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. Please place new items at the bottom of the page.

Archive Index

Contents

Coulter alert

"NO! NO! NO! Barrett says she'll recuse herself in any case where the Pope has a specific view, like the death penalty. No."

I am reluctant to approve of Coulter's objections. Ruth Bader Ginsberg has a female identity and by every right should be replaced by someone sharing that female identity. Some liberal women are so superior through their enlightened emotional, intellectual and ethical—nay, if they don't transcend ethics altogether, progress to the rest of the American public, it would be laughable to think they could be fairly represented by a mere man:

Men, now would be a good time to not minimize the sadness of the women in your lives and just know that she meant more to them than you could possibly understand.—Erin GrudgePAC Ryan

But I know how enraged RobS would be if I supported a liberal-pope-approval-seeking judicial candidate. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 12:05, 19 September 2020 (EDT)

See this exposes the fault of Roman church teaching and law; the Pope, who speaks for God (irregardless if he's an avowed Holy Spirit blasphemer and Satanist which God himself is powerless to revoke the auhority he handed to Peter, per Dataclarifier), represents a political institution (despite the fact Jesus said my kingom is not of this world) and creates a conflict of interest for a Roman Catholic judge. It would simply be easier to recognize the authority of the Bible, which creates deniability for political interests, and toss out this pretensious "Vicar of Christ" stuff. RobSFree Kyle! 13:06, 19 September 2020 (EDT)
I have to admit I envy the rhetorical momentum you generate when you portray the dynamics of the unlimited powers of the papal office. But if you reformulated those abilities in a way that were more precise to reality, I think your descriptions could actually have an even greater impact.
What is anathema, "a formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine" and does it apply to the Pope? The Athenians called the founder of a great many of their founding customs "Theseus". That alone should tell us, together with "ana-" meaning "not", that "anathema" means something like "unconstitutional".
At the first council of Ephesus it was decreed:
It was unlawful to utter, write or draw up any other creed, than that which was defined by the Fathers assembled at Nicaea together with the Holy Ghost.
—under pain of anathema. This was repeated in the acts of the council of Chalcedon.
"Read my lips...no new articles of faith."
A second consideration. Alexander Hamilton:
In disquisitions of every kind, there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasonings must depend. These contain an internal evidence which, antecedent to all reflection or combination, commands the assent of the mind... Of this nature are the maxims in geometry, that "the whole is greater than its part; things equal to the same are equal to one another; two straight lines cannot enclose a space; and all right angles are equal to each other." Of the same nature are these other maxims in ethics and politics, that there cannot be an effect without a cause; that the means ought to be proportioned to the end; that every power ought to be commensurate with its object; that there ought to be no limitation of a power destined to effect a purpose which is itself incapable of limitation.—Federalist, no. 31, January 1, 1788.
VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 14:57, 2 October 2020 (EDT)

Why did FOX censor Gingrich?

Simple. Because Melissa Francis hates DeBlasio and Cuomo so much, holding them responsible for killing the elderly through their Wuhan virus policies in New York, she renounced conservatism altogether, having been wavering before, and dismissed the suggestion of prosecutorial misconduct by means of intruding political agents so nothing would stand between her and bringing the two to justice. She has often asked them to resign on her popular Twitter page. It was a knee-jerk reaction, and Harris Faulker simply didn't know what to say to that.

That's why she is no longer among the Top conservatives on Twitter. She renounced being a conservative on her Twitter page.

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 12:19, 19 September 2020 (EDT)

Geez I figured Soros had ongoing defamation lawsuits against Fox and Fox was just scared of adding further fuel to ongoing litigation. RobSFree Kyle! 13:38, 19 September 2020 (EDT)

"President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate"

Read the dogwhistle in McConnell's language. A SCOTUS pick is not even an election year issue. "Trump's pick" will get a vote before January 20, 2021. Lindsey needs to get the hearings cranked up before RBG corpse gets cold. Another Kavanaugh smear-type riot will save the Trump campaign's advertising budget millions. RobSFree Kyle! 16:05, 19 September 2020 (EDT)

The new Congress is sworn in on January 3. I assume a vote will be held before then. Susan Collins says that the vote has to be after the election.[1] Collins wanted a vote on Garland in 2016. So how a can she oppose a vote this time around? It's all about maintaining her position in the middle of the Senate political spectrum. PeterKa (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2020 (EDT)
January is tentative; by Nov. 4 we should have some idea if the final deadline in Jan. 3 or Jan. 20. Democrats will try every delay, holding "extended hearings" with bogus charges, asking for a week long FBI investigation, etc etc. We've seen it all before now at least twice. RobSFree Kyle! 14:58, 20 September 2020 (EDT)

Let the rape accusations begin!

This prophetic article was written a year ago, and I still haven't stopped laughing: "OPED: I was raped by whoever Trump picks to replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court." Don't say she is lying until you have looked into those doe eyes of hers. PeterKa (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2020 (EDT)

Dems talk gangster: "everything is on table"

The Democrats thought a Senate confirmation vote was vital during 2016 campaign. But to do one now would be such a norm-busting event that the logical recourse would be to increase the number of justices and pack the courts whenever the Dems finally get back into power. See "'Nothing is off the table': Supreme Court fight could reshape the Senate" This is so hypocritical in so many ways. There are certainly arguments for enlarging the court. But to do it this way would make it a partisan tool, an American politburo. No one who actually believed in constitutionalism would threaten to override the constitution in this way. To bow to this kind of threat would ensure that the Dems will make it again and again. Besides, a conservative court would mostly be about returning control of abortion, guns, marriage, voting rights, and other matters to the various states. All of this is supported by public opinion. The Dem's antics over Kavanaugh cost them the Senate in 2018. I suspect that doubling down on this approach won't work.

Chief Justice Roberts likes to vote with the majority because he gets to write the opinion whenever he does. So another conservative on the court could flip a whole category of decisions from 5-4 liberal to 6-3 conservative. PeterKa (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2020 (EDT)

Back in 2016 Conservapdia among many others urged and supported the delay for filling the vacancy. 4 years on the same people are saying that it would a travesty if the nomination is delayed. This represents a double standard. As double standards are firmly in the the realm of liberalism is makes be question whether Conserapedia and Mr Schlafly are in fact liberal. It is also hypocritical to say the least, see my point above about double standards.--Rennais (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2020 (EDT)
To address your point, unlike with 2016, Trump is literally running for reelection (Obama was a Lame Duck president at the time). Your point would have been more sound if this were the 2024 elections. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2020 (EDT)
In 2010 the American people gave the Republican party authority to confirm presidential appointments, irrespective of party. They've held that authority continuously for a decade through 5 election cycles. There is no double standard here. RobSFree Kyle! 14:54, 20 September 2020 (EDT)
The GOP Senate's biggest failure was confirming James Comey; so there is plenty of probable cause to suspect anything coming from Democrats as partisan and lawless. RobSFree Kyle! 15:05, 20 September 2020 (EDT)
In fact I would venture to say, GOP members of the Senate knew of directly (McCain) or suspected (Grassley, Burr, McConnell, Graham) Obama's FISA abuse and Obama's misuse of the FBI & CIA (an impeachable offense, per the Nixon precedent) to meddle in the 2016 election. Given Obama's lawless agenda, GOP Senators did the right thing. Obama and the Democrats destroyed any notion of good faith, which was readily apparent by the Summer of 2016. The Democrats collusion with lawless elements to disrupt the orderly process of democracy and Congressional hearings in the Kavanaugh smear, the continuing War on Cops, and Democrat donor-sponsored lawlessness and riots only confirm these suspicions. RobSFree Kyle! 15:59, 20 September 2020 (EDT)

The Senate majority can hold a vote on confirmation or not as it sees fit. Neither approach is logically a reason to pack the court for the purpose of overturning constitutional government. A Senate vote would not have changed the outcome for Garland. Garland wasn't confirmed because he did not have the support of the majority of the Senate. There is a long list of other Supreme Court nominees who were rejected for the same reason. Here is a published article that makes the same points: "There Is No Reason Why Republicans Shouldn’t Fill the SCOTUS Vacancy."

Is concern about covid a form of xenophobia? Do we need police? Are anti-police rioters heroes? The Democratic position on each of these issues has been a roller coaster ride in just the last couple of months. But the liberal idea of a great scandal is that McConnell said something different four years ago than what he has said recently. PeterKa (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2020 (EDT)

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Garland recently voted to continue the unjust persecution of Gen. Flynn. It was the right move to keep that partisan criminal piece of garbage off the high court. RobSFree Kyle! 16:19, 20 September 2020 (EDT)
Now, one can argue the GOP should have gone forward with Garland hearings and forced Senators to go on record voting down an Obama appointee - but that misses the point entirely that McConnell and Judiciary Chairman Grassley made at the time - that Obama's lawless agenda by appointing criminal thugs (witness Comey's hijacking the DOJ to clear Clinton) needed to stop. Obama destroyed any notion of good faith in the Democrat's constant overreaching lust for more power. RobSFree Kyle! 16:30, 20 September 2020 (EDT)
Here is a video of Biden annunciating the Biden "rule" in 1992. McConnell cited this rule as a justification for not holding a vote on Garland. After watching the video, I would say that the Biden rule was created for another era, a time when the Senate was full of comity that occasionally broke down during the heat of a presidential campaign. Biden denies that he is waiting for the inauguration of a Democratic president. The logical conclusion is that the transition is the right time for a confirmation vote. The idea that partisonship will decline during the transition strikes me as quite dated at this point.
"The president is elected for four years, not three years. So the powers that he has in year three continues into year four. Maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that's how it should be." -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2016. [2]
PeterKa (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2020 (EDT)
Instant Karma. RobSFree Kyle! 15:08, 22 September 2020 (EDT)
"Instant Karma", from January 1970, was John Lennon's idea to write a song in the morning, produce and record it in the afternoon and promote it and release it that evening.
The phrase "We all shine on", starting the chorus, inspired the name and subject of Stephen King's horror novel, The Shining, later made into a movie (1980) by Stanley Kubrick. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 15:19, 2 October 2020 (EDT)

An interesting poll...

According to this article by The Hill, the headline says that "Biden leads Trump by 12 points among Catholic voters: poll". However, the first sentence says that "Joe Biden holds a 12-point lead over President Trump among likely voters who identify as Catholic." Here's the really interesting (though unsurprising) part: 58% of those who attend Mass daily support Trump, along with 61% who attend more than once a week; just under 70% of those who rarely attend Mass support Biden. In addition, Trump seems to be improving among Hispanic Catholics compared to in 2016. —LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Tuesday, 20:25, 21 September 2020 (EDT)

And Trump's support among Catholics will improve significantly as Dems attack his upcoming nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court for being Catholic.

.8 billion

It looks like it is 8 billion.. if that's the point, that is kind of misleading. Just saying, as a conservative and all, I just want it to be true, so I think something like 0.8 billion or 800 million would be better. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2020 (EDT)

I dunno; when we see the official retraction from the Biden campaign of 200,000,000 million covid deaths, WaPo giving Biden 4 Pinocchios, and Snopes labeling Biden's claim as false, it may be something to consider. RobSFree Kyle! 14:59, 23 September 2020 (EDT)
Pretty late reply, but im fine with this answer! Presidentofyes12 (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

Crenshaw ad

Behind U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw's eyepatch is a Terminator 2-style scanner. He travels Texas to recruit a team of Republican congressional candidates, at least if we take this campaign ad at face value. PeterKa (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2020 (EDT)

Live debate updates

  • Biden slightly fumbles, saying "uh" frequently
  • Biden: "I am the Democratic Party"
  • Trump goes off on Biden over the coronavirus pandemic
  • Biden appears sleepy compared to Trump
  • Trump goes off on Wallace
  • Biden fumbles between Medicare and Medicaid
  • Trump roasts Biden for finishing last in class
  • Biden ironically claims that Trump "doesn't know what he's talking about"
  • Biden claims that Trump "shut down" the economy when Democrat governors did such
  • Biden repeats the "inject bleach" hoax
  • Trump says that no one shows up to Biden "rallies"
  • Biden slightly fumbles
  • Biden lies, ridiculously claiming that Trump has done "nothing" to help small businesses
  • Wallace brings up Trump's tax payments
  • Biden says Trump is America's "worst" president "ever"
  • Biden says he'll raise taxes
  • Biden makes false attacks against Trump over the economy before the CCP pandemic
  • Trump brings up Hunter Biden
  • Wallace: "It's an open discussion"; Trump: "It's a FACT"
  • Trump argues with Wallace
  • Biden repeats the "very fine people" hoax
  • Trump brings up the Biden Crime Bill
  • Biden fumbles
  • Biden says that Trump "looks down" on "Irish Catholics" while Democrats currently smear Amy Coney Barrett for being Catholic
  • Biden appears increasingly sleepy
  • Biden relies on "experts", while Trump relies on facts
  • Biden fumbles on saying "booming", lies about Trump's toughness on Russia, repeats the "losers and suckers" hit piece claim, cites Mitt Romney to attempt rebuking Trump
  • Biden favors globalism
  • Biden makes a highly misleading comment about mail-in voting; Trump clarifies the importance of solicited ballots
  • Biden said that the military "votes by ballots"; did he mean "vote by mail"?

LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Wednesday, 21:12, 29 September 2020 (EDT)

CNN's headline is "An absolutely awful debate: Trump derails the night with insults and interruptions." Meanwhile, the Washington Post is bemoaning Chris Wallace's failure to "control Trump." So I take that Trump won. Before the debate, Wallace said he wanted to slip into the background and let Trump and Biden go at it. That didn't happen. In fact, it was more like a Trump-Wallace debate. Why can't Trump ask Biden how his family got so wealthy? If there was any answer that did not involve corruption and trading on political connections, we would have heard it.

Next time, Trump has to call Biden on the claim that Trump's assertion that there were "fine people on both sides" of the Charlottesville Confederate statue debate was somehow a reference to white supremacists. There seems be a consensus that Trump was too belligerent and interrupted too much. This strategy worked with Hillary in 2016. But if Trump had allowed Biden to finish his thoughts, the audience would have had better sense of how serious his mental decline is. PeterKa (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2020 (EDT)

While the media will paint Trump as some kind of a bully, they can't get around the fact that Chuck- er, Chris Wallace was completely inept in attempting to "control" the president from going after Biden. Also, about Biden's mental decline, it seemed to me that he started out mediocre in terms of energy and got somewhat sleepier as the debate dragged on. —LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Wednesday, 12:29, 30 September 2020 (EDT)
I saw this witty comment: "Biden did a terrible job of moderating the Trump-Wallace debate." I hope they get a real moderator next time, not someone who sees his job as protecting Joe Biden from Trump's questions. Why did the wife of the mayor of Moscow pay Hunter $3.5 million? Joe has no obligation to tell us, but surely Trump should be allowed to ask. The Mueller investigation was triggered over less.
The liberal media has pronounced this the "worst debate ever" and has called for the cancellation of scheduled Trump-Biden debates. So we must ask, how do liberals think a presidential debate should be conducted? They are citing the 2012 Obama-Romney debate after which the media spent a week bashing Romney for boasting that he had "binders full of women." In those days, all the Dems had to do to win a debate was to coordinate a little faux outrage. So of course they have fond memories of how easy and fun it was to destroy Romney. See "Liberals Nostalgic for ‘Simpler Time’ When They Could Freak Out About a Nice Mormon Who Hired Women." PeterKa (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2020 (EDT)

White supremacy at the debate

Here are the relevant lines from the debate transcript:

[CHRIS] WALLACE: Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups…
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure…
WALLACE: And to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha, and as we’ve seen in Portland
TRUMP: Sure, I’m prepared to do it, but I would say almost everything I see is from the left-wing not from the right-wing. I’m willing to do anything, I want to see peace…

This is hardly the first time Trump has condemned white supremacy either. Who was a white supremacist in Kenosha or Portland, Wallace? Perhaps Wallace is insinuating that Kyle Rittenhouse and Patriot Prayer are white supremacists. If so, that's a lot of smears to pack into one question. For the media, the takeaway was that Trump "refused" to condemn white supremacy. Huh? Why should he have do it more than once? On the other hand, there is no downside to condemning white supramacists as many times as it takes. Wallace also claims that the Proud Boys, who protect Ann Coulter, are white supremacists. The guy is a runaway smear machine. PeterKa (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2020 (EDT)

  • In a recent press conference, journalists repeatedly brought up the issue "to put it to rest" and "to clear it up". [3] And they complain about being called fake news!
    Here's a compilation of video quotes in which Trump condemns racism and bigotry and white supremacy: [4] --Ed Poor Talk 08:56, 2 October 2020 (EDT)
Did Biden ever call is Strom Thurmond or James Eastland clowns and tell them to shut up? No. He had nothing but loving words for them at their retirement and funerals. RobSFree Kyle! 14:11, 2 October 2020 (EDT)

Meanwhile:

The New Yorker:

John McCain's Funeral Was The Biggest Resistance Meeting Yet

Two ex-Presidents and one eloquent daughter teamed up to rebuke the pointedly uninvited Donald Trump.

by Susan B. Glasser 5:47 P.M.

It's remarkable how bad they are at pretending these McCain memorials are an authentic outpouring of bipartisan sorrow from DC rather than just the millionth astroturfed anti-Trump media circus this year.—J. Burton, September 1, 2018.

As is usual in the world of "progressive" politics, what they think and say is not what actually happens in real life. President Trump this year tweeted to note that it had been up to him whether McCain had a state funeral. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 17:45, 2 October 2020 (EDT)

China rewrites the Bible

Jesus killed the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11. You don't remember that part? It's in the new, improved "Chairman Xi Version” of the Bible. See National Review's "China’s Communist Christ." Chinese have told me that The Scarlet Letter has been transformed into an uncompromising condemnation of adultery. Perhaps the idea of rewriting the classics this way started with some party boss who really hated being cuckolded. The CCP spins Chaucer's "Wife of Bath" as a feminist tale. I should have asked how that one deals with adultery. PeterKa (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2020 (EDT)

I saw that. This is a huge issue, Marxist brainwashing of the children of 1/4 of the Earth's population to say Jesus was a murderer. If people do not react quickly, this has huge longterm consequences. RobSFree Kyle! 14:06, 2 October 2020 (EDT)
And really, it's a very sexist attack on women intended to reduce them to servitude toward men (as Islam does) and turn girls, when they are older, against the gospel of Christ and salvation. RobSFree Kyle! 14:09, 2 October 2020 (EDT)

Trump tests positive for coronavirus

President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump have tested positive for the CCP virus. Let's pray for their recovery! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 01:56, 2 October 2020 (EDT)

  • I put a news capsule on the Main Page, just so that foreign enemies know there is no disruption of the Commander-in-chief's presidency. --Ed Poor Talk 08:47, 2 October 2020 (EDT)
Okay, thanks Ed Poor! —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 08:54, 2 October 2020 (EDT)

And the media just doesn't stop teasing and bullying him! - User:Punish China

Urgent News

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/519296-chinese-state-media-mocks-trumps-positive-coronavirus-test-paid-the - User:Punish China

So if the superspreader event was in the Rose Garden at Amy Barrett announcement, and now that Hope Hicks, Trump, Flotus, and Kellyanne Conway have all tested positive, is it time to invoke the Insurrection Act? RobSFree Kyle! 02:39, 3 October 2020 (EDT)
Hopey left the White House in early 2018 after the uproar over her then boyfriend Rob Porter, a favorite of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. She returned to the White House in March 2020. Her current boyfriend is Jim Donovan, head of Goldman Sachs.[5] Like Jacqueline Onassis, she has found a man rich enough to protect her from the media. A secondary figure in the Trump White House gets the sort of problems and opportunities that only JFK's widow had to deal with in the 1960s. PeterKa (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2020 (EDT)

Nunes just made the connection between $3.5 million Hunter Biden received from Moscow, the Steele dossier, and Trump-Russia

[6] RobSFree Kyle! 14:51, 4 October 2020 (EDT)

Watch the stars on the flag on the left over Trump's shoulder; the heaving suggests he's onboard a ship. RobSFree Kyle! 15:10, 4 October 2020 (EDT)

Live updates for the debate for the Senate special election in Arizona

  • McSally attacks Kelly over China, etc.
  • Kelly claims "the [Trump] administration didn't come up with a plan" and "did not do a great job"
  • Kelly claims "we need independent leadership"
  • McSally blames COVID-19 on China, Kelly blames it on the Trump Administration and McSally
  • McSally attacks "Counterfeit Kelly" over PPP hypocrisy
  • Kelly talks about "leadership"
  • Kelly mentions his promise not to take corporate PACs, which he broke
  • Kelly says that the vote on Amy Coney Barrett should wait until there's a "new president and new Senate"
  • Kelly, backed by the Democrat establishment, talks about "how broken Washington is"
  • Kelly ignores the AHCA's protections for pre-existing conditions
  • Kelly dodges on eliminating the Senate filibuster
  • McSally notes that Kelly is hand-picked by Schumer
  • McSally notes the CCP trips attended by Kelly, which he ignores/dodges (twice)
  • Kelly supports a socialist "public option" over private healthcare options
  • Kelly says that the Republican tax bill was a "giveaway" as if individual profit belongs to the government
  • McSally denounces the socialist "public option"
  • Kelly claims that McSally works for the corporations; McSally notes his hypocrisy in addition to taking over one million in speaking fees
  • Kelly claims that McSally voted against protections for pre-existing conditions; the AHCA did provide some protections
  • Kelly talks about "Arizona First", which may be taken from Trump's "America First" slogan
  • Kelly praises RINO John McCain, and claims that McSally spent "years" trying to undermine protections for pre-existing conditions
  • McSally notes her record of bipartisanship on certain issues
  • Kelly admits that he's anti-Trump, yet tries to pass himself off as being "independent"
  • Kelly claims that McSally didn't stand up to her party when she recently voted for a Democrat bill
  • Kelly admits he would have voted to remove Trump from office
  • Kelly vaguely blames "failure of leadership", then specifies that it's the supposed fault of the Trump Administration and McSally
  • Kelly says "we need strong border security" yet doesn't appear to support the border wall
  • McSally notes that Kelly has pushed for far-leftists like Ilhan Omar [7] [8]
  • Kelly, a globalist, announces that he is in favor of visas
  • McSally ties Kelly to far-leftists Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar
  • Kelly dodges on McSally's point falsely claims that he's "a supporter of the Second Amendment"
  • biased anti-Trump moderators?
  • Kelly focuses on McCain and falsely claims that McSally supposedly did not stand up for McCain when she did
  • McSally focuses on bringing jobs back from China
  • Kelly hypocritically claims that McSally "follows the money"
  • Kelly again talks about the need for "independent leadership"
  • Kelly admits that the violent riots "must end" yet only refers to them as "protests"
  • Kelly claims that the Republican-led police reform bill was "inadequate"
  • Kelly again falsely claims to support Second Amendment yet supports red flag laws and calls them common sense measures
  • Kelly, backed by the Democrat establishment and supporting left-wing policies, denounces "partisan politics"

LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Wednesday, 23:27, 6 October 2020 (EDT)

Whoops, Sen. Coons admits what other Democrats won't

Chris Coons gets it: ACB is qualified as a judge. He just doesn't like that Barrett's a conservative. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Wednesday, 12:08, 7 October 2020 (EDT)

Live updates for the vice presidential debate

  • Harris calls the Trump Administration a "failure", appears to blame them for small business closings, and claims that they "don't have a plan"
  • Pence notes that the importance of the China travel ban
  • Pence mentions Fauci's praise of Trump
  • Harris admits that her trust in a coronavirus vaccine is rooted in TDS
  • Pence goes out of his way to call Harris "unacceptable" over potential skepticism of a coronavirus vaccine
  • Harris claims to have been raised with good values and touts her record while mentioning her race
  • Harris claims that Biden is "transparent", "honest", etc.
  • Harris claims that Biden would repeal the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act over the deficit and "invest it into the American people"
  • Harris tries to impress young people by promising free college
  • Pence roasts Harris after she mentions the important of truth
  • Harris praises Obamacare that caused people to lose healthcare coverage and limited options
  • Pence praises the Great American Outdoors Act
  • the moderator points out that the Green New Deal is on the Biden/Harris website
  • Harris dodges on the Green New Deal and blames wildfires on "climate change"
  • Harris claims that Trump "lost the trade war" despite the fact that China saw their weakest GDP growth in early January 2020
  • Harris claims that Biden "saved" the auto industry
  • Pence points out Harris' vote against the USMCA
  • Harris uses the words of other countries' leaders to attack Trump - globalist?
  • Harris repeats the Russian collusion hoax narrative, citing the word of Christopher Wray; she also apparently believes that leaving the Iran nuclear deal "made us less safe".
  • Pence notes the foreign policy achievements of the Trump Administration
  • Harris gives a half-empty response over the murder of Kayla Mueller by terrorists
  • Harris responds to Trump's foreign policy achievements by repeating the "losers and suckers" hoax, etc.
  • the moderator almost lashes out on Pence
  • Pence praises Amy Coney Barrett
  • Harris dodges the Democrats' attacks on Barrett based on religious bigotry
  • Harris laments that repealing Obamacare means that people under the age of 26 can't stay on their parents' healthcare coverage
  • Harris plays the race card (unsurprisingly) by pointing out that Trump didn't nominate any black people to the Court of Appeals
  • Harris promises to decriminalize marijuana
  • Pence points out the violent riots that Democrats have refused to condemn
  • Harris falsely claims that Trump "refused to condemn white supremacists"
  • Harris repeats the "fine people" hoax (unsurprisingly)
  • Pence points out Harris' racist prosecuting record
  • the moderator appears to be slightly irritated after Pence points out her bias
  • Pence points out the Democrats' attempts to overturn the 2016 election over the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory
  • Harris says that Biden "has a history of lifting people up" - is she referring to the crime bill?

LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Thursday, 22:38, 7 October 2020 (EDT)

unofficial speaking times -
Pence: 35:22
Harris: 38:48
Members of the Proud Boys were asked to rate the debate, and their views are expected to be available to the public shortly.
"small business closings": Kamala didn't happen to notice the focus of the BLM/Antifa riots are attacks on local autonomy.
"invest it in the American people": Kamala also doesn't seem to notice that whenever phrases like that get used, what actually happens is bureaucracies start to swell, more than anything.
Once again, global warming is presupposed as a fact. Pence just ignores the talking points and refers to the politically convenient gargantuan policy proposals that emanate from it.
That Kamala brags about how Cindy McCain and "seven members of George Bush's cabinet" endorsed Biden just shows how clueless she is about globalism. That includes "postmaster-general", though, doesn't it? When the chief government bureaucrat turns on the fiscally-conservative party—that's gotta hurt a little.
VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 01:47, 8 October 2020 (EDT)

Harris is a dangerous charlatan who worked her way to the top as an immigrant daughter of privilege who took advantage of affirmative action programs reserved for black American descendants of slaves before becoming the mistress of a top San Francisco politician who appointed her to a plum position at a government make-work job. Now, she is on the brink of taking her “ditzy floozy turned ruthless prosecutor” act to the highest office in the land, as the willing figurehead of a totalitarian power-grab by the anti-white, communist left.—Revolver News

Kamala’s life begins with what is, essentially, stolen valor against black Americans. Harris’s father was a Stanford economics professor from Jamaica. Her mother was a privileged Brahmin from India and a PhD-holding cancer researcher.—Revolver News

For 50 years, the Legal Education Opportunity Program has made law school accessible for disadvantaged students.
LEOP offers admission to approximately 50 high-achieving students each year—up to 20 percent of the class—who have experienced major life hurdles, such as educational disadvantage, economic hardship, or disability. The majority are students of color. Besides traditional admissions criteria, such as grades and LSAT scores, the program also considers students’ overall potential and the obstacles they’ve overcome.
LEOP went on to count many prominent alumni among its ranks, including U.S. Senator Kamala Harris ’89. [UC Hastings Law]

don't EVER let a brahmin-privileged turmeric monster lecture you about POC, colonialism, cultural appropriation, or representation. remind them that when lord indra arrived on the ganges in his chariot to slaughter 6 million dasyu aboriginals, the first word he said was 'namaste'—Hakan Rotmwrt

In other news

BLM/Antifa crowd arrive in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, where a black police officer shot a black suspect. The former first lady noted storefront windows along Main Street were "mostly not smashed" where the groups are extending summer's cracker-barrel Kristallnacht festivities into fall! Thanks for coming out. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 02:29, 8 October 2020 (EDT)

Update: Some of the crowd broke windows in private homes along Elm Street, too, but others pulled them back, scolding "Too soon! Too soon!" VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 03:21, 8 October 2020 (EDT)

Hey-hey we're Antifa
We only put cop-supporters down...
But you'd better vote Democratic
Or we may be coming to your town...

I would suggest a re-phrase of the recent MPR item: I'm sure many-many atheists don't see their interests tied to a hegemony over a Christian country. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 02:55, 8 October 2020 (EDT)

Top Conservative on Twitter Dan Bongino has lymphoma and is seeking treatment options; I'm sure you join me in wishing him well. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 04:02, 8 October 2020 (EDT)


Now, when a business gains attention for reports of disagreeing with the politics of our most compulsive user base, Yelp will place a new Business Accused of Disagreeing Behavior Alert on their Yelp page to inform users, along with a link to an hysterical news article.—@2CB

Yelp has fully transitioned from consumer reviews to small business eradication—@galexybrane

VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 05:53, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

Oh! Look at the date! John Lennon would have been 80 today!

Apparently, all the news, funny and serious, is coming together to make a point, whether we want it to or not. Continuing:

WOKE ANTI RACISM is COVID stage 2
Kill any remaining small business to increase elite market share—@torinmccabe

And slightly earlier,

The doctors said they've never seen a body kill the Coronavirus like my body. They tested my DNA, and it wasn't DNA, it was USA.—President Donald J. Trump

The above is the kind of "evidence" we can probably expect to see attempted to be slopped out in the inquiry mentioned in the new major section I added below this one.

The "link to a news article" about a given business' "racism" is the key to understanding why Yelp can happily do this without fear
How can they be sued for libel when they are simply deferring to the "facts" the media has already reported?—@17cS---eposter
(And with Twitter as a precedent...)
Part of the transition to making mass media the judge of ordinary language and life court, with 102 IQs like Ibram X Kendi constantly rewriting the laws to ensure judge is never wrong.—@2CB

Or the U.S. "Debate Commission", wouldn't you agree? VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 06:39, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

Pelosi, reportedly disappointed by Biden's debate performance, marshalling Democrats in open rebellion

Pelosi and Raskin to introduce a bill invoking 25th Amendment creating a commission to review President’s health and fitness for office. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 05:31, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

My goodness. To prepare for the worst to see you're not disoriented (politically), remember and consider the direction of the South's secession during the Civil War was really as a "pre-emptive counter-revolution". VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 06:52, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

The big question: Will Pelosi demand a drug test from President-elect Biden to facilitate Kamala being "installed"? RobSFree Kyle! 15:35, 10 October 2020 (EDT)

World Food Program awarded Nobel Peace Prize

Just announced. video of announcement. MPR? Encyclopedia article? FirstAmendment (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

Cambridge Analytica, company used by Trump in 2016 election, has its 3-year-long investigation completed in U.K. with no findings of wrong-doing

Worked for Trump, company investigated further, no wrong-doing found, except perhaps against it by over-investigation. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 06:58, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

Pulling out the crystal ball for November

The betting odds for a Biden victory surged from 55-45 on September 28 to 65-35 on October 10. But other election metrics haven't changed much. The battleground state matchups went from Biden +3.8 to Biden +4.5 while Trump's approval number went from -8.4 to -9.0. Perhaps a group of super-rich Biden supporters got together to manipulate the odds. It seems like an expensive hobby.

Washington State has an unusual non-partisan primary with a good track record of predicting the general election result. (California is the only other state with a non-partisan primary, but the California primary is held too early to be useful in making predictions about November.) The Dems did 0.3 percent better in this year's Washington State primary than they did in 2016. Trump's net approval climbed from -10 on August 4, the date of the primary, to -9 now.

FiveThirtyEight gives Biden an 85 percent chance of victory. They gave Hillary a 98 percent chance of victory in 2016, so I don't know how anybody takes this site seriously anymore. IBD/TIPP, the pollster with the best track record, gives Biden a national edge of 2.7 percentage points. Before doing this analysis, I had assumed that at least some Dems opposed the riots, which would give the edge to Trump. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

In short, things are looking a lot like they did in 2016 and the election is too close to call. PeterKa (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2020 (EDT)

I feel the same way. If Biden is doing so well, why are Biden and Harris campaigning in Nevada? VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 14:28, 10 October 2020 (EDT)
According to IBD/TIPP, Trump is strongest on the Supreme Court (45%-40%) and the economy (47%-44%). Biden's strengths are covid (49%-40%) and race relations (49%-40%). So the riots are actually a point in Biden's favor. The economy is usually the most decisive issue. Who prefers an indefinate covid lockdown to a healthy economy? PeterKa (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2020 (EDT)
What VM says you can take to the bank. If, on election eve, Trump is somewhere like the Iron Range of Minnesota and Biden is trying to hold down the fort in Nevada, you know they know which way the election is headed. RobSFree Kyle! 15:27, 10 October 2020 (EDT)

Presidential Debate Commission chairman co-founder of "Color Revolution" organization against Trump

Rigged: The Chairman of the Presidential Debate Commission is Co-Founder of “Color Revolution” Org Linked to Steele Dossier and MoreRevolver News, Friday, October 9, 2020, 8a (CDT)

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 14:00, 10 October 2020 (EDT)

We got it on MPR. But seriously, I haven't had time to read it yet. Have you? RobSFree Kyle! 15:29, 10 October 2020 (EDT)

FISA subsource

You scared me; I thought you guys scooped me by fractions of hours again. There was a conversation on Twitter where they said if you don't understand something you should, like when Trump couldn't explain the communist "critical race theory" he banned for government training (which some actually tried to defy), you should blame others, by saying phrases like: "We're not having this conversation" or "I'm exhausted having to explain x.." or "You need to do the work. I won't do it for you."
I read about the other color revolution kingpin more than this one. I am kind of jammed with getting you stuff. I don't know whether you already know or posted, either, in the Obamagate articles the news Steele's main sub-source was investigated by the FBI as a Russian spy, the FBI interrogated him for three days in January 2017, and those in the FBI who employed Steele knew it. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 18:15, 10 October 2020 (EDT)
There's what Horowitz wrote in those articles. I don't like "alleged Russian spy" cause there's already enough about Trump and Flynn using that same phrase. RobSFree Kyle! 20:04, 10 October 2020 (EDT)
Even on an off-the-cuff basis, I presented that badly. The "spying" was investigated around 2006-09, the IC "insurance" schemers knew it, and what they interrogated him about in January 2017 is anybody's guess. You mentioned Steele's IC "handlers" in the articles, so I imagine, it had to do with that. But regardless of what I present, you shape the articles the way you think best if you see a way you want to improve. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 00:48, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
The January 2017 was vetting the Steele dossier. Horowitz actually covers all this. Off the top of my head, Horowitz made some allusion to the subsource having been previously known or investigated by the FBI. Ratcliffe basically recycled old news.
The real story or scandal here is (A) the DOJ/FBI hoaxed the court and obtained an illegal warrant in October 2016, promising the court they would get more information and vetting of their evidence (which they knew was bull from the start). (B) The FBI went through the motions of vetting the subsource in January 2017 for the 90 day renewal; when the subsource told them it was all complete B.S., the FBI reported to the court that they located and interviewed the subsource, and that they believed the subsource was telling them the truth (i.e., without telling the court that the subsource said it was all B.S.). IOW, the DOJ/FBI swore under oath to the court that they believed what the subsource said was B.S. without telling the court it was B.S.
This is how Comey, McCabe, Strzok et al cabal operated. RobSFree Kyle!
I'm shocked that you accuse me of getting this information from DNI Ratcliffe's releases! Not true. On the contrary, my source brought this to DNI Ratcliffe's attention!
By Horowitz, you of course mean FBI DOJ Inspector General (IG) Horowitz. I recall Obama and Holder took away the Inspector General Office's powers to secure documents from FBI employees during their administration. I also think I recall some of Horowitz's observations didn't make it to the report he authored.
So much for sources on the story. I had to laugh out loud when I read you say the subsource told the FBI his own report (the Steele Dossier) was all B.S.
I see what you mean when you say the fact the sub-source was or wanted to be a Russian spy, while amusing, just distracts from the main story of defrauding the FISA court (whose powers were meant to investigate foreign spying, but used against America's first domestic office-holder, President Trump by means of not only "suspicion" [phony, through the bogus Dossier]-by-association of indirect non-acquaintances, but with every rationale for even suspecting [and thus legally permitting an investigation of] those campaign underlings-at-their-own-will exposed as bogus—if not laboriously fabricated by yet still other bogus means!). VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 07:57, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
Here's the citation provided in Obamagate timeline 2017: Horowitz FISA Abuse Report, pps 186-190. So the report has to be reloaded for those 4 pages to be reviewed. Incidentally, the report does not provide a date of the interview, but it appears to have happened a day or so after the first FISA renewal.
What does this mean? (A) The FBI already knew the subsource was an "alleged" Russian spy through the first two FISA representations made to the court; (B) the FBI likely delayed the information in the first renewal, alleging they hadn't located the subsource yet (we don't know, cause it's unlikely we will ever see a fully unredacted version of the first renewal); (C) most importantly, the FISA renewal authorized surveillance of President Trump and his entire administration beyond Obama's term of office, which was the problem being discussed in the January 5 Oval Office meeting. RobSFree Kyle! 18:20, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
As a by-note, the entire counterintelligence gathering process and FISA reporting system has to be overhauled now, cause too much about "sources and methods" has been revealed over the past few years. By "methods", I mean being able to read and understand FISA court documents. These revelations are unprecedented in understanding "methods". RobSFree Kyle! 18:26, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
It's been a well kept, bi-partisan secret how the FISA process works for 40 years, until Obama and the communists got their hands on it. RobSFree Kyle! 18:28, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
Here's The Federalist reporting from last April: "Steele’s primary sub‐source told the FBI “that the subsource who provided the information about the Carter Page‐Sechin meeting had connections to Russian Intelligence Services (RIS)." It also references Footnotes 342, 347, and 350. So as I said, recycled news. MSM just simply has always refused to report on it. RobSFree Kyle! 18:41, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
I think what's important here is not the implications of the abuse of the FISA process for national security, but that you hurt my feelings about the originality of my scoop.
My "source" was really just a news source, Senator Lindsey Graham's Twitter account reporting a letter to him Sept. 24, 2020 by Bob Barr via the Twitter account of Catherine Herridge of CBS News. She must be reporting this to pretend to be revealing stuff about Democrats but really just be a distraction.
Thank you for your cool reports on Obamagate timeline 2017 and its related branches in Conservapedia. Through your steadfast reporting, you've become like me...indispensible! VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 20:16, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
It's big and confusing. What's really scarry is Nunes, Grenell, and Gowdy saying now it's even bigger than you imagine.
They only real news we've had in recent days or weeks is that the whole Russia hoax was Hillary's idea, transmitted to Brennan, picked up by the Russians, and Obama being told it was Hillary's idea and the Russians already knew about it. All this before Strzok opened the bogus operation.
In sum: Hillary colluded with the Russians to meddle in the 2016 election, Brennan and Obama knew about it, and the FBI opened an investigation into Trump as a response. RobSFree Kyle! 22:07, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
For the average viewer or listener, one big lesson to be learned from the Trump-Russia hoax is how the FBI, CIA, and State Dept. manufacture fake news narratives. RobSFree Kyle! 22:16, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
—not...very...well. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 23:39, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
Here's three (or four) quick takeaways: (1) Steele and FusiionGPS paid MSM news sources to read the dossier and write about it. (2) The FBI/DOJ took the bogus articles and slapped them into the October FISA warrant as "independent corroborating evidence" to their investigation, knowing that the MSM fake news articles came from the same bogus source as their evidence presented to the court - the Steele dossier. (3) Read the Strzok-Page messages, especially early January plotting the coup and feeding the media (but you have the same thing in early July 2016 surrounding the Comey press conference clearing Clinton. And the Weiner laptop in late October. The only "crisis" or controversy inside the FBI was how it would play in the media. They never investigated the laptop and lied about clearing Clinton a second time). (4) And all the events to frame Flynn in media. (5) The latest is John Durhams's grand jury investigation of Daniel Jones. Jones was given $50 million to carry on the media smears of Trump with the "collusion hoax" after Trump took office, RobSFree Kyle! 00:03, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
The latest: CBS Obtains 94-Page Outline Showing FBI and Chris Steele Collaborative Use of Media Reporting.
This is why I pay little attention news headlines. I know they're manufactured and fake.RobSFree Kyle!
Excerpted:
"Former SSCI staffer Dan Jones, former Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson, and Simpson’s crew at Fusion-GPS, pitched and planted phony Trump-Russia evidence with the media and simultaneously gave those fake points to Chris Steele to supplement the dossier. Using the same method of Ezra Klein’s “JournOList” replication, Dan Jones and Fusion-GPS paid the journalists to run the stories.

Steele then used the same information from Jones and Fusion in his Dossier and cited the planted media reports; as evidence to substantiate. The Dossier is then provided to the FBI. The journalists then provide *indulgences* to the FBI as part of the collaboration.

The FBI, specifically Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and public information office Mike Kortan, then leak the outcomes of the FBI Dossier investigative processes to the same media that have reported on the originating material. It is all a big circle of planting and laundering the same originating false material; aka a “wrap up smear.”
RobSFree Kyle! 22:47, 12 October 2020 (EDT)

I don't think you're alone. It wasn't the "circle" that convinced me there was some indirect underlying reality, if I expressed it inartfully before. It was the conspicuousness of the sheer stupidity of the pile it would leave if the "liberal claptrap" all collapsed that I couldn't believe someone would intentionally do to themselves. I mean you can hide overspending because a lot of people don't like numbers, but a Presidential ethics investigation? "Trump the Russian spy" doesn't fit any more than "Reagan the arms smuggler".

Now their energies are taxed with continuously re-establishing the Russia myth that exploded as Rachel Maddow, the chief narrator, lost half her audience overnight, like to this very day, with @Jack from Twitter recently originating a special notification for Tweets that are from "Russia". VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 03:12, 13 October 2020 (EDT)

This is the Democrat mindset since the Civil War and Reconstruction. The Nazis, Russians or CCP are not the enemy, or threat to national security, the Republicans are and have been since the GOP was founded in 1854. RobSFree Kyle! 06:54, 13 October 2020 (EDT)

MPR Republicans "maggots" speech: Keith Olbermann gives out Democratic endgame of which he is a part

You don't think I'm guilty, do you Rick?

Short version of MPR video shows a specific Keith Olbermann political escalation in the anti-Trump promotional YouTube speech (a presentation he obviously hoped would go viral) that a Twitterer noticed and set apart to demonstrate. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 19:15, 10 October 2020 (EDT)

Keith Olbermann - the Winston Churchill of the commie left. RobSFree Kyle! 19:50, 10 October 2020 (EDT)
So, how do you remove the maggots from society after you defund the police? Oh, silly me, the civilian national security force. How anyone could vote for that psychotic sociopath after that speech I will never understand. RobSFree Kyle! 19:56, 10 October 2020 (EDT)

Biden on court packing

Whether or not Biden supports fracking, the Green New Deal, anti-police riots, or a permanent covid lockdown is anyone's guess. But on one issue, his position is clear: He wants to pack the Supreme Court. When Trump asked about this issue at the debate, Biden's response was, 'Would you shut up, man?' FDR proposed expanding the membership of the court after the justices overturned some New Deal legislation in the 1930s. Congress turned the proposal down, but the threat of court packing was enough to scare the justices into approving FDR's agenda. For the next 80 years, no political idea was deader than court packing. But then Justice Ginsburg died. The Dems decided that if court packing was needed to maintain a liberal majority, they were ready to do it. See "Carlson: Democrat Court-Packing Plans ‘Closer Than a Lot of Republicans Want to Admit and You Should Be Worried About It’."

Biden's version court packing is all about partisan advantage. But there is something to be said for expanding the membership of the court. It would allow the Supreme Court to consider more cases using three-judge panels, as the appeals courts do. We need more justices and predictable terms so that a single death or retirement can be handled without a national trauma. The president could nominate four justices in each four year term. Whenever the total number of justices on the court exceeded 16, the justice who served the longest would retire. After that, a justice would normally serve for a 16-year term. A president who served two terms would end up appointing half the court. PeterKa (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2020 (EDT)

Look, I study communist propaganda closely, too. But I never allow it to affect my reasoned judgment. RobSFree Kyle! 04:08, 11 October 2020 (EDT)
Biden has certainly said some jaw-dropping things on this subject:
DiMattei: Well, sir don’t the voters deserve to know…?
Biden: No they don’t.... I'm not gonna play his game, he’d love me to talk about, and I’ve already said something on court packing, he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now.
Biden will keep his plan to destroy constitutional government to himself until after the election, thank you very much:
Biden: You’ll know my position on court-packing the day after the election.[9] PeterKa (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2020 (EDT)

Joe Biden is telling people they have to elect him to find out whether or not he'll destroy an entire branch of our government and render the Constitution obsolete. That's already worse than anything Trump has ever done as president.—@EddieZipperer, October 10, 2020, 7a

VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 22:23, 11 October 2020 (EDT)

He wants to pack the Senate by adding a couple of extra states - which is equally as big an issue. RobSFree Kyle! 00:36, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
America could go down this path. Assuming somehow the remnants of a grassroots two-party system survived, and in future years or decades another party was able to capture "all three chambers of government", they could expand the Supreme Court from 15 to 31, add Guam as a state, split up Texas into 5 states, start splitting up counties in Idaho and Wyoming into separate states. And an opposition party to the commie Dems would have to make inroads into urban areas if the Electoral College is disposed of. It would become a contest to see if the Supreme Court or Senate would have 435 members first. That could even raise the prospect of bringing back the Electoral College since each new state would enlarge the House, as well. Let's call this glorious future, Hope you can believe in. RobSFree Kyle! 00:47, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
Let's give Peter some credit for trying to place an institutional buffer to absorb the blows of a Democratic Party periodically re-swollen with Marxism against our republic's judiciary. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 03:47, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
But if he does, he probably ought to respond to Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 78 on judicial term limits. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 06:26, 12 October 2020 (EDT)
Here is Hamilton: “…that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity.”
If my proposal above is implemented, being a justice would be slightly less prestigious than it is now. But I doubt that any qualified lawyer would turn it down for this reason. The median length of service of a Supreme Court justice went from 14 years in the 19th century to 26 years nowadays. So the 16 year term I proposed would be more in line with length of service in Hamilton's day. FDR proposed 15 justices, which seems to be a popular number in court expansion proposals. See "Should we restructure the Supreme Court?" from the Brookings Institute.
I suppose odd numbers are popular because people think that there should be a Supreme Court majority on every issue. But I don't see anything wrong with the occasional split decision. In Bush versus Gore, the court should not have ordered a stop to the counting in Florida since the 5-4 vote undermined its legitimacy. Unless rival slates of electors are submitted to Congress, as in 1876, there is no need for a vote counting dispute to go to the federal courts. More recently, John Roberts upheld DACA while admitting anonymously that he would prefer that this law be overturned, just not by a 5-4 vote. Wouldn't an openly tied outcome have more legitimacy than for Roberts to privately bash an opinion that he himself is the author of? If the Supreme Court had three judge panels, a tie would simply mean that whatever decision the panel had arrived at would remain in force. PeterKa (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2020 (EDT)

Nunes speech

Rep. Devin Nunes Opening Statement for Hearing with Joseph B. Maher October 2, 2020

Welcome to another hearing of the Trump Impeachment Committee, formerly known as the House Intelligence Committee.

I’ll begin by noting that there’s no reason for this hearing to be held in public except to try to stir up media interest in the Democrats’ latest publicity stunt—their attack on the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security. The only reason Mr. Maher was subpoenaed to be here today was as leverage. It was meant to force DHS to rush though a Top Secret/SCI security clearance for the attorney of the Democrats’ new whistleblower without doing an appropriate background check.

In fact, there was no reason for the Democrats to make this whistleblower complaint public at all—but of course, handling whistleblower complaints with discretion, as this committee had always done before this Congress, is not helpful to publicity stunts, so here we are.

Let’s recall that Democrats on this committee were at the forefront of the Russia collusion hoax. For years, they falsely claimed they’d found secret evidence of Trump’s conspiracy with Russia. They issued memos defending the FISA warrant to spy on Trump associate Carter Page, and they even tried to get naked pictures of Trump from Russian pranksters. They also touted the credibility of the Steele Dossier and read Steele’s allegations into the Congressional Record at this Committee’s hearings.

After a two-year investigation, however, Special Counsel Mueller failed to find the secret collusion evidence the Democrats claimed to possess. And since then we’ve learned that the Steele dossier the Democrats championed was a mix of fake stories, rumors, barroom gossip, and jokes collected by a suspected Russian spy at the behest of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton Campaign. Furthermore, the Department of Justice Inspector General found the FISA warrant application that the Democrats defended was riddled with mistakes and omissions, withheld exculpatory evidence, and relied on a doctored email hiding Carter Page’s past cooperation with a U.S. intelligence agency.

The Democrats have not called a single hearing to investigate any of those issues, even though this committee is supposedly dedicated to overseeing the Intelligence Community and investigating abuses. They’ve held a hearing on global warming but don’t care about documented corruption of the FISA process or suspected Russian agents compiling political dirt for the Democratic Party.

After Mueller testified to this committee and again failed to expose the mythical collusion conspiracy, the Democrats suddenly switched tracks and impeached President Trump based on an anonymous whistleblower complaint from a bureaucrat who, we later learned, had coordinated his attack with Democratic staff, despite the Democrats insisting they had no such contact with him.

Although the Democrats brought our oversight work to a halt for months and completely transformed this committee into an impeachment committee—holding ridiculous secret depositions that were leaked nightly to their media stooges, followed by public show trials with the most useful witnesses—the impeachment in the House was such a transparent fraud that not a single Republican voted for it.

After the collapse of the Russia collusion hoax and the failure to oust Trump via impeachment, the Democrats suddenly ginned up a new investigation, issued their usual slew of press releases, and have now forced us into an open hearing. And it’s certainly amusing that, although this complaint is supposed to be handled by the Inspector General first, the Democrats have dispensed with the IG as an unnecessary middle man—probably because IG investigations take time, and the Democrats are operating on an election deadline.

Of course, this all has a familiar ring to it, almost as if the Democrats are following a playbook. Usually, you don’t follow the playbook from a game you’ve lost. But once again, they are pushing into the limelight a complaint by a whistleblower—who just happens to be represented by the same lawyer who represented the impeachment whistleblower. Small world.

It may seem that the whistleblower has some credibility problems. After all, he sent an email directly contradicting his allegations. Furthermore, the Democrats themselves called him a liar just a few weeks before he filed his complaint, but now he’s their star witness. Nevertheless, I have no doubt my Democratic colleagues will breeze right past these contradictions, and that their media mouthpieces won’t draw any attention to these awkward problems, just like they’ll ignore the testimony of multiple career officials, delivered during the interviews they’ve scheduled, which contradicts their whistleblower’s claims.

So, here we go again, indulging the Democrats’ dream that they’ll find the holy grail of scandals that finally gets rid of Trump without beating him at the polls. Of course, foreign threats and intelligence challenges don’t grind to a halt while they pursue these fantasies. But in the Democrats’ view, all that can be put on hold while they try to gin up yet another partisan witch-hunt.

VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 03:32, 12 October 2020 (EDT)

Whichever staffer helped assemble and write that deserves a payraise, and probably a shot at running for office someday. RobSFree Kyle! 18:21, 12 October 2020 (EDT)

Shifty-eyed Harris doesn't read a teleprompter well

Granted, probably a bit better than Trump. RobSFree Kyle! 18:21, 12 October 2020 (EDT)

Biden's latest ad. More Biden hate. RobSFree Kyle! 12:43, 14 October 2020 (EDT)
In a rally of four, one person applauds. RobSFree Kyle! 12:45, 14 October 2020 (EDT)
Obama paid-off Joe w/ VP position. RobSFree Kyle! 20:59, 18 October 2020 (EDT)

Tech giants censor Biden news

Biden family text with Hunter telling his sister Naomi that "Pop" Joe Biden received 50% of the Burisma kickbacks.[1]
Documents show payments from Burisma to Hunter Biden.[2][3][4][5]

Is Hunter Biden a conduit for enormous foriegn bribes intended to influence his father? Or does his coke-addled brain contain the exact skill set that movers and shakers seek? That's none of your business, according to Joe Biden and our tech giant overloads. Here is The New York Post article that created the uproar: "Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad." Amazingly, the Biden campaign's response does not deny the article's assertion that Joe met with Pozharskyi, the No. 3 executive in Burisma, the Ukrainian company that "employed" Hunter in a no show job for $50,000 an month. The left's response is mostly to accuse to the Post of relying on Russian hacking. So it is pretty clear that the story is accurate. The big reveal is not the unexciting tidbit that the Bidens are leechs on our body politic, but rather that Twitter and Facebook are all in when it comes to censoring this type of material.

In the 1870s, robber barron Jay Gould bought telegraph companies and used the access this got him to hit it big in the stock market. As a result, the telegraph became a "common carrier" that could not show preference to one customer over another. As extensions of the telegraph companies, the telephone companies were put under similar regulations. So Gould's legacy is still with us. If our stock market deserves such protection, what about our democracy? As individuals, our right to participate in partisan politics is limited by the campaign finance laws. Filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza was jailed for a making a $20,000 donation. But it seems that the tech giants are free to engage in partisan censorship on a grand scale.

Regulation should be about functionality. What was once done by telegraph wires is now done by social media software. Once a communication company grows to a certain size and influence, it should be treated as a common carrier. PeterKa (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2020 (EDT)

Given what's been revealed, it's time to do some serious analysis of the Biden family. IMO, the Bidens of Delaware view themselves heirs of their neighboring Rhode Island and Massachusetts role models - the Kennedys - Irish, Roman Catholic, civil rights leaders and advocates whom blacks are indebted to, and not without family problems. Hunter's text to his sister Naomi is being misread: "I Hope you can do what I did and pay for everything Fro [sic; he must have been high on crack at the time] 30 years". Hunter is not complaining about paying child support for the past 30 years, Naomi is not his daughter but rather Joe's daughter and Hunter's sister, and he's talking about the next 30 years, not the past 30 years, as is being misreported. The "I don't receive any respect and thats fine I guess" is most telling about an intra-family squabble. And no, Hunter is not talking about "Pops" taking 50% of Hunter's allowance as a child. It rather looks like Hunter put Naomi on the payroll of some income-producing entity capitalized with the cash he made in partnership with his father in the Burisma and China schemes. Hunter is the front man for the 'big guy'. RobSFree Kyle! 13:43, 16 October 2020 (EDT)
PeterKa rightly points out two big issues to discern here: (1) Biden family corruption which could be disposed of in the election and then move onto Sec. 230 reform as the number one priority, and (2) in the absence of Biden family corruption being disposed of but rather tolerated with an election win, Sec. 230 reform becomes moot, and Biden family corruption then becomes the main focus. RobSFree Kyle! 14:03, 16 October 2020 (EDT)
Here is Section 230: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." So if someone creates an anonymous account on Facebook and uses it to libel you, there is no one you can sue. That's certainly a problem. Perhaps everyone who posts should be required to give a real name. But I see the Biden censorship situation as big tech evading the campaign contribution rules that apply to us little people. PeterKa (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2020 (EDT)
As to Twitter's actions, had Twitter censored the New York Times publication of The Pentagon Papers in 1970 as it just did The New York Post, Nixon would have felt no need to form the Plumbers unit, there would have been no Watergate breakin, and he would have served two terms. RobSFree Kyle! 13:52, 17 October 2020 (EDT)
{Incidentally, I recently found out the origin of the phrase, "fifty-cent word" comes from the days when telegraph companies charged by the letter to send a telegram.] RobSFree Kyle! 14:29, 17 October 2020 (EDT)

Section 230

So the question revolves around the future of Section 230. In my reading, I don't see any consensus to repeal Section 230, or for that matter drastic new legislation. It appears the FCC will be called upon to rewrite and/or enforce stricter regulations against service carriers who engage in "censorship", "shadow banning", and "fact checking". How this will be enforced is another question, through fines and prison terms, etc.. And the question of what recourse and processes complainants have to go through, etc. etc..

The good news or bad news depending on perspective is, conservatives now must learn to function within the administrative state. It can't be dismantled, evidently. RobSFree Kyle! 14:05, 17 October 2020 (EDT)

Also, anti-trust action must be initiated against Big Tech monopolies, hand in glove with FCC regulation. This, after all is what spawned the birth of populism after Reconstruction (collusion between the monopolist railroad transport industry and fossil fuel producers to screw the little guy, first driving the little guy out of business with lower prices, then gouging the public with higher prices. We see the same collusion today between Big Tech social media and establishment legacy media). RobSFree Kyle! 14:14, 17 October 2020 (EDT)

Without Section 230, social media companies would be publishers. You could post something libelous about yourself on Facebook and then sue Facebook. I don't think that's going to work. Large social media companies should be regulated as common carriers like the telephone companies. PeterKa (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2020 (EDT)
I'm mixed on anti-trusts. On the one hand, I can see how they might work, but on the other hand, Larry Schweikart indicated that anti-trust actions if anything actually WORSENED situations rather than actually made them better. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2020 (EDT)
ATT was broken up into 5 entities in 1979. The first cell phones appeared about 1986. I can't imagine what it would have been like if ATT still had monopoly control. True, there wouldn't have been scams like the Worldcom scandal, but long distances "toll calls" have all but disappeared with creative destruction and competition. RobSFree Kyle! 11:00, 18 October 2020 (EDT)
I would have to research a bit deeper into the break up of Standard Oil, but monopoly control of the telecommunications up to 1979 retarded technological growth. ATT was essentially "sovietized"; maintaining union workers' jobs in a stale industry without competition hampered technological improvement. RobSFree Kyle! 11:10, 18 October 2020 (EDT)
The argument against breaking up the ATT monopoly usually is centered on the layoff off of 2 million telephone operators. But in restoring competition, whole new industries were born. RobSFree Kyle! 11:05, 18 October 2020 (EDT)
Big Tech is reminiscent of just how proud and arrogant ATT grew by the 1970s. RobSFree Kyle! 11:24, 18 October 2020 (EDT)

National security

It appears the allegation is being made that the Chinese Communist Party carried out an Epstein-style blackmail operation on Hunter Biden. RobSFree Kyle! 13:55, 18 October 2020 (EDT)

Dear Dr. Fauci, A shield is not merely good for Captain America!

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is a prestigious medical journal.

NEJM just published COVID-19: Adding Face Shields to Masks / Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children

The NEJM article states: "Face shields: Wearing a face shield on top of a surgical mask may reduce community health workers' risk for COVID-19, according to a JAMA research letter. Community workers in India wore face masks and other personal protective equipment when conducting home visits to counsel asymptomatic household contacts of people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. After 12 of 62 workers tested positive, the uninfected workers started to also wear face shields. After face shields were added, no workers tested positive."

Evidently, Dr. Fauci believes that a shield only works for Captain America. Otherwise, surely he would be telling Americans to wear coronavirus face shields in addition to wearing masks.Conservative (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2020 (EDT)