his actions seemed suspicious--perhaps it was more than that after all. Why do so many people put on a conservative face when they are not? It is just that they know it's easier to win that way? --David B (TALK) 02:01, 9 January 2017 (EST)
Kasich is a Soros tool, according to Breitbart.[57] It's the same deal as with Jon Huntsman, who ran for president as an Obama toady in 2012. Both men had been conservative governors. But on the presidential campaign trail they played the liberal, especially in debates. PeterKa (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2017 (EST)
You have to keep these news reports in perspective. $200,000 out of $2,500,000+ is not much if you have about the same amount spent on your behalf by the political action committees.
That is unless those political action committees are also pro-amnesty. Sen. Joni Ernst launched her Senate bid with $5 million in contributions and $5 million in PAC support. It was the pro-amnesty United States Chamber of Commerce, who have a name like they are part of the U.S. Government but are actually a private association, who spent $3,000,000 in independent, non-coordinated support of her campaign. When Sen. Ernst runs for a second term will that $3 million be there again? You can't say that's not what's going through her mind.
What is the connection between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with the conservative-sounding name, and the left-wing icon George Soros? Global elitism. In the end Sen. Ernst supported Sen. Marco Rubio for President, who earlier tried to sneak in amnesty legislation under cover of a bi-partisan compromise committee known as the Gang-of-Eight. VargasMilan (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2017 (EST)
VargasMilan, you were not the only one who noticed Kasich's RINO actions. I have opposed and disliked him since 2014, when I heard he supported Matt Borges (who worked for a homosexual group) over a Tea Party candidate for the Ohio GOP chairmanship. My opposition for him grew in 2015 and 2016 during the GOP primary when he made statements that we should "move on" on issues such as homosexual "marriage" (a terrible, weak, and defeatist strategy that only opens the door for retreating on other important issues in the present and future). He sounded like a RINO this whole time, and if he is ever elected president, I think we would advance the leftist agenda more than conservative, Christian values. I'm glad he didn't win the primary or general election. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2017 (EST)
Kasich voted for McCain as president.[58] To vote for someone no else in the country is voting for misses the point of democracy. Why not write himself in? His candidacy kept the anti-Trump vote from uniting behind Cruz. So it seemed like he wanted to be Trump's running mate. But then he turned down Trump's offer. Perhaps he was hoping for an ambassadorship in the Hillary administration. Huntsman was Obama's ambassador to China. PeterKa (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2017 (EST)
In the case of a donor like Soros, you can't just look at the maximum amount Soros and his immediate family give to a candidate and is public under FEC reporting. Soros is essentially a hedge fund manager of t h e r i c h e s t p e o p l e in the world. When he chooses to latch onto a candidate, there comes millions in donations from other sources without his name on it. RobS#NeverHillary 09:55, 10 January 2017 (EST)

<slow hand clap>You'll need folks like Kasich and McCain to rebuild the GOP brand after the Trump presidency ends in ignominy. Trump has essentially promised the white working class he can turn back the economic tide of globalisation. Good luck with that, like. He might make US heavy industry temporarily "profitable" again with protectionist tariffs and copious amounts of pork, but only at the cost of wrecking the economy in the long term.

I'm still amazed your blind hatred of Hillary allowed you all to vote for such an obviously non-conservative, non-Christian con man.</slow hand clap> JohnZ (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2017 (EST)

Firstly, it far more than blind hatred for Clinton--if you don't believe what is written here about her, check the references. Secondly, he may not be the best, but he is already making good progress (for example, he's not even president yet and he already has China--one of the strongest enemies of the U.S.--scared), and even if he were a banana-obsessed monkey, progress will still be made through his carefully planned out appointments for government positions. He wasn't my first choice, and I'm sure he has and will make mistakes, but when you compare him to Hillary he is the obvious choice. Don't be fooled by her warm words and friendly demeanor--she is thoroughly corrupt and has already harmed this nation. --David B (TALK) 18:22, 9 January 2017 (EST)
John Z, DavidB4 is right. Clinton's political views and her ethics are clear reasons why nobody should vote for her, much less elect her. And yes, Trump has already made much progress already, at least for a president-elect. I created the article Donald Trump achievements, which already has several achievements.
Additionally, who says that Trump will be a failure? He hasn't even been sworn in as president. He could very likely (and I am inclined to believe it) be one of the most successful presidents in U.S. history.
One more thing: McCain and Kasich cannot do any good to the party. They are RINOs, and if they become the leaders of the party, they will concede a lot to the leftists who have already made big gains in several areas, including the courts and the culture (remember, Kasich says we should "move on" on homosexual "marriage", and I don't see why he wouldn't say the same thing on other very important issues). If Kasich and McCain are able to "rebuild" the GOP (size-wise) and have it abandon its conservative views (which many party-politicians already reject, at least in part), it will actually be a ruination of the party and its support for conservative (aka. common sense) principles. Trump is obviously not perfect (no one is), but I trust him much more than Kasich to enact real conservative change. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2017 (EST)
I give him a couple of years. Hubris and greed will likely prevent him from properly disclosing / divesting his business holdings, and that leaves him a sitting duck for impeachment proceedings once his approval ratings start to slide. I look forward to hearing plenty from you all in the not-too-distant future about Pence, the real conservative who'll make America great again ... once you've gotten rid of that corrupt, lying RINO, Trump. JohnZ (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2017 (EST)
If you believe what the talking heads at CNN and MSNBC tell you, that is - which I don't. On the other hand, Obama, Hillary and every other Democrat now in public service, as well as the liberal media, have shown themselves over time as the corrupt and lying ones. Northwest (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2017 (EST)
@JohnZ, by the time what you say comes to pass, Kasich and McCain will be long gone (interesting how McCain has gone from being liberal darling to Hitler's ghost to liberal darling again). As the recent debt-ceiling debate shows, a revitalized GOP would be led by Gen X'ers and Millenials more of the libertarian stripe. But I don't see traditional Democratic Midwest rust belt blue collar working class/deplorable racists returning to the Democratic fold anytime soon. RobS#NeverHillary 10:08, 10 January 2017 (EST)
They don't have to return to the fold. Staying sullenly at home on election day because of Trump's failure to revive their rust belt towns would be more than sufficient.
So I suppose the question is this: just how much pork is a conservative such as yourself prepared to see doled out to keep the rust belt believing in the Donald? How much more are you prepared to pay, say, for your electronic goods and clothing if Trump starts a Buy American, tariff-led trade war?
Awkward economic realities such as these are one of the primary reasons why long-serving populists are nearly always authoritarians. <cough>Putin.</cough> They make a whole heap of promises they can't possibly keep, and decide against ever risking another fair fight at the ballot box.
Populists forced to play by the electoral rules rarely manage to fool the people twice. JohnZ (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Right to work legislation in 27 states now keeps the unions in check, who caused the stagflation, income disparities, and overseas job flight in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. So it's a different set of rules now. If unions return to the 'screw-your-fellow-countymen' mentality I witnessed and experience first hand growing up and had to contend with as a young working age adult, I'll be first in line to revitalize the free trade movement. RobS#NeverHillary 17:49, 10 January 2017 (EST)
In 1979 I was working 60 hrs/wk at slightly above the minimum wage contending with 18% inflation & a 140% increase in gasoline prices. I showed up at the public library on my day off only to find the workers on strike for more of my money cause I wasn't working hard enough to pay them. I decided right there and then something had to be done about this disconnect between unionized labor, public employees, and the rest of us deplorable common scum. RobS#NeverHillary 18:11, 10 January 2017 (EST)
I personally know people, family, and friends who were involved in the 1983 Homel strike or the 1954-60 Kohler strike, and numerous other strikes throughout the the rust belt. The uniform consensus among participants and their descendants is that the unions themselves were responsible for the de-industrialization of America. A suicide of sorts among whole communities, for following the commie-rot of the Democratic party. Michael Moore, a fellow Midwesterner with his fingers on the pulse and ear close to the ground of the rust belt may be the sole exception (largely due to his seeking economic refugee status in Hollywood). RobS#NeverHillary 19:00, 10 January 2017 (EST)

Tariffs

Sorry - couldn't resist. Seriously, though, how much pork will you happily watch Trump dole out? There's a lot of folks who are / were employed in heavy industry and manufacturing who (quite understandably) took home the message that Trump has promised to save / restore their jobs.
You know as well as me that US will never be able to compete on unit labour costs with the likes of China and Mexico. So it's either: a) massive subsidies; b) ruinous tariffs; or c) a crucial chunk of the electorate left horribly disillusioned with Trump and the GOP. Take your pick. JohnZ (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2017 (EST)
So in other words, you're essentially accusing Trump and his incoming administration (which haven't even been inaugurated yet) of what the Democrats (particularly Obama and Hillary) have been guilty of doing themselves? That's not only jumping the gun, but hypocritical. Northwest (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Wut? Go lie down and remember to breathe. I worry you might not be steady on your feet at the moment. JohnZ (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2017 (EST)
So that's your response to the truth, huh? A classic case of Alinskyism from a liberal. Northwest (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Truth is an ambitious claim for something I'm struggling to even parse. Nowt wrong with ambition, though. Try again when suitably calm and sober? JohnZ (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2017 (EST)
Which sounds a lot like what really applies in your case (sobering up and calming down, which liberals like you need to do a lot more of). As for truth, that's something liberals like you have shown you care less than nothing about (while proving our articles about your type right every single time). Northwest (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2017 (EST)
Seriously: try again. Read what I've written carefully and set your thoughts out clearly. Last chance. JohnZ (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2017 (EST)
Take your own advice. Northwest (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2017 (EST)
Trump hi-jacked not only the GOP, but the Third Industrial Revolution as well. In 1981, libs said Reagan's attempt to revitalized the economy couldn't happen as well; of coarse no one foresaw the birth of new industries in CDs, VCRs, cell phones, personal computers, DVDs, flat screens, microchips, etc etc etc. And what manufacturing jobs American companies created they shipped to Mexico and overseas because of a high corporate tax rate, high labor costs, and free trade agreements.
Free trade agreements have served their purpose, to give the Third World a hand up and make them less vulnerable to communist agitprop. The pendelum is now swinging back toward equilibrium. RobS#NeverHillary 19:52, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Tariffs it is, then. Bound to end well. JohnZ (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2017 (EST)
Free trade was a reaction against the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which was blamed for the Depression. See "Did the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Cause the Great Depression?" Milton Friedman later showed the Depression caused primarily by the Federal Reserve's currency manipulation. (The Fed was paranoid about hyperinflation, which had hit Germany and France earlier.) But Smoot-Hawley certainly didn't help. As late as the 1980s, every economic event was immediately compared to the Depression. So this issue was on people's minds for a very long time. PeterKa (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2017 (EST)
There's a differnce between tariffs and a tariff war, a relatively stable environment where trading partners each have their own protected industries (not unlike existing 'free trade' agreements), and quid pro quos where nations needlessly react and reciprocrate, often to their own detriment, to exclusions of their principal exports. The US has primarily only two major exports: high dollar defense weapons and aircraft (with governments being the biggest customers), and agricultural foodstuffs. Foreign defense customers can't really blackmail the US in what is already a highly regulated export industry, and customers in need of foodstuffs aren't going to starve their populations further by refusing to buy cheap US food exports.
Even for what Trump is talking about reviving US manufacturing, like cars and clothing, the US still will be dependent on imports for years to come. Trump just wants a portion of our own domestic market back. RobS#NeverHillary 10:11, 11 January 2017 (EST)
Perhaps. But there's plenty of Trump voters in, say, the old coal and steel towns who took something altogether different from his impressively non-specific campaign bluster. They're the folks you need to worry about staying at home in 2020, and possibly even as early as the mid-terms. They think he's going to save / restore their jobs, and they're likely to be awfully angry when they find out otherwise. JohnZ (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2017 (EST)
The US is the worlds biggest producer of coal and has the most reserves. Chinese demand is insatiable, consuming half of world production. Given that, why does Obama import coal for from Columbia? Trust me, this is high on Trump's ToDo list. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 22:10, 11 January 2017 (EST)
F.Y.I. The US coal industry is screwed. JohnZ (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2017 (EST)
0k, so I had the Chinese production figures wrong, but still has limited domestic supplies in relation to Europe & N. America. These reports say US coal production has slowed due to cost, of which two factors: EPA regulation and wages. Both are controlable. Secondly, the Chinese growth boom in steel (which requires coal) has peaked. That means Chinese demand will shrink, not disappear. Further, as China enters a secondary, more mature level of economic development, demand will shift elsewhere to other less developed markets wanting to follow China's example of growth. Finally, there still is no excuse for the US to import coal; the Columbian imports mean lower cost of electricity production, but not lower rates for consumers. A perfect example of corporate cronyism that results in American job loss. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 20:44, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Stop. Betting on a continuing export boom tanked a lot of mining companies, but even at its peak, >95% of US coal was still burned in the US. It's the effect of shale gas on domestic demand that's really throttling the industry.

Imports represent <1% of annual production, so blocking them would be a token gesture for the most marginal of marginal gains. Even if it plays well on the evening news (or Twitter), it won't fulfil the promises people believe they heard on the campaign trail. JohnZ (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, why is it possible for Germany and Switzerland to have robust economies, a high standard of living and trade surpluses? Why can't the United States do the same?
Isn't one way for the United States to reduce its trade deficit to buy less stuff and invest more? Compared to Europeans and people from other countries, Americans buy a lot of unnecessary stuff. [59]
Isn't the high corporate tax rate a key contributor to American companies operating overseas? Isn't Trump planning on reducing the corporate tax rate? Conservative (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2017 (EST)
I'll concede the point on W. Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Ohio coal miners expectations, but this isn't to say there will be no positive change in coal miners going back to work or, that their expectations are entirely unrealistic. Secondly, job gains in fracking (which I think is what you refer to as shale oil production) is a domestic trade-off: coal miners job loss offset by fracking job creation, neither being a loss to foreign competition. (Translation:"worker re-training" means you gotta tell a 25 year old Kentucky coal miner whose granddaddy worked in the coal mines he has got to move to Oklahoma and get involved in fracking if he wants to keep working. I think coal mining families know this). RobSMake Exxon Great Again
America's long history of trade surpluses is possible because the dollar itself is an export. Other nations only wish their currencies were as highly regarded. PeterKa (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2017 (EST)
The US hasn't had a trade surplus since 1967. Basically, loans from the Marshall Plan had been repaid and the US became dependent on foreign oil imports. Interesting, Wikipedia says of the Marshall Plan,
"The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, make Europe prosperous again, and prevent the spread of communism",
supporting my contention the free trade movement of the 1980s-90s, like NAFTA, was an anti-communist, anti-Soviet measure which has now outlived its original purpose and usefulness. By the 1980s NAFTA was intended to make the US & Mexico competative with the EU, which had already done away with trade barriers; the Soviet Union & Cuba were already fomenting revolution in El Savador & Nicaragua, and Mexico was where everyone's 'eyes on the prize' were. But the Soviet Union collapsed to suddenly while NAFTA's wheels were in motion. As many in the EU also are discovering, viewing free trade as an end in itself and a permanent solution was a mistake. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 10:33, 14 January 2017 (EST)

Given the rapid advancements in robotics being made, the issue of substantial increases in jobs being created through manufacturing increases could become somewhat less of an issue or far less of an issue. See: Robots replacing human factory workers at faster pace and Robotics technology trends. Conservative (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2017 (EST)

Yes and no. The work of 200 in the 1970s can be performed by 20 now - but, depending how much capital investment is made. Here's where tax laws and trade agreements can be manipulated to favor big business over mom n' pop - or vice versa. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 00:52, 15 January 2017 (EST)

Who didn't hack Podesta's account?

As the MSM recycles its old DNC hacking stories, don't forget this one: "Podesta’s Twitter, new email hacked by 4chan users." It wasn't just email and Twitter either. His iTunes account was hacked too: "Redditors claim the hacker changed details in Podesta’s iTunes account, requested to have Mormons visit his house and tracked his location via his phone’s GPS." Just think, if the election had gone the other way, this boob would be steering cybersecurity policy. PeterKa (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2017 (EST)

The great rhino escape

As I understand it, their names were Kasich, McCain, and Susan Collins: "The Great Escape! Rhino Escapes with pals from Zoo past Sleeping Security Guard." PeterKa (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2017 (EST)

uhh, the RINO Susan Collins, respected by Democratic Senators, introduced Jeff Sessions at the hearings. We'll see how many Democratic Senators she picked up at the final tally. In fact, it would be foolhearty for a Democrat to oppose a Trump nominee right now: they have absolutely nothing to gain by doing so, and everything to gain by supporting the President early.RobS#NeverHillary 00:08, 11 January 2017 (EST)
The three may have been Mitt Romney, Colin Powell, and George H. W. Bush. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2017 (EST)

Woe, conservatives are hot!

"The researchers also suggest that voters correctly see candidates who are more good looking as more likely to be conservative," according to "Conservatives really are better looking, research says" in the Washington Post. PeterKa (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2017 (EST)

...Any excuse for why conservatives might be winning other than their political ideals. They're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. --David B (TALK) 10:34, 11 January 2017 (EST)
Another attempt to discredit conservatives and Republican voters as dumb(?): "The researchers found that Republican voters care more about appearance than Democratic voters do, but only if the voters don't have much information about the candidates and have to rely largely on appearance..." --1990'sguy (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2017 (EST)
To be fair, even relying largely on appearance is still better than literally nothing at all. The girls who fell in love with Sartre even when he cruelly tossed them out as garbage after stealing their virginity pretty obviously didn't rely on his physical appearance considering how he was ugly by even his own admission, so there's that to be said. Still, the left-wing media is going to put this up as a reason we Conservatives don't deserve any credit, as usual. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2017 (EST)

1 Samuel 16:7 --DHouser (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Exactly, and we conservatives vote for candidates based on their beliefs rather than their looks. However, I guess it's true that conservatives do look better than liberals. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2017 (EST)
That is entirely the correct response, DHouser. 1990'sguy, that may sometimes be true, but would you say Trump is more "good looking" than Hillery, with her makeup, wig, and million-dollar smile? It does go both ways. --David B (TALK) 14:10, 12 January 2017 (EST)
Watched all 3:46 of this last nite. It's true, Hillary does not appear as attractive in the presence of her husband as without him. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 14:51, 12 January 2017 (EST)
Hillary and Trump were both very well known before the campaign started, so this effect wouldn't apply to them. Rubio was 2016's pretty boy. PeterKa (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2017 (EST)
Personally, I think Trump looks much better than Clinton does. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Global warming

I just completed a major revamp of the global warming article. I'm especially pleased with the sections I wrote on "Sagan and Venus" and "Climategate." The old version emphasized "the pause," focused on the 2008 election, and also included an undetected hoax. (Thanks VargasMilan!) After adjustments to the data made in March 2016, the pause has disappeared from the various temperature records. I got a lot of ideas from Roy Spencer's site. He's a keeper of the satellite data, so it's harder to accuse him of being a fringe figure. PeterKa (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2017 (EST)

In The News typo

In the latest entry, "Donald Trump summed up his press conference..." there seems to be a typo. It says, "...people truly get what's going on." Trumped added: 'CNN is in a total meltdown...'" That doesn't make sense, so I assume spell check, voice recognition, or some other such thing assumed incorrectly that was the meaning. --David B (TALK) 14:07, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Thanks! --David B (TALK) 15:42, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Where climate change goes to die

The climate change billionaires are furiously running ads against Rex Tillerson as secretary of state.[60] What's shocking is that these ads don't mention climate change. It's McCarthyite stuff about Tillerson's relationship with Putin and Russia. Did you know that when he was head of Exxon, Tillerson represented Exxon and not the United States? Everyone still pledges allegiance to the eco-nonsense, but it's clearly dead as far as Washington politics is concerned. The Millennials are perhaps the least liberal generation ever. Not only that, but their brand of liberalism is tied to the current lack of job opportunities. They grew up occupying Wall Street and demanding socialism. Trump will be the back-to-work administration. The Millennials will get jobs, spouses, and their own homes -- and forget about socialism. PeterKa (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2017 (EST)

I just unearthed the revelation Sweden's suicidal immigration policy is designed to reduce Sweden's carbon footprint. Now everything makes sense, why the government made the decision to set the country on an irretrievable path of becoming a Third World country. This is huge. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 00:59, 15 January 2017 (EST)

"Ethics" in the age of Obama

Walter M. Shaub got his position as director of the Office of Government Ethics by donating to Obama.[61] He's also a hyperpartisan with a track record of defending Hillary, that well-known model of ethics. A week ago, who even knew that such an office existed? For the last several days, Shaub has been making headlines lecturing Trump and his cabinet nominees on their various alleged ethical failings. “You don’t hear about ethics when things are going well. You’ve been hearing a lot about ethics lately,” he says. What an attitude, as if he was the high priest of ethics. PeterKa (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2017 (EST)

John Lewis

So why doesn't Atlanta congressman John Lewis think that Trump is a legitimate president? No, he doesn't mention the popular vote issue or any type of fraud. It's the Russkies: "I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton."[62]. Hopefully, this is some sort of DNC talking point that he's regurgitating. If it's what he really thinks, its too moronic for words. Trump has nominated well-known Russia hawks to CIA (Pompeo) and to Defense (Mattis).[63] Even Tillerson denounced the occupation of Crimea at his confirmation hearing. Before the election, nobody expected Trump to win. (OK, I did.) I doubt Putin bets on people he thinks are going to lose. PeterKa (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2017 (EST)

It's their version of birtherism, an effort to delegitimize the president. But I don't recall sitting members of Congress in the GOP involved in the early birther movement, nor organized efforts to disrespect Obama on inauguration day. BLM is tasked with taking over the lead opposition role the Tea Party played, but this is probably a mistake. They need a larger, more diverse group not focused on narrow special interests like BLM. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 08:40, 16 January 2017 (EST)
It's all a smoke screen to divert attention from Trump's policy objectives. Remember when he said he'd build a wall and reform the VA? Democrats mainly responded by saying Trump hadn't given any details (although his website had so many details that I got bored and stopped studying it after 10 or 15 minutes).
The left doesn't want to have a debate about facts and ideas, when it can simply demonize their opponents and shut them up. Their problem now is that Trump won't stop tweeting! --Ed Poor Talk 11:03, 16 January 2017 (EST)
Trump's approval numbers go down every time he has one of these Twitter fights. Reagan had Pat Buchanan handle annoying people like Lewis. I was hoping that would be Bannon's job, but we haven't heard much from him lately. PeterKa (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2017 (EST)
The determination of the lame stream media to milk this issue is having some amusing results: "Reporters Plead with MLK III to Attack Trump; Did Lewis Tweets Shake You 'To Your Core?'." Fortunately, King's son has some dignity: “in the heat of emotion, a lot of things get said on both sides.” PeterKa (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2017 (EST)
Well, with the Clinton's defeat, Barack Obama now has a firmer grip and control of the Democratic party then he ever had. We see this in the appointment of a fellow Muslim, Elison, to run it, the lack of a big tent organization like the Tea Party to oppose Trump, the reliance on BLM to promote a message rejected by America, and John Lewis as the frontman to carry the message. Being relieved of the burdens office, Obama now can focus on one thing he does good: community organizing rable rousing. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 01:50, 17 January 2017 (EST)

Edit request

Would someone please add this to the article Secular Europe under a new header entitled "Growth of Swiss evangelical Protestantism"? The article is protected so I cannot edit it: [[Evangelical Christianity]] has seen large growth in [[Switzerland]] to the point that evangelical churchgoers outnumber mainline churchgoers 2-1.<ref>Kumar, Anugrah (December 5, 2011). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelical-churches-growing-fast-in-switzerland-63962/ Evangelical Churches Growing Fast in Switzerland]. ''The Christian Post''. Retrieved January 17, 2017.</ref> Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2017 (EST)

Another edit request: Would someone add the following info to the "Homosexuality Statistics - Percentage of Individuals Who Are Homosexuals" in the article Homosexuality:

Despite the fact that only 4.1% of the U.S. population identified as [[LGBT]],just over half a percentage point higher than four years prior,<ref>Gates, Gary J. (January 11, 2017). [http://www.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx?utm_source=Daily+Briefing&utm_campaign=e78663af9e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_01_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ed3d9d5277-e78663af9e-273636929&mc_cid=e78663af9e&mc_eid=6492c3988e&utm_source=Cultural+Commentary&utm_campaign=36e55c71c7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_11_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_51f776a552-36e55c71c7-273780261&mc_cid=36e55c71c7&mc_eid=067f1df51b In US, More Adults Identifying as LGBT]. ''Gallup''. Retrieved January 18, 2017.</ref> Americans greatly overestimate the proportion of homosexuals in the nation to be an average of 23%.<ref name="GreatlyOver">Newport, Frank (May 21, 2015). [http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx?utm_source=Cultural+Commentary&utm_campaign=36e55c71c7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_11_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_51f776a552-36e55c71c7-273780261&mc_cid=36e55c71c7&mc_eid=067f1df51b Americans Greatly Overestimate Percent Gay, Lesbian in U.S.] ''Gallup''. Retrieved January 18, 2017.</ref> Interestingly, Republicans and conservatives gave estimates closest to the actual number.<ref name="GreatlyOver"/>

The "scandal free" administration

Jarrett and Obama are anxious to tell us how proud they are that, "this administration hasn’t had a scandal.” In a sense it is true. The Justice Department has never investigated any member of the administration. Ever. Truly amazing compared to any previous administration. But surely this is a measure of how corrupt and partisan the Obama DOJ is rather than something to boast about. After Lois Lerner took the fifth before Congress, she certainly should have been investigated. How is it OK to the blame the attack on the Benghazi mission solely on an innocent video maker and an imaginary "protest" -- not on the terrorists themselves and not on security lapses that allowed them to open the unlocked gate and stroll right in? Breitbart counts them down: "18 Major Scandals in Obama’s ‘Scandal-Free’ Presidency." PeterKa (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2017 (EST)

This is the 11th president I've seen in my lifetime, and the first who tried to brag and bolster a legacy of accomplishment, even before he was booted out the door. What's wrong with this picture? The closest the Reagan's did to shape Reagan's legacy was when Nancy Reagan, on the plane home the day they left office, was deny the claim Reagan slept thru cabinet meetings. Neither refuted the fake news reporting for eight years, and when they did it was Nancy who did it. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 07:46, 18 January 2017 (EST)

Olé! Olé! Olé! Atheist style!

Sigh, Ok, I'll bite. It is a great travesty that the "the MSM isn't fully covering" such an important news story featuring random Youtube videos from 2010, no wonder that have such a bad reputation. I thought Conservapedia was against fake news, but I guess "Not even" fake news is fair game. Feeling better now?--AaronC1 (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2017 (EST)

The mocking of the godless commies was done on Wednesday, January 18, 2017 which is today. And unlike SNL which is vastly overrated and not funny (as per Donald Trump), the blog post was funny. Only a thin-skinned atheist who has a penchant for calling non-random things random would disagree!!!! Conservative (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2017 (EST)

One of the YouTube comments described the North Korean music as being produced by a "souless puppet".

It is widely recognized that atheists have more frequent issues when it comes to emotional intelligence (See: Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts and Atheism and suicide and Atheism and romance and Atheism and love and Atheism and inspiration). And even the food of many atheistic nations is often bland (see: Essay: Atheism, food science and bland food).

When I listen to latinos producing Spanish music and then listen to North Koreans try to produce the kind of music, the North Korean versions of the music does seem more bland and robotic.

Please see for yourself and I will let you be the judge:

This is yet another example of atheism producing inferior cultural achievements (see: Atheism and culture).

AaronC1, I hope this clarifies matters for you. Conservative (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2017 (EST)

The videos you posted (all you posted) in your (not even fake) news story are dated Feb 28 2009, Dec 2 2010, May 3 2011, April 15 2012 and Nov 28 2015. The most recent being 14 months old and the oldest at nearly 8 years, case closed.--AaronC1 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2017 (EST)
I realize that SJWs/secular leftists always double down. Nevertheless, the blog post cited was published January 18, 2017 and it was a compendium of relevant videos.
By the way, have secular leftists formulated a plan yet to stop the shrinking in their global market share? See: Global atheism.
"The trends that are happening worldwide inevitably in an age of globalization are going to affect us." - Professor Eric Kaufmann, Shall the religious inherit the earth? Conservative (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2017 (EST)

About 4 years ahead of schedule?

Please read: American culture war, demographics and expected tipping point after 2020

With a Trump/Pence presidency, we might be about 4 years ahead of schedule!

One again, Professor Eric Kaufmann offered the public his brilliant analysis.

Of course, given that Kaufmann is an agnostic, and not a right-wing Bible believer, we shouldn't expect pinpoint accuracy in terms of his predictions. :) So if Trump/Pence cause his prediction to happen earlier, we should cut him some slack. :)Conservative (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2017 (EST)

Word is they're gonna take Trump out with a drone strike during the swearing in. Pence wil get nailed, too. So will a bunch of members of Congress, which will slow down cabinet confirmations. That's why 68 Dems are staying away, cause with all the vacant seats there will be a new Congress. Matthis, a loyal NATO man, is the only one confirmed so far. The Russians will be blamed for it, but former CIA boss Papa Bush, who's hiding out in an Austin hospital with Babs Bush right now, is President Emeritus of US globalists and behind it. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 21:16, 19 January 2017 (EST)
So Rob, if I wake up in my Tasmanian bed tomorrow morning to find that your latest theory is, um, apeshit, who do I blame? AlanE (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2017 (EST)
If Rob has it right, Ryan will be president. It's goes president, vice president, speaker of the house. So he's third in line. Mattis hasn't been confirmed yet. The senate approved his waiver 60-13 so he can be considered.[64] The waiver issue is the only objection to his nomination that I'm aware of, so I assume he will be confirmed. PeterKa (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2017 (EST)
That's not what I asked. In Rob's fantasy world, who do I blame? AlanE (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2017 (EST)
If Ryan gets taken out in the drone strike, succession passes back to the cabinet. Then we have a constitutional problem: while the constitution provides for senate & executive vacancies, it does not provide for vacancies in the House. What happens if enough House members are, euphemistically, 'incapacitated' in the drone strike that a quorem can't be met? Compounded by the likelihood Putin gets blamed for the attack rather than ISIS, and a new president calls for immediate Congressional action on a war with Russia. Meantime Obamacare, Nafta, 35% corporate tax rate, and illegal aliens voting in special elections are safe. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 23:38, 19 January 2017 (EST)
In a dark way, it does make some sense. However, I'm pretty sure that not even Obama would go that far, and that his underlings would even let him. Feel free to say "I told you so" if there is a rouge drone strike tomorrow, but that seems rather unlikely. --David B (TALK) 23:43, 19 January 2017 (EST)
A "rouge" drone would have Hillary's lips all over it. AlanE (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2017 (EST)
It's Papa Bush. He's "enjoying the festivities" from a Texas hospital bed. Barbara Bush is with him to avoid immediate reprisal against his family. He has plausible deniabilty and a doctors note. Jeb Bush is the point man on the ground. Allegations Papa Bush was involved in whacking JFK, the last president the CIA-Deep State removed, need further looking into if they pull this one off. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 07:38, 20 January 2017 (EST)
Well, no drone has caused any damage yet (even though leftist protestors have), but AlanE, was it really necessary to say "ape****" above in a family-friendly encyclopedia? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2017 (EST)
Thank God we exposed it and disrupted their operational plans. But this doesn't mean the coup plotters will quit. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 08:38, 21 January 2017 (EST)

Lying media exposed: Trump's approval number at 52%

His approval number is unchanged since Thanksgiving, according to Rasmussen: 52% View Trump Favorably. PeterKa (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2017 (EST)

Hottest year ever

The media is proclaiming 2016 the "hottest year ever." 2016 is supposedly 0.01 degree Celsius warmer that 2015. They haven't had time to compiled all the data for 2016 -- at least not completely enough to be able to say that 0.01 degree is statistically significant. The 1930s were almost certainly warmer, but the Obama regime has adjusted those years downward for political reasons. In any case, there was an El Nino event in 2015-2016, so the unusual weather lately has nothing to do with AGW. The El Nino ended in June and there has been a dramatic cooling since then.[65] PeterKa (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2017 (EST)

New Day. New Hero: 45 MAGA

Put this image on top of the homepage: http://cdn3.thr.com/sites/default/files/2017/01/45_03.jpgEMBED.jpg. PeterKa (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2017 (EST)

You had to do it, didn't you? Always need to be the first at doing everything. Now if we get a 48th president who's even more dynamic than Trump, no one will get to see that clever joke because it will have already been played. And that future president will have to wring his or her hands and cry out in anguish when they suddenly discover they didn't get to compare themselves to Jack Bauer—even after they tried extra hard to win the 48th presidency, in part, for that very reason. Way to go. VargasMilan (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2017 (EST)

Woman who harassed Trump supporter removed from plane by police

(Two vidoes). Typical of the intimidation and bullying of the Obama era. Newsflash: It's over! RobSMake Exxon Great Again 22:01, 22 January 2017 (EST)