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

Time for some good news...

The good news is... in one week we've seen the knockout punch delivered to three Democratic hopefuls...Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booger, and Michael Avenatti. That leaves Kamaltoe Harris the only viable candidate. Some might say Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton, but they don't stand a prayer agsinst the progressive millennial generation who now dominate. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:57, 25 October 2018 (EDT)

This is the Dem's idea of a serious presidential candidate: "Kamala Harris Doesn’t Want Trump To “Come Out Alive” If She Is On An Elevator With Him." PeterKa (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
You guys seen the new Trump commercial? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:57, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

“Fake” Bombs

The man suspected of sending a dozen bombs to Trump critics had a van covered in pro-Trump bumper stickers. Still think it’s a hoax? CesarS (talk)|

What's the difference between a "Trump critic" and a "prominent Democrat"? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:15, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
Secondly, for a "bomb" to be "a bomb", it must be operational. These were Hollywood props. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:38, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
Violence from Democrats has been very widespread in the past three years. There's a difference between this person -- a single person with obvious mental issues who worked as a stripper and who had a long criminal record -- and an entire segment of the American public who are supposed to be sane/normal (and were prior to 2015) but are now engaging in violence and advocating for violence because they hate the president so much, along with strong conservatives and devout conservative Christians (see liberal bigotry, Liberal hate speech). --1990'sguy (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
Commie Dems are using this to "level the playing field", as an excuse to bring up Charlotseville and even Gabby Giffords, my God (who was shot by a psychotic leftist in the pre-fake news era, but the details of that incident were never clarified other than that it remains fodder for the anti-gun movement). RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:06, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
This is a pretty good article by Alan Dershowitz: [1] In it, he notes this:
So far, no one has tried to glorify the person responsible for the recent pipe bombs. .... This is different from how some on the left glorified the Weather Underground, Black Panthers other hard-left terrorists. Left-wing lawyers, who would never defend an accused right-wing terrorist, rushed to represent them; prominent leftists contributed to defense funds and attended fundraising parties. Films, books, plays and articles sought to understand the motives of these young murderers.
Years later, Barack Obama befriended Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who had been active members of the Weathermen and supporters of violent terrorism. Both Ayers and Dohrn were invited to teach at major American universities, as was Kathy Boudin, who had served a long prison term for participating in a terrorist-inspired robbery that resulted in the deaths of two policemen and one armored-truck guard and seriously injured a second guard. It is difficult to imagine any American university appointing a right-wing terrorist, even one who had served his term and claimed to be rehabilitated. It is fair to say that public attitudes by some on the left were somewhat sympathetic to left-wing terrorists.
--1990'sguy (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2018 (EDT)

Matthew Sheppards back

He was killed over a meth deal gone bad. But the killer took the homophobic defense thinking that would get him off rather than confess to being a dope dealer. Now 20 years later, we get to stand by and witness our children being brainwashed over 20 year old fake news. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:21, 26 October 2018 (EDT)

Why No Cesar Sayoc?

Why is there not an article about Cesar Sayoc? Do Conservapedians really have to rely on other news sources with a liberal bias? Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JLind (talk)

Did you cite Breitbart? What about The New American? Or the Gateway Pundit? There are many conservative news sources we can rely on. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
Wow! Not sure I’d want to admit reading the Gateway Pundit. But seriously, Your three sources have no issue with writing about Sayoc but he is untouchable by Conservapedia? Once again, sad. One other thing, I’d really like to discuss Sayoc in the proper forum, the article I created.--JLind (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
This is pretty racist, targeting a Latino who likely has mental problems. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:31, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
Huh? I’m targeting? I want to write an article about a prominent event and I’m targeting? I don’t think so. I’m racist? Yeah… Sayoc has mental problems? Do you have a source from a competent doctor who examined the guy? --JLind (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
1) I don't read the Gateway Pundit, since I already read at least 10 different news websites every day (including the first two), but I have nothing against it and it's a strongly conservative source. If you're worried about us relying on left-wing sources, I proved otherwise. However, you thinking it's embarassing to read the Gateway Pundit is revealing on your part.
2) Just because something is newsworthy doesn't mean it has encyclopedic value. The sources I mentioned have articles on many different things that I don't add. As I said, if a longstanding editor/admin thinks he's a noteworthy topic for an encyclopedia, they can revert me and recreate. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
I agree, admitting to NOT reading the Gateway Pundit is very revealing, in a good way. So you think left-wing bombers, killers and all-a-round creeps are encyclopedic but someone, the alleged bomber, who supports our president, is not? Hmmm…. Fascinating. Am I wrong in requesting that you follow the etiquette rules when editing an article? I’d like to think a Conservapedia administrator would lead by example. [[2]] --JLind (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
No, your comments on the Gateway Pundit (and your comments on Trump and the Deep State) say a lot about your political views.
About the etiquette rules, it states that you should discuss the edits of admins before reverting them -- you failed to do this, both for this page and for the Lady Gaga one. Thanks for linking to the page. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
Jim Hoft, the owner of Gateway Pundit, has 111,000 Twitter followers. He is a Top Conservative on Twitter, regardless of your jealous dismissals, while you have zero followers on Twitter (your feed is so bad, that you're still hesitant even to follow yourself). VargasMilan (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
JLind: You have two big problems (1) he didn't bomb anything. (2) He's likely mentally imbalanced, and a minority, to boot.
What makes him notable? Cause CNN lied about his actions?
Finally, is this anti-minority xenophobia, implying other Latino migrants might be mentally deranged, as well? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:38, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
Yeah, and besides, we don't even know if he actually supports President Trump, anyway. Those pro-Trump stickers look suspiciously fresh ESPECIALLY when attached to a van stationed in Florida for the past week at the very least. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
The fact Sayoc’s bombs did not explode is not a problem for me. I have no idea if he is mentally imbalanced and I suspect you have no clue either. If you do, please post the evidence. What makes him notable? Gosh, maybe it’s because he is making headlines and causing our president a lot of grief. Just ask him. He’s complaining about how this might affect the election. What CNN lies? Are you accusing me of being xenophobic? I’ll have to discuss this accusation with my friends Rodriguez and Madrid. I’d like to point out I never mentioned anyone being mentally deranged.--JLind (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
(1) his ex-lawyer says he's nuts; {2) CNN lies don't make anyone notable; (3) CNN said it was a bomb, bomb investigators said it was harmless; (4) so are you implying Hispanic's coming North from Honduras might have serial bombers among them? Please stop these racist attacks. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:52, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
So you have nothing from a medical professional that says he is at least mentally unstable? Pity. I’ll ask again, what CNN lies. I have yet to read an article on CNN about the guy, though I’m sure they are at least mentioning him in their articles, unlike another organization. What have I said that would even imply anything about Hispanics or Honduras? Are you responding to the voices in your head or maybe confusing me with someone else? Your groundless accusations of racism are insulting and down-right stupid on your part. Please stop. --JLind (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
Let's remember, the suspect also proudly identifies himself as a Seminole Indian. This makes the racism charges even more serious. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2018 (EDT)

Personally, I think John Brennan put Sayoc up to it with "artificial memories" developed by Christine Blasey Ford to make him think he was a Trump supporter. But that's just me. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:08, 26 October 2018 (EDT)

I’d ask for evidence but I’m convinced, it’s just you.--JLind (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2018 (EDT)

Here's a decent article on this incident: [3] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2018 (EDT)

Indictment

Sayoc was not charged with bomb making. He was charged with rigging an "energetic material that can become combustible when subjected to heat or friction." The alleged "bombs" were not functional. RobSDeep Six the Deep State!

Let’s see, I’ll believe the FBI director, a man appointed by a stable genius. He said Sayoc didn’t have fake devices. I’ll discount the opinion of the one who actually believes in the ‘Deep State’. It’s a no-brainer.--JLind (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2018 (EDT)
Bingo. Wray had to say that cause they couldn't charge him with bomb making. That's why Wray had to call it possession of "energetic material that can become combustible when subjected to heat or friction" which could be CoffeeMate, as I understand it. That's what caused Mary McCord (DOJ) of Trump-Russia shame to say on ,PBS News Hour tonight,
"this is a case, I think, that has every indication of being a case of domestic terrorism.
And we don't have in the federal criminal code a crime of domestic terrorism by that name. There are other crimes. And I would be interested to see as the investigation proceeds and as the prosecutors at the U.S. attorney's office and the Department of Justice take this to the grand jury whether they might not add some other charges, charges such as use of a weapon of mass destruction, which is a terrorism offense.
It's not labeled domestic terrorism, but it is a terrorism offense. So I think that this is a classic case where, if we had a federal crime of domestic terrorism, this kind of — this kind of a case would be fitting to consider for indictment under that type of a charge."
They can't charge him with a weapon of mass destruction cause it's not a bomb. Here's the indictment. Just cause CNN calls it a bomb don't make it a bomb RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:56, 26 October 2018 (EDT)

Cesar Sayoc: First and second generation immigrants do commit substantially more mass killings

Cesar Sayoc is a second generation immigrant.[4] I realize he is not a mass killer, but mailing the type of packages he mailed is not a good idea.

Consider:

"There have been about 34 mass shootings since 2000. Forty-seven percent -- 16 -- were committed by first- and second-generation immigrants, i.e. people who never would have been here but for Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration act.

And the immigrant mass shootings have been some of the most spectacular ones, such as Fort Hood and San Bernardino. Two of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, at Virginia Tech in 2007 and at the Pulse Nightclub in 2016, were committed by first- and second-generation immigrants, i.e., people who were in this country because Teddy was pouting in his room and refused to come out until he got his own legacy."[5]

Liberals/leftists, put the above information in your mass immigration pipes and smoke it!Conservative (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2018 (EDT)

Cesar Sayoc: Failure of the criminal/mental health/immigration systems and society

Jared Kushner had an interview with Van Jones about improving the criminal justice system so it has less recidivism (did a better job of reforming people and lowering their risk of committing another crime).[6]

Cesar Sayoc previously threatened to bomb an electric company. The judge never mandated he be examined by a mental health professional (maybe he had some physically related mental health issue like bipolar or schizophrenia). He had other brushes with the law too. But he also had a mother/sisters that loved him and wanted him to see a mental health professional but he refused. Then later he became estranged from his family and he became a loner. In addition, he did not have a father in terms of raising him.

It seems like Cesar Sayoc was a failure of: the criminal justice system, mental health system and of society in general (America has too much loneliness).

In addition, Cesar Sayoc could have been a failure of America's immigration system. If the immigration were more a merit system, maybe his father would have never been let in America. America should have a more merit based system where the best and brightest are let in as far as a general policy.Conservative (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2018 (EDT)

Probably the results of budget cuts, huh? Or maybe his insurance didn't cover pre-existing mental conditions. Better yet, maybe it was a failure of the church leaving him isolated and not part of a community. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:45, 27 October 2018 (EDT)
There is another possibility. Maybe he was born evil and incorrigible like the devil and no amount of reformation was possible.
Secondly, you don't have as many spree/multiple/serial killers and bombers per capita in Switzerland as you do in the United States. Cultures/societies can make a difference as far as people's character.Conservative (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:51, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Europe won't allow Muhammad to be defamed

Was Muhammad a pedophile? Don't ask a European: "Defaming Prophet Muhammed not free expression: ECHR." Europe is not Charlie Hebdo anymore. PeterKa (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2018 (EDT)

European conservatives have known for years that the ECHR and the ECJ are complete jokes. They only exist to advance a globalist/Europhile agenda -- I haven't seen a single decision not advancing these agendas in some way. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2018 (EDT)
Honestly, Charlie Hebdo is a joke as well, considering it exists solely to push Voltaire's globalist agenda (and let's face it, he also wanted a globalist agenda like Rousseau did). Pokeria1 (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2018 (EDT)
Charlie Hebdo is a joke -- but this decision will most affect European conservatives who believe in free speech (and we've already seen people like Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders fined because they mocked Islam). Tucker Carlson was interviewing someone on the issue last night who (rightly, I think) pointed out that this decision marks a return to anti-blasphemy laws in Europe that liberals claimed to oppose, though these new religious laws only apply for Islam, of course.
The big question is: the ECHR covers most of Europe, including Poland, Hungary, and Russia. What will they do in response to this? --1990'sguy (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2018 (EDT)

Left-wing rhetoric

Just another reminder that the Left is hypocritical to the extreme when they chastise Trump and other conservatives for somehow escalating their rhetoric: [7] We can't let this fact get lost to the media's narrative. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

True. Leftist mobs still differs from a lone nutcase, however the issue of political violence from left and right somewhat cancel each other out, although I'd still give an edge to Republicans. And gridlick certainly is no solution to divisions.
Let's face it though, violence and mobs takes a back seat to the migrant caravan and healthcare as the top two issues.
In my opinion, debating who has the most incendiary rhetoric is a sterile issue. The mainstream media can do so, but nobody is listening anymore. They're preaching to the liberal choir, and the more they go on about it, they pursuade independent minded voters they're full of bull. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:34, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
We should look for every opportunity to point out Democrats' only agenda for Blacks is to kill the low unemployment rate, and keep them depressed and dependent on the Democrat plantation. Democrats want to put Blacks back in chains. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:41, 28 October 2018 (EDT)
I can remember all the way back when the Obama regime was ramping up its rhetoric against cops. It inspired a shooting in Dallas and a riot in Ferguson. Obama himself was hanging out with race baiter Al Sharpton. Where was all the media handwringing about presidential rhetoric back then? It is such a dishonest tactic. PeterKa (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2018 (EDT)
Agreed overall, but I'm a bit hesitant as to whether that guy is actually a Trump Supporter. Those bumper stickers looked a bit too fresh ESPECIALLY in Florida weather. They would have shown signs of wear and tear by the time he was caught. More likely than not, he merely posed as a Trump supporter to make the group look bad, sort of like how the KKK "backed" Donald Trump during the election. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2018 (EDT)
This makes no sense. Sayoc killed no one. Sayoc couldn't build a bomb if you gave him a diagram. Brower the Trump-hater killed 10 people, and here you two DNC plants are Monday morning quarterbacking about Sayoc. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:06, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

Sick Islamic terrorist pleads guilty; back in winter left bombs inside baskets with stuffed bears along roadway, some detonate, one father hurt

An Islamic terrorist creep in a state nearby our recent fake-bomber's employed, back in winter, his own bomb arsenal to pack explosives into appealing children's toys (as well as some toys without explosives, which might have persuaded some their baskets were all harmless, and that it was safe to approach them) that went off while children were nearby. The baskets also contained pictures of the White House in flames, so it could be an instance of left-wing attacks based, but not solely based, on politics.

His federal charges are:

  • Using, attempting to use and threatening to use weapons of mass destruction;
  • Possession and discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a violent crime;
  • Using an explosive device during the commission of a felony.[1]

VargasMilan (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2018 (EDT)

Terrorism? CNN didn't cover it. You sure it wasn't just a prank? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:31, 30 October 2018 (EDT)

Robert Mueller turns FBI on accusers

According to this story, "Special counsel Robert Mueller has referred to the FBI allegations that women were "offered money" to make "false claims" about him, a spokesman said Tuesday." There is no mention of blackmail in the article. Mueller is apparently siccing the FBI on someone who simply accused him of something. Who knew you could do that? There was a group of women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct just before the 2016 election. It turned out they were paid off by Hillary donors.[8] When a special counsel claims powers even a president doesn't have, something is out of whack. Constitutionally speaking, Mueller is only an "inferior officer." PeterKa (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2018 (EDT)

MSM misrepresentation and false attacks about Steve King

In the last few days, the media has been outright hysterical over U.S. Rep. Steve King. It seems like the thing they are most upset about is the fact that he went to Austria and did an interview with a conservative publication affiliated with a certain political party -- this attack really annoys me because they show themselves to be clueless about the party/organization they are criticizing.

Here's what the media says about it the publication/political party:

In response, King stated that if this party/publication were in the U.S., they would belong in the GOP based on their political positions.

Is King right? Let's actually take a look at this party and this "former neo-Nazi" leader -- rather than blindly repeat the MSM -- to find out....

The party is the Austrian Freedom Party -- a look at the party's platform reveals that it is extremely pro-Israel (something Austria's establishment Chancellor has agreed with[9]), supporting moving Austria's embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Additionally, the party leans conservative on social issues, but it's not "hardline", leaning pro-life and opposing gun control, but also opposing the death penalty. Also, it supports remaining in the EU -- a very moderate position for a so-called "far-right" party. The party supports limited government, lower taxes, and free speech rights -- completely inconsistent with the socialist totalitarianism of the Nazis. King is right that they would fit in with the GOP (and I mean by the latter's Paul Ryan/Ted Cruz/etc. standards), and they might actually be considered moderates within the GOP.

What about the party being founded by a former SS officer? First, at the time, there were many people in Germany and Austria (as well as other countries, such as Hungary) who had once been in the SS or Nazi Party, and its founder did not take part in the Holocaust (according to one of my college professors -- no fan of national socialism -- people, including some non-Germans, joined the SS for other reasons in addition to Jews). Second, the Freedom Party changed its ideology over the years -- it originally had a strong liberal faction and sometimes formed governing coalitions with the left-wing Social Democrats. However, it later began becoming more conservative, kicking out the liberal faction and aligning with the establishment-conservative ÖVP.

Lastly, who is so-called "former neo-Nazi Heinz-Christian Strache"?[10] He's the Vice-Chancellor of Austria, a member of a party (the Freedom Party) which currently controls several important national security-related departments, including defense, interior (meaning police and immigration), and foreign affairs, among others. And they call this party -- currently occupying very important positions in the government, aligned with an establishment party and getting along well -- a "neo-Nazi" party? Give me a break -- it's maddening when the media and the establishment misrepresent pretty much everything about a conservative political party and its leader. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2018 (EDT)

Of coarse. Anyone who is not a Social Democrat (i.e. Marxist) has to be exterminated. This is how it's done. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:42, 31 October 2018 (EDT)

Redundancy = overkill

MPR reads, "from his fellow atheists, the atheist Stephen Fry." By the word "fellow," we already know Fry is an atheist. The reader is left with two impressions: (1} the writer thinks you are stupid in case you missed the point; or (2) the writer is stupid in not realizing the readers aren't that stupid and don't need a point hammered home as such.

Either way, it sounds amatuerish, and begs the readers patience. In writing, less can be more. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:09, 31 October 2018 (EDT)

Let's continue our grammar lesson. In the above example, "atheist" is being used as a pejorative in its second use. It is not being used to inform, but to insult, which tells us more about the writer and underlying content than the content itself. The intent is not to persuade, but to disparage.
By offering a disputed definition for a term - atheist in this example - whether the term is an insult or core set of beliefs, is an invitation to a circular argument. You've already declared your intention is to neither inform or persuade.
The misuse of these terms is common throughout Conservapedia, the insertion of atheist or liberal as a pejorative or insult rather than having any information baring value. In the current political climate, this bares sitting up and taking notice.
Many liberals are WalkAway from the Democratic party, particularly Blacks. This does not automatically imply they have converted to conservatism. At this historic moment, with this historic opportunity President Trump has created for us, we should cease immediately disparaging the term "liberal," and learn to identify the fine distinctions between "liberal" and "progressive." We should welcome liberals with open arms, and ostracize intolerant single-party progressives, socialists, and Marxists.
In keeping with the main theme of "less is more," the floor is now open for discussion. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:47, 1 November 2018 (EDT)
Illustration: progressive, socialists, and Marxists are the "crazy crazy crazy Democrats" Claire McCaskill referenced who are the dominant force of the Democrat party. "Traditional liberals" are allies of Republicans who believe in two-party democracy. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:39, 2 November 2018 (EDT)
4 things: 1) Due to the USA midterm elections coming up and the public's waning interest in atheism (see also: Decline of the atheist movement), I decided to remove the post before I saw your feedback. 2) Your point about excess verbiage in the sentence was legitimate complaint. 3) I did not use the term atheist with malice in the sentence and it was merely a descriptor. The thought of doing so did not even enter into my mind. 4) Technically, since the group giving Stephen Fry the award was made up of atheists/agnostics, the term "fellow atheists" should not have been used (although the group is called Atheist Alliance of America, the group's about page on their website indicates they serve "nonbelievers".[11] Because some nonbelievers are atheists or agnostics in this particular context, this is the main reason I used the term "atheist" to describe Stephen Fry).Conservative (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2018 (EDT)
Your excess verbiage above doesn't address the points of grammar and information. A writer, an effective writer, must view the world through the eyes of the reader or audience. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:45, 1 November 2018 (EDT)

Would you agree with the basic premise - The over use of the terms "liberal" and "atheist" as pejoratives becomes counterproductive at some point? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:58, 1 November 2018 (EDT)

Here's my point: calling a Democrat a liberal has as much impact as calling a Republican a racist. They just brush it off, and the only negative impact is on the namecaller. We must recognize there are good liberals and bad liberals. Good liberals believe in democracy, tolerance, and a two party system. Bad liberals vote Democrat. Republicans have much in common and an alliance with many liberals.

Such is the state of the discussion today. We don't live in an advanced civilized world. Political divisions today exist on a primitive basis - authoritarian single-party fascists on the one hand, and those with respect for democracy, tolerence, and human rights on the other. Because of the reality of the modern world Republicans and conservatives must form an alliance with "traditional" liberals. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:17, 1 November 2018 (EDT)

I had a tough English professor for English 201. I was also a writing tutor for a major university. I don't believe in the overuse/unnecessary use of terms in one's writing. But my writing could be improved and I recently purchased the books Elements of Style by Strunk & White and On Writing Well by William Zinsser. And I definitely should have worded the main page right post more effectively. By the way, in your post above, you wrote "over use" instead of the grammatically correct "overuse" (see: Overuse - Merriam-Webster dictionary).Conservative (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2018 (EDT)
You don't need to defend yourself personally. That's beside the point.
Now, stop posting personal information and address the main point: Would you agree with the basic premise - The over use of the terms "liberal" and "atheist" as pejoratives becomes counterproductive at some point? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:35, 1 November 2018 (EDT)
I did address your question. I wrote: "I don't believe in the overuse/unnecessary use of terms in one's writing."
Secondly, the terms liberal/atheist do have a toxic quality - especially the word atheist (see: Democrats may have turned left but they still fear the L-word, CNN, 2016 and Views on atheists). But it is largely the misbehavior/incompetence of these two groups that has caused the toxicity. For example, please see Atheism and mass murder and Atheist population and immorality. So it is not surprising that opponents of these groups tar their opponents with the labels liberal/atheist. If Donald Trump were to run for president against Bernie Sanders, chances are that Donald Trump and/or his supporters would point out that Sanders is an atheist since a great deal of Americans would not vote for an atheist (Many Americans have indicated that they would not vote for an atheist in surveys). That's politics. And politics ain't bean bag as the political pundits say. Nonetheless, I stick by my statement that "I don't believe in the overuse/unnecessary use of terms in one's writing." And this principle applies to one's speech as well. Conservative (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2018 (EDT)
Analysis: Premise: Misuse of the term "atheist" is an invitation to a circular argument.
Response: the terms liberal/atheist do have a toxic quality.
Per CP's article circular reasoning, "Circular reasoning is a form of proof by assertion, often used by Atheists and evolutionists in which one uses a conclusion of an argument as a premise to that same argument." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:14, 2 November 2018 (EDT)
I came up with the term "scorntheist" or in Greek "periphrontheism" to describe 1. militant atheists, 2. anti-theists and 3. satanists.
But Andy conveyed it was important when Ben Carson in August 2015 rebuked the liberal media and dismissed the "anchor-babies" controversy as "silly", saying “We need to talk about the actual issue and stop getting pulled off into the weeds and saying, 'you can't use this term, you can't use that term.'" So I don't know how he'd feel about editors actually coining a new word, especially one that potentially would appear on main page right. VargasMilan (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2018 (EDT)
Q. Would you agree the over usage of the terms "liberal" and "atheist" as pejoratives becomes counterproductive at some point?
A. "I don't believe in the overuse/unnecessary use of terms in one's writing."
That doesn't answer the question. Let's try it this way: Would you agree when an author frequently uses the terms "liberal" and "atheist" as attack words, it can sow confusion among some readers who do not regard those words as pejoratives? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:38, 2 November 2018 (EDT)

Trump does it again

Trump approval hits 50%.jpg

This picture shows a meeting Trump held yesterday before a White House dinner where Trump invited the deep state back to their former workplace. But I think they may have regretted attending when Trump said the only reason he was having the dinner was to celebrate that his approval numbers had broken 50% and hit 51%. They don't look like they had much of an appetite after having heard that. VargasMilan (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2018 (EDT)

Another victim of the public school system?

"I think it's the massive reputation blow skepticism and rationalism itself has taken over the coarse of the last... I don't know, let's say 4 years... The intellectual clout of rationalism has suffered dramatically, look at the way people talk about skeptics today versus 5 years ago." - Editor of atheist wiki

The correct spelling of the word "coarse" in the above passage is "course".

Another atheist who was indoctrinated in a poorly run public school system? See also: Atheist indoctrination.Conservative (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2018 (EDT)

I dunno; what's the difference between a coarse brick a brick course? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 08:59, 3 November 2018 (EDT)

Brooklyn graffiti artist was left wing anti-Semite

Hey, left-wing Jew haters! The media is playing the anti-Semitism card against Trump this week, so keep it down: "Brooklyn, NY - "Kill All Jews" Graffiti Suspect, Responsible For Other Synagogue Fires, Arrested, Intern For Former City Council Speaker." The Dems are still the party of Linda Sarsour, Louis Farrakhan, and Al Sharpton. Israelis know who their friends are: "Poll: Jewish Israelis Love Trump." PeterKa (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2018 (EST)

I guess you didn't read that Linda Sarsour now wants to lead a movement to fight anti-semitism. VargasMilan (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2018 (EST)
Statement from the Anti Defamation League: "We have vigorously opposed efforts like the Boycott Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement, which she supports and we oppose her stance that one cannot be simultaneously a feminist and pro-Israel." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:02, 6 November 2018 (EST)
That's about as tough as a liberal group can get on leftist bigots nowadays. It's so rare for anyone on the left to challenge the orthodoxy that only conservatives can be racist. PeterKa (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (EST)

"Stealth chairman" Chuck Grassley goes further in his preparations to avenge abuses committed in Kavanaugh hearing

“Indeed, the evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee’s investigation.”

— Chairman Chuck Grassley, Senate Judiciary
VargasMilan (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2018 (EST)

He wrote up her sworn statement and had her sign it - again Avenatti exploiting women. He made materially false and misleading statements to Committee Counsel in emails. Like Michael Cohen and Bill Clinton, he's likely gonna loose his law license. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:09, 6 November 2018 (EST)

ftvbw: for the very Big Win

I'd hate to be your boy once those subpoenas start flying in. Still, I can't help but admire the bone-headed chutzpah that compels him to try and take a victory lap beforehand. JohnZ (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2018 (EST)

The GOP did very well in the Senate. Not only will they likely increase their seats in the chamber (not including the undecided races, they're currently equal to what they have now), but they got rid of RINOs like Flake and Corker, replacing them with stronger conservatives. That means it's easier to confirm originalist judges and confirm conservative executive branch nominees.
Considering how poorly the incumbent party usually does in the first midterm election of a presidency, it's extremely accurate to consider this a GOP victory. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2018 (EST)
Rosenstein just lost control of the Mueller probe with the assumption of power by Acting AG Matthew Whitaker. Rosenstein was ineffective anyway, seeing that his FISA clearance has been suspended since he came under IG Michael Horowitz's investigation for Obama FISA abuse. Fortunately, Whitaker also inherits 61,000 sealed indictments, which certainly include the people who think they're going to impeach and try Trump. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:51, 7 November 2018 (EST)
Only crazy people believe QAnon, Rob. It's Pizzagate with clown shoes on. JohnZ (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2018 (EST)
I said nothing about Qanon. Now, how would you explain the existence of 61,000 sealed indictments since John Huber's appointment? It's an indisputable fact. Even WaPo just reported two hours ago, Trump just seized control of the Mueller investigation.
I've been telling my Democratic friends they better pray the Democrats do not win the House. Next comes the fight between Pelosi (who engineered takeover of the House) and progressive Democratic Socialists peeing their pants for impeachment. Pelosi will wisely tell them, as she did in 2007, that impeachment is off the table. If snot-nose punk millennial socialists think they can overthrow Pelosi this time, I say good luck. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:32, 7 November 2018 (EST)
Meanwhile, back in the real world... JohnZ (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2018 (EST)
Thanks. It's a very interesting analysis that, honestly, confirms some of the suspicions I had about methodology, which is why I never associated myself with the Qanon movement. But if you read this analysis closely, it's inconclusive as well. It debunks Q's methodology, but doesn't do much beyond that. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:35, 7 November 2018 (EST)
Sundance has a good take on it RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:49, 7 November 2018 (EST)
No worries. Your link agrees with wmerthon's analysis, describing the claim re. 60-odd thousand sealed indictments as "pure unmitigated nonsense". Your last two sentences, though, suggest you still think there might be something to this.
wmerthon takes pains to stress his analysis isn't definitive (i.e. categorical proof), but that doesn't mean it's inconclusive. He's stress tested Q's claim of thousands of new sealed indictments at several key data points, and found it to be without merit each time.
How many rancid spoonfuls does a man have to swallow before deciding the meat in his stew is off? JohnZ (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2018 (EST)
Granted, carting George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Obama off to Gitmo seems a forlorn hope, we can't dismiss it as a contingency. And given everything Trump critics say about Trump, how can it be ignored?
I'm not sure the Huber probe is limited to McCabe, either.
There are however some apparent differences in how the numbers were counted beginning at some point in 2017, which is difficult to explain. And wmerthon explains the problem again. PACER is a pay wall. He said he himself spent $150, but needed about $400 to create a reasonable sample.
So yes, I agree. The 10 day tribunals and firing squads seems far fetched. But much depends on how Democrats behave now. After what they did to Tucker Carlson last nite, the nation needs to be ware. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:47, 8 November 2018 (EST)
Update: User:Sundance of theconservativetreehouse posted that Qanon is giving the Democrats ammunition for impeachment by claiming Matthew Whitaker is part of some larger plan to undermine the Deep state; simultaneously with Sundance's criticism, Praying Medic has suspended his YouTube activity. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:05, 10 November 2018 (EST)
If there's a lesson to be learned from the behavior of Democrats concerning accountability in government, it's that ignoring Congressional subpoenas is pretty cool! Down to earth! I'd worry more about those Department of Justice subpoenas. VargasMilan (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2018 (EST)
(Nota bene: The above is rote sarcasticul. Obama's executive branch higher-ups (Eric Holder, Lois Lerner) and his crony capitalists (Solyndra) etc. dodged Congressional subpoenas for the eight years of his tenure. There is a reason why Department of Justice (an executive Department whose members are now hired by Trump) subpoenas towards suspected Democratic mis-users of political power are more immune from the Democrats' political strategy of law-ignoring dismissal as well as their smear campaigns towards those who help to move towards prosecution, dismissal or censure [through making use of these subpoenas] the most skillfully.
And that is that the Department of Justice officers have already fairly low concern about avoiding "smearable" bold moves (due to a lack of a need for re-election—being appointed officers) and especially so early in the election cycle where memories will not be as fresh two years after when their elected supervisors are up for the voters' re-endorsement. And for one last reason: carrying out law-enforcement is, and is perceived to be, their specialty and not just one job among many that pulls away from the performance of other jobs. VargasMilan (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2018 (EST))
I have two words for anyone who thinks the Dems can use the House to cramp Trump's style: Lois Lerner. For a government official to plead the fifth is to admit criminal wrongdoing. Yet there was no criminal investigation.
If you want to know what happened at Benghazi, read 13 House by Mitchell Zuckoff, not the congressional testimony. Why? Because the testimony consists of hours and hours of Obama's people shamelessly stonewalling.
House Republicans held Eric Holder in contempt in 2012.[12] It was unprecedented, but nobody noticed. In short, Obama has provided plenty of precedent to ignore the House. Trump, kick the House Dems hard. No one deserves it more. Republican gains in the Senate mean Trump can run the country without the House. All Mueller can do now is write his report -- and Whitaker can make appropriate adjustments to that. PeterKa (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2018 (EST)
I'm sure the word went out today from Whitaker to Mueller to wrap it up. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:00, 7 November 2018 (EST)
I see a lot of commentary bemoaning the decline of the House from the glorious state that the founders supposedly intended for it. But I assume the founders had the Roman Republic in mind when they designed the U.S. constitution. That is to say, the president was seen as a consul governing with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Meanwhile, the people would be blowing off steam in the House, successor to Rome's Popular Assembly. PeterKa (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2018 (EST)
It's true, the U.S House isn't as powerful as the UK House of Commons, which is involved I everything from taxing lap dances, disbursing highway funds, to authorizing troops in Libya. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:08, 7 November 2018 (EST)

Digression on UK potholes and wishful prognostications

JohnZ, deep down you know that you would love to be "our boy" Donald Trump. If you were Trump, you would be a billionaire and the most powerful man in the world. You would also be an American citizen rather than be a citizen of a country being overrun with Muslim extremism and facing a road repair crisis (see: United Kingdom's road repair crisis). Señor British, Secular Leftist, even Chile has better roads than Britain![13] Olé! Olé! Olé!

The only downside to being Donald Trump is that you would be much older and missing some hair.

By the way, have you seen Olé! Olé! Olé! Atheist style!. You definitely should take a look at it.Conservative (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2018 (EST)

Why can't you stick to the subject? The subject is "our boy," not JohnZ. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:34, 9 November 2018 (EST)
I am sticking to the root issue. One of the main reasons why the left dislikes conservatives/right is due to envy. Many of the "poor" in the Western World have air conditioning, cable television, publicly paid medical services, etc. They want wealth distribution due to envy not due to necessity. Deep down JohnZ is envious of Donald Trump.Conservative (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2018 (EST)
We're not discussing the left, or conservatives, or what we think another editor's ideology is, or potholes in Great Britain. We're discussing Trump's victory lap. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:51, 9 November 2018 (EST)
JohnZ said, "I'd hate to be your boy once those subpoenas start flying in." The truth is that he is envious of Donald Trump and I pointed out some of the likely reasons he is envious of Trump.Conservative (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2018 (EST)
You did not. You went on personal rant about God knows what and attacked another editor personally. You never once considered or addressed the point JohnZ brought up: the actions of a new Congress. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:50, 10 November 2018 (EST)

There are certainly British who have the traditional British virtues such as industriousness, politeness, thrift, etc., but the sad truth is that Britain/France/Germany/Sweden/Netherlands/etc. are going to have big problems due to Muslim immigration. In addition, the Brits have had a negative cultural influence due to Darwinism/atheism. And I see Britain continuing to see societal decline due to various factors. This is a sad state of affairs given that Britain gave us the Magna Carta, the industrial revolution, Pilgrim's Progress, Shakespeare, King James Bible, etc.

After all is said and done, I see JohnZ's main page talk posts as rather uninformative in terms of the big picture. Seeing that he is a British atheist and leftist/liberal, this is not entirely surprising. Britain, the secular left and the atheist movement are in decline (see also: Decline of the atheist movement and Desecularization and Decline of the secular left).Conservative (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2018 (EST)

Face facts: there's much you can learn from the Left. While a bunch of atheist community organizers are busy stealing elections nationwide from Godly people, you wanna discuss UK potholes. Why? Because conservatives by nature don't lend themselves easily to cooperation in organized groups. Adolph Hitler repudiates Marxism in a chapter of Mein Kampf entitled, The Strong Man Stands Mightiest Alone. You make that point repeatedly with your off-topic rants. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:48, 10 November 2018 (EST)

I don't believe that there is much I can learn from the left. Their cultures are largely crumbling (Breakdown of the family, increasing levels of sovereign debt, falling national IQs, sub-replacment levels of births, etc.). Western leftists have high rates of mental health problems - especially among the young. And in a time of the state losing power through much of the world (greater difficulty in indoctrinating people into their narrative in an internet age; Fourth-generation warfare, funding problems as far as a welfare state, etc. etc), leftism is probably going to be less and less relevant as it derives much of its power from the state. On top of this, leftists are often humorless and bitter sore losers when they lose power or are losing power.

China might turn into a great power and part of the reason is its rapid Christianization.

If I want to learn much, the Bible/God and Christians/businessmen are far better sources. One the reasons why I like Donald Trump is that he is a businessman. Conservative (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2018 (EST)

The Left is organized, the Right is not. That's why it's so easy for them to steal elections after they imposed internet censorship and shadow banning of conservatives, making it difficult if not impossible to get information about what they are doing this very moment.
I just read they think they can up the number of House seats from 29 to 42 before it's over.
There's only two issues at the moment: (1) monopoly control and censorship of the internet; (2) election rigging. Your ramblings about potholes, China, and atheism amount to nothing unless you get focused. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:43, 10 November 2018 (EST)
It's easy for the left to steal elections? In 2015, The Guardian published an article entitled Only a third of the EU is governed by the centre-left. Angela Merkel said they is not running for re-election and she is rapidly losing power due the growth of right-wing populism. In Brazil, right-wing populism is seeing rapid growth. Right-wing populism is growing in Latin America. Right-wing populism and nationalism are rapidly growing in Europe and in the world at large.
As far as communists, the Soviet Union collapsed and the Chinese communists have been unable to stop the rapid Christianization of their country. Conservative (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2018 (EST)
leftism is probably going to be less and less relevant as it derives much of its power from the state. On top of this, leftists are often humorless and bitter sore losers when they lose power or are losing power.
Duh, the Democrats didn't just take over the House? The Right didn't just loose power? You're living in la-la land. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:04, 10 November 2018 (EST)
And a Big Duh, Angela Merkel is not a Leftist, she's a Christian. And she'll be replaced by another CDU member. And the extreme Green Party which grew by leaps and bounds recently has a better chance of becoming a coalition partner in any German government before the AfD ever will. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:13, 10 November 2018 (EST)
@RobSmith: About Merkel, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that she's a big leftist posing as a Christian, namely the fact that right now she's supporting open borders and doing everything she can up to this point to support globalism and trying to reject Trump. Heck, there's even photos and information pointing to her being a sleeper Communist due to her dad defecting to East Germany. And I otherwise agree with you regarding cynicism regarding whether the right can get a foothold in Europe or here even WITH Trump's election (heck, Karen Handel lost reelection to Lucy McBath, and she's no RINO). Pokeria1 (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2018 (EST)
I agree with Pokeria1 on this -- I don't see any evidence she's actually a Christian besides the fact she's a member of a party with the word "Christian" in it. Merkel is divorced, she supports homosexual "marriage" (she got it legalized), and AFAIK, she supports abortion. She's a regular member of the globalist elite. Also, her party's name is nominal today, like Christianity in Europe in general today. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2018 (EST)
Well, to be fair regarding the divorce bit, it's only a concern for us Christians, or at least Catholics, if she remarried while STILL divorced and her divorced husband is still alive. If she never remarried, she can technically still follow Christianity faithfully if she's divorced. That being said, however, she did legalize homosexual "marriage", which is something no good Christian would ever support, let alone legalize. Same goes for abortion, so she definitely isn't even remotely a good Christian. Besides, there's rumors that she was a STASI agent as a kid (and a voluntary one at that), so it's not even clear if she's an actual Christian by membership taking that into account. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2018 (EST)
IMO, open borders does not define Left-Right issues. There's enough evidence worldwide of economic conservatives being pro-immigration and socialist labor movements being anti-immigrant. As to Merkel, her own views are irrelevant, other than the fact she represents the thinking of the dominant party that controlled Germany in Soviet and post-Soviet times. I don't doubt her Lutheranism for a moment, or the influence of the socialist edcational system in her background, or more importantly, her trained ability in East Germany to disguise her real views as a persecuted group. Whatever the reality, she's irrelevant now. She shares with other Germans a sense of national shame and guilt, which the whole planet ostracized Germans and German culture with. Other than that, her background has nothing in common with the people who elected her to represent them (in this sense, she shares much in common with Barack Obama).
Because of lingering stigma, I doubt Germans will elect anyone under the "nationalist" label anytime soon. For this reason, alleged "nationalist" sentiment must be disguised under code words like "patriotism," "populism," "anti-globalist," "anti-elitist," "Eurosceptic" or other such terms in the foreseeable future. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:34, 30 November 2018 (EST)
Democrats won the house due to the failure of the GOP to deliver a better healthcare system after promising over and over to repeal and replace ObamaCare. In an aging population, this was a big mistake. In addition, the me-too movement is currently a fad. But feminism is ultimately a dead end for a political movement because it leads to sub-replacement levels of births for leftists.
Brexit and the growth of right-wing populism in Europe helped cause Donald Trump to become elected. As right-wing populism continues to grow in Europe and in the world, it is bound to have a greater effect on the USA.
Lastly, as far as USA, the Senate/President/Supreme Court are all right-leaning. The right is not out of power in the USA.Conservative (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2018 (EST)
As to "right-wing populism" - you should not be anxious to hang a label around your neck that was invented by Leftists. I'll bet $100 you haven't a clue of the term's origins or the two decades of literature defining it in journalism schools. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:42, 10 November 2018 (EST)

I don't care about the origin of political terms, the reality is that right-wing populism and nationalism are growing rapidly in the world. And the growth of religion and desecularization are long terms trends.

And it is just a matter of time before right-wingers develop alternative major search engines and social media platforms. Should Jesus tarry, the "Foxification of the internet" (general growth of the right-wing on the internet) is an inevitability.Conservative (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2018 (EST)

You should care how language and terms enter the popular lexicon and conciousness. No one is going to call a Luciferian a Christian after 2000 years of being defined another way. In 2018, you think your going to redefine "rightwing populism" as other than racist, after the Left spent two decades defining it as such, and after they invented the term specifically to do that?
You need to be a little more careful about your use of language, in addition to understanding of language. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:37, 10 November 2018 (EST)

The labels Western leftists are using for their opponents don't seem to be having much of an effect in terms of rapidity of right-wing nationalism spreading. After awhile, many people shrug off being called racists, misogynist, etc. The left has developed a reputation for being liars and many people don't care about the labels liars reflexively give them. In addition, the robotic and prolific use of those terms to label their opponents has desensitized much of the public to those terms.

After Germany and France elect a right-wing populist or substantially shift rightward (which should happen relatively soon), Western leftism will see even a more rapid decline. The eventual breakup of the EU will have a profound effect as well. Conservative (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2018 (EST)

All you're doing is telling the world how brainwashed by Leftist propaganda you are. For example, Leftists invent a term, say "right wing populism," define it and teach it in sociology clasess and journalism schools. Then one day there is a popular uprising against the socialist world order. Leftist propagandists trot out an academic term they learned in school, "rightwing populism," and introduce it into the public lexicon. But these "intellectuals" are careful. They know it means racist, but they also know it's a mass racist movement they need to sell a product to (commercial news organizations) in order to get your money. So they talk around the issue trying not to offend anybody while condemning the movement's leaders.
Meantime, people like yourself are devouring and thriving on the excitement of a "new" movement, absorbing Leftist propaganda without realizing it, and embracing the label they categorized you with. What's more, you're unaware how much other Leftist garbage you've been infected with. You live up to the stereotype of a common unenlightened idiot, which is why you should leave thinking and intellectual stuff to liberals. And by embracing their words, you're not even aware you stand for everything they despise.
As to France & Germany, it's 3 years til another German election and 5 years til another French election. And both the French National Front and Alternative for Germany have a long way to go just to be recognized in parliament, let alone be a junior partner in a governing coalition.
Bottomline, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:16, 11 November 2018 (EST)
For better for or for worse, race does have an effect on politics. I don't see how this can be denied.
Eric Kaufmann, who is a multirace individual, makes some sensible commentary on the matter of race/politics: Eric Kaufmann on Nationalism, White Identity & Immigration and Eric Kaufmann, Book: White Shift
There are individuals such as Vox Day, who is an alt-right advocate and who is an multiracial person himself, thinks the USA will see an economic depression followed by racial strife that will cause the USA to break up in the 2030s. In terms of race relations, I disagree with Vox Day and think the future of the USA will resemble something similar to Hawaii/Singapore which are multiracial and multi-religious societies. However, I do agree with Vox Day that the USA will see an economic depression.
The founder of Singapore, Lee Kwan Yew, stated: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” While I do think this is an oversimplification, race/religion do have an effect on politics. But other factors do as well. For example, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, 30% of African-Americans have a favorable view of Donald Trump and this is no doubt partly due to the positive effect that Trump's policies have had on African-American community (record low unemployment figures for the African-Americans). While it is true that race/religion are quasi proxies for worldview (For example, African-Americans and Hispanics are more theistic than whites), they do have an effect on politics. Next, worldviews obviously have an effect on politics as well (for example, see: Atheism and politics and Secular left).
Lastly, given the pace of political/economic change, within 3-10 years, right-wing populist parties will take over Germany/France. Muslim immigration, racial politics, economic stagnation and high youth unemployment in France will cause this to happen. News from 6 days ago: Marine Le Pen's National Rally Ahead of Macron in European Parliament Elections. I rest my case!Conservative (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2018 (EST)
Duh, you have the EU Parliament confused with French national elections. And no, the AfD has a very long way to go to have any impact in German politics. You simply do not understand parliamentary coalition politics. All other parties, left and right, refuse to form a coalition with the AfD (watch closely what is happening in Sweden right now over the coming weeks and months to learn the process). The AfD will never garner 51%. The AfD itself must change to be accepted and have any impact whatsoever.
Your prognostications are wishful thinking of someone uninformed of facts. And you have a long paper trail to support that conclusion.
Why, pray tell, are you posting about Muslims with high fertility rates, taking over the world on MPR? Do you have a clue who Eric Kaufman is or why there is a "right wing populist" movement in Europe? Stick to evolution. You only dig yourself in deeper when you begin musing on politics and social history. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:10, 12 November 2018 (EST)

Rah Rah! We lost! <---That's what you sound like. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:07, 12 November 2018 (EST)

Instead of pontificating on crap that's never going to happen, if you're genuinely committed to furthering the conservative movement, why don't you roll up your sleeves right now and help document the massive election fraud going on nationwide to steal the U.S. House of Representatives and at least 2 Governorships and Senate seats? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:44, 12 November 2018 (EST)

Kaufman

  • This task will arguably become far more difficult as the supply of nominal Christians dries up while more secularisation-resistant Muslims and committed rump Christians comprise an increasing share of the population.

User: Conservative: Why don't you do a page on Rump Christians, since your whole theory on the future of Europe depends on competition between Muslims and Rump Christians. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:44, 12 November 2018 (EST)

Let me re-write your MPR posting for you:

Eric Kaufmann, the author of the book Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth, was recently interviewed.[2]
Kaufmann's research predicts that immigration from Islamic societies, coupled with the higher fertility rate of Muslims, will lead to the Islamization of the West.

Wow. Kaufman almost sounds like an intellectual. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:55, 12 November 2018 (EST)

New AG

Sundance says,

"Ratcliffe is generally unflappable and knows the likely force of the alliance against him. ...That’s probably why John Ratcliffe is the frontrunner. The success or failure of this person, whoever President Trump picks, will strongly influence: (A) his decision on running for re-election in 2020; and (B) the likelihood of success in the 2020 election. Given the DOJ history and ‘in-your-face‘ evidence over the past two years, if the next AG can’t or won’t deal with the institutional corruption that has fully metastasized within the Department of Justice, President Trump’s support could erode quickly." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:24, 11 November 2018 (EST)

Florida count

Even if the count, or rather miscount, shows that DeSantis gets less votes than Gillum, he has lawyers at the ready to litigate against the failures of two counties to respect Florida election law designed to prevent voter fraud.

In similar situations across the country, all benefiting Democrats, vast statistical unlikelihoods of the last-counted ballots cast in Democrats' favor were complained about, but ignored by state attorneys general appointed by or elected by Democrats.

This time it seems like the Republicans are prepared and will be able to explain to a judge with jurisdiction in the matter the statistical unlikelihood of the late-counted votes (which really does reach ridiculous levels) without some partisan Democrat attorney general slowwalking the count and playing as dumb or slack-minded about the science of statistical analysis as if it had just been invented the year before, and nobody knows what the science does. VargasMilan (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2018 (EST)

Marc Elias, who paid Christopher Steele for the pee-pee memo to try to tamper with the 2016 presidential election, and later overthrow Trump, is representing the Democrats' as their premier "election lawyer." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:01, 10 November 2018 (EST)

Midterm campaign spending

This election cycle, 43 Republican candidates won election/re-election despite being massively outspent by Democrats: [14] Only 11 Democrats were outspent by their opponents, and one of these Dems was outspent by an independent, not a Republican.

This illustrates two things:

  • The GOP did relatively well this midterm compared to average (not to mention that Republicans won in every district where Trump got at least 55% of the vote in 2016)
  • Money does not determine election results, contrary to what the Left often likes to claim -- there are other more important factors in play

--1990'sguy (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2018 (EST)

Based on how the economy is doing, we could certainly have done better. Ann Coulter blames the setback in the House on the hysterical level of partisanship we've seen in the media in the last couple of years.[15] The there was a record number of Republican retirements this year, possibly because GOP congressman were themselves convinced a blue was coming. PeterKa (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2018 (EST)
It's the retirements. 94% of incumbants are usually re-elected. GOP retirements were driven by 1) establishment Republicans like Paul Ryan, and 2) death threats and the shooting of Scalise.
In the final analysis, Trump bares some responsibility and commie lib Democrats are convinced violence works. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:57, 11 November 2018 (EST)
It seems to me (and Tucker Carlson made similar points Wednesday night) that in the current climate, voters don't care about the economy as they did under Reagan, Clinton, and Bush. Tax cuts remain good, but other issues such as immigration and health care have become more important for them. However, House leadership under Paul Ryan continued to emphasize the tax cut bill -- Ryan and his allies are unwilling to admit that the Reagan Era is over and the Trump Era has begun. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2018 (EST)
The public didn't get behind impeachment of Clinton because the economy was roaring along in the post-Cold War, low interest rate economy. Nixon resigned because the economy tanked in 1973 with the Arab Oil Embargo and high unemployment with lower defense spending, returning Vietnam vets, ending the draft, and a baby boom entering the job market. In both cases, the public wasn't interested in the details of scandal. Nixon's resignation was fueled by general discontent over the economy, Clinton was saved cause nobody wanted to upset the apple cart.
In Trump's case, the Federal Reserve Board and rising interest rates is the biggest threat, which scandal mongers are eager to jump on to stir up more discontent. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:26, 11 November 2018 (EST)

SNL Apology

Yes, Saturday Night Live and Pete Davidson did the right thing and apologized for mocking a veteran who lost an eye in service to his country.

Now, suppose he had said “I prefer veterans who don’t get shot in the eye.” Should he have apologized for that? DavidPeters (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2018 (EST)

Crenshaw (the Congressman-elect who lost his eye) stated multiple times he didn't need an apology and stated more than once that we should be less offended over things like that.[16] If only the Left would follow his advice. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2018 (EST)
Frank Luntz, the political consultant/pollster/guru who badgered Donald Trump about his criticism of John McClain (which partly led to the the alluded exchange), wrongly predicted the Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton race.
Frank Luntz on Twitter, November 8, 2016: “Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.”[17]
Frank Luntz is a "lightweight"/"major loser" despite his obesity! See also: Donald Trump slams Fox News' Frank Luntz (CNN interview with Don Lemon).Conservative (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2018 (EST)
Trump shouldn't have said the war hero remark about McCain, but Trump has made some very positive changes to the VA Hospitals.Conservative (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2018 (EST)
Recommended resource on Trump's policies toward veterans: Donald Trump achievements: Veterans --1990'sguy (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2018 (EST)
Love the way an SNL apology for offending people, which is a first, after many many years, gets turned around into criticism of Trump. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:14, 11 November 2018 (EST)
There is no question that Crenshaw is a rising star: "Weekend Update: Pete Davidson Apologizes to Lt. Com. Dan Crenshaw - SNL." PeterKa (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2018 (EST)

Trump the nationalist

People have long said both good and bad things about nationalism. But until Trump used it, I never heard anyone talk about nationalism as if the word itself was somehow unsavory. In American history, nationalism is associated with the Whig Party and particularly with Abraham Lincoln, "the great nationalist." See "The Nationalism of Abraham Lincoln Revisited" (2001) Lincoln was a Whig before he was a Republican. The Whig agenda was to build a "national road" from Baltimore across Kentucky to St. Louis, as well as a "national bank," canals, and public education. I certainly never associated nationalism with white nationalism until the media's latest outburst. This is "collusion" all over again. The media invents a meaning for a word and then froths with outrage over their freshly coined definition.
Trumpism seems to defy easy categorization. Earlier, Trump was labeled a "populist." This word is from Populares, the name of Caesar's faction in ancient Rome. PeterKa (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2018 (EST)

In the globalist age, we've had an entire generation under 35 educated in public schools and universities to believe nationalism = racism. Trump initiated a global debate, but I'm not certain historical examples can be used to counter the globalist position. Their narrative has been set in concrete.
There is progress however; the idea national socialism, big government, and fascism is right wing is being challenged, leaving many millennials scratching their heads about stale narratives. IMO, embracing the nationalist label to counter globalism has it's pitfalls. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:00, 11 November 2018 (EST)
Macron drew a distinction between nationalism and patriotism. This has many advantages that the term nationalism doesn't have. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:04, 11 November 2018 (EST)
"Patriot" is the older usage. Since World War II, "nationalist" has been dominent.[18]
Some black journalists confronted Trump about the nationalist label.[19] Everyone involved in this incident seems to have forgotten about black nationalism. PeterKa (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2018 (EST)
Here's the new paradigm (and it's important how you handle this. Don't use whataboutism. Don't respond by saying, What about Black History Month? Ask straight out, Is Black History Month nationalist? or Does Black History Month teach Black nationalism? Don't make any judgement whether it does or doesn't. Don't adopt a position whether it does or doesn't. Just ask the question, be patient, and wait for an answer. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:06, 12 November 2018 (EST)

The response to this latest bout of leftist idiocy is ask them what they mean by "nationalizing" industry, banks, healthcare, etc. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:13, 12 November 2018 (EST)

No, that would be a feeble word game on a par with trying to label someone a serial killer for saying I could murder a steak right now. JohnZ (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2018 (EST)
Is nationalizing healthcare with open borders the same as globalizing healthcare? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:51, 12 November 2018 (EST)
Haha. But, seriously, no. Globalisation = huge multinational corporations with shareholders n' all that. Pretty much the opposite of taking something into public ownership, no matter how wide open your borders are. JohnZ (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2018 (EST)
Granting global access to private healthcare providers could be globalized healthcare. We already seem to grant global access to the ballot box, at least in Florida, Arizona, and Texas. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:07, 12 November 2018 (EST)
Aye. Shame that whole rampant voter fraud jibe never stands up to close scrutiny, eh? Here's a nice write up of Kobach's epic fail in court. JohnZ (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2018 (EST)
You're comparing Kansas illegal immigration voting to one of our border states? One might equally argue that liberals "never" think at all—or at least as little as possible. VargasMilan (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2018 (EST)

Last word

Raise your hand if you know patriotism and nationalism are synonyms.
—Jack Posobiec

VargasMilan (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2018 (EST)

The fact that conservatives don't blink when they are described as fascists proves that they are not ideologues, despite how much liberals would like them to be presented that way to make their own toadying political practices look less conspicuous.

If nationalist militias began patrolling polling places and gave themselves the name of anti-RINO militia groups, and then when casual liberals confront them politically that from what they'd read their actions could lead to intimidating voters, and, again, when a militia member responded by sneering at him, "we will defeat such disguised attempts by RINOs to control our government!" the casual liberal wouldn't know what he was talking about either, thinking "I'm not even a Republican!" But such "anti-RINO" militias (or other kinds of political groups with [only] "anti-RINO" themes [but directly] applying [the true idea given by the name based on the name's origin] to non-conservatives in general [that is RINOs, centrists and liberals]) don't exist. VargasMilan (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2018 (EST)

“American conservatives have always been nationalists, but while European nationalism is based on “blood and soil,” ours is a creedal nationalism built on an idea — the idea of human freedom.”

—Marc A. Thiessen (Washington Post)

VargasMilan (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2018 (EST)

E pluribus unum. America has always been multicultural. The fact a leftist partisan hack and globalist toady like Macron is too stupid to understand that is not surprising. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:32, 16 November 2018 (EST)

Michelle Obama: logic track?

Today: Vid @RobinRoberts [ABC News] to @MichelleObama: “What you haven’t said before, you said ‘I will always wonder about what led so many, women in particular, to reject an exceptionally qualified female candidate and instead choose a misogynist as their president.’ Some powerful words” #ABC2020

Well, Robin Roberts, maybe it's because these "women in particular" observe the lack of humility shown by leading women in the Democratic Party even after the false woman witnesses that they brought forward are caught attempting to frame a judicial candidate for America's highest judicial office with made-up crimes.

Where exactly have you two been for the last ten weeks? In outer space? Hiding under a rock? "Misogynist" is a descriptive name that can be applied to those who damage the reputation of women in politics—you two, for example, for blatantly allowing the behavior of women facing serious criminal charges with regard to the placement of candidates in these high federal offices to be passed by without responsible notice or remark in a discussion of how the qualifications of women for those same offices are perceived or doubted [as relying on shenanigans].

You may desire to hide yourselves and your favorite party's leading women supporters from the embarrassment of being shown to be effectively misogynists yourselves, yet that desire, however fervent, doesn't somehow magically transform Donald Trump into a misogynist in your place. VargasMilan (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2018 (EST)

Who thinks Hillary was a great senator or a competent secretary of state? Her claim to the presidency stems from the moment in 1998 when she turned the Lewinsky scandal around by accusing her husband's accusers of being "a vast right-wing conspiracy." The country had been taught that "no means no" for over a decade. Mrs. Clinton taught us that the rules are for chumps. Sexual harassment was reclassified as a "phony scandal" and remained so for the next 18 years.
With Warren out of the way, Biden and Sanders now head the 2020 polls. IMO, they are both too old to be considered contenders. That means Hillary still has a shot.[20] PeterKa (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2018 (EST)

DNC: Domestic abuse still phony

I guess you didn't hear about Keith Ellison, America's first Muslim U.S. Congressman. According to Democrats, America is so free that it elevates those whose holy book says Christians are perverted. Not just through the normal course of professional collaboration manifesting proven ability, but deliberately by groups of approving Democrats in pursuit of differentness or whatever and are not afraid to prove it.
As such, Ellison was elevated to a leadership position of the Democarats: Deputy Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. But now we are awaiting:
the DNC investigation into Ellison, who has been accused of domestic violence by at least two different women, which appears to be the true reason for Ellison’s resignation according to insiders.
Once again, domestic abuse is no longer the undue burden we thought it was upon hearing the testimony of those in the Me Too movement, or at least discerning the staleness of that status has been quietly given prioritized attention.
But don't bother reading the holy book for an answer; if one is handed down to you, one more knowledgeable in differentness than yourself will offer the sole proper explanation. VargasMilan (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2018 (EST)
Ellison got the kicked from the back of the bus as deputy to off the bus completely, at least in a leadership role. And just in time for the Florida recount, too. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:29, 13 November 2018 (EST)

Why we need an Electoral College

If the president was elected by a national popular vote, the entire country could be held hostage by a corrupt local election officer in Broward or Palm Beach countries.
Media criticism of the Electoral College is based on the assumption that Hillary would have won in 2016 if it wasn't for the College. But it's far from clear that this is in fact the case. Mrs. Clinton got only 48 percent of the national vote. In a popular vote system, there would have been a second round of voting. There is no reason to believe she would have won a runoff of this type.
Before the election, Clinton strategists boasted of the "blue wall." They is to say, the Dems were quite comfortable with Electoral College bias when they thought it favored them. PeterKa (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2018 (EST)

You mean the Democrats are not being truthful, this time about the democratic source of the legitimacy of Donald Trump's presidency by means of the way in which the results of our elections are directed to be determined by our constitution? In other news, water is still wet. VargasMilan (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2018 (EST)
There's a "national popular vote" movement to bypass the Electoral College. Under this proposal, various states would appoint electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote regardless who won the vote in their individual state. "The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia....It has been enacted into law in 12 states with 172 electoral votes (CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA)....The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 98 more electoral votes," according to their site. After the midterm recount drama, I certainly hope that fewer people will think that this is a good idea.
The Framers assumed that once George Washington was no longer on the ballot, most Americans would vote for a "favorite son" from their own region. Thus no one would get a majority in a national popular vote. The argument that the Electoral College is all about slavery is quite dishonest. PeterKa (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2018 (EST)
BTW, Peter is the least responsible for the fact that any recent notable public events involving the Democrats don't reflect any new willingness on their part to refrain from deception to advance their selfish interests.
Had his news carried with it the sense that they had suddenly reformed themselves, we never would have believed him. VargasMilan (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2018 (EST)

Acosta and Attkisson

Sharyl Attkisson, the former CBS News anchor who was fired by CBS due to White House pressure, supports giving Acosta his press credentials back. Attkisson's own home was wiretapped after she reported on Obama's illegal bugging, gun running, framing Gen. Petraeus in a sex scandal cause he refused to go along with the Benghazi coverup, and Hillary's lies about Bosnia. You can see where she's sympathetic to the "victim" here, but Attkisson wasn't reporting fake news, Acosta was. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:41, 13 November 2018 (EST)

Stockholm Syndrome. VargasMilan (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2018 (EST)

China

Forbes agrees with me. Is China's Economy Just A Giant 'Ponzi Scheme'?

So here's a question for User:Conservative: Is it Christianization or the recent de-Christianization pogroms causing China's economy to tank? Or is it Donald Trump? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:15, 14 November 2018 (EST)

Here's the corner you've painted yourself into: You constantly cite Christianization as root of China's economic progress, whereas most people, and Donald Trump in particular, cite globalization.

As I said earlier, you do not perceive how much leftist propaganda and ideology has permeated your thinking. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:20, 14 November 2018 (EST)

The world is a multivariable place where things often have multiple causes. Given that we live in a complex world, the world has unpredictability so probabilistic thinking is warranted.
China's various economic successes are due to: mercantilism, recent rapid Christianization, strategic thinking, hard work and Western policy makers who crafted bad trade deals.
My guess is that its large debt is due to the short term thinking and hubris of its atheist leaders. Prosperity can breed complacency and carelessness.
Trump's trade policy towards China might work as China's indebtedness and its reliance on mercantilism, might be its achilles' heel right now. So China might choose to be flexible rather than endure punishing tariffs. China might choose to open up its market significantly, but I would not bet on it (but I am hopeful).
I take the legendary investor Jim Roger's view of China that it is sensible to be bullish on China in the long term, but there is going to be ups and downs along the way. Even America had its 1930s economic depression, but it has also had a lot of good years.
As far as China's recent persecution of Christianity, the jury is out as far as its ultimate effects for the future. Persecution certainly did not work for the Romans in terms of dechristianization.Conservative (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2018 (EST)
Vikram Mansharamani has a book out about predicting financial busts. He says skyscrapers are the most reliable leading indicator. If so, China is headed for a monster bust since it is currently experiencing a ginormous skyscraper boom.[21] PeterKa (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2018 (EST)
Black Pidgeon, a controversial character, has a 10 minute video that's well worth it. The trade war is "equivalent to China bringing a paper clip to gun fight." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:25, 14 November 2018 (EST)

Given its very large trade surplus with the USA, I thought the only strong card China has in its hand as far as a trade war is its supply of rare earth metals, but even that is not a strong card it turns out. See: China can’t control the market in rare earth elements because they aren’t all that rare. Conservative (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2018 (EST)

Don't have time to Google it right now, but there are instances on record where China bought iron ore from India and lithium in Africa. In both cases, China approached weak governments with scant environmental regulations, paid millions to corrupt politicians, and dug the materials themselves. And of coarse as Black Pidgeon pointed out it was shipped back to China on shipping lanes defended by the U.S. Navy. All this occurs quickly before local activists can react.
Being that China paid off corrupt officials with money it got from its export economy to the US, and the materials extracted are guided back to China by the US Navy, the US gets blamed for environmental damage and propping up corrupt politicians in Africa and India selling off their nation's wealth. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:27, 15 November 2018 (EST)
It is very hard to predict what is going to happen in the China/USA trade war and how it will affect the USA/China/global economies. And investors like predictability so this trade war can't be helping the stock market at this point.
One the one hand, BlackRock Sees U.S. Economy Humming Along Well Into 2019. Trump's chief economic advisor, Larry Kudlow, believes the economic expansion may continue for 4-6 years.[22] On the other hand, here is an interesting article: 4 Big Risks Face U.S. Investors In 'Challenging' 2019.Conservative (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2018 (EST)
We're in fundamentally a new era. The milestones since 1945 would be creation of the Marshall plan & IMF (1948); formation of the EU Common Market (1958); the floating dollar (1973); entrance of the Soviet Bloc into IMF, introduction of the Euro, and NAFTA (1992-1996); and now the dissolution of WTO trade agreements & the EU (2017-?).
China's rapid economic development since sbout 1978 brought it up to where the US was pre-World War I (in terms of the ratio of people employed in agriculture verses manufacturing; the service sector remains undeveloped. The ratio of urban vs rural also now resembles the US 100 years ago. The future depends on management - the communist party. They've modeled their development after the US, but they remain non-democratic. Now the umbilical cord is cut. They are likely to remain stagnated 100 years behind the rest of the world, principally the US & Europe, as China goes in search of new markets (both foreign customers and their undeveloped domestic consumer market) to keep their manufacturing base employed. They also have to adjust to lower wage growth for some time. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:52, 15 November 2018 (EST)

When Biblical Protestantism grows in a country, it has a strong correlation to economic growth, less corruption and more responsive government (more democratic government).[23] China has experienced a rapid growth of evangelical Protestantism (see: Growth of Christianity in China).

Chinese communists are trying to slow the growth of Christianity in China, but the jury is still out on whether they will succeed or fail. China may still continue to see an explosive growth of evangelical Protestantism and if that occurs, it could make the country more prosperous and more democratic.Conservative (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2018 (EST)

Both China and Brazil have seen a large growth of evangelical Protestantism. Now that Brazil has elected a right-winger, I am more bullish in the short term as far as Brazil. Look at the Brazilian stock market in the last 2 years as can be seen in THIS CHART.Conservative (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2018 (EST)
It took 70 years - one full lifetime - for the church to destroy the Soviet Union - a fact often forgotten (incidentally, for students of numerology, 70 years was also the length of the Babylonian captivity. Israel had failed to honor the Sabbath for 490 years (in terms of agricultural set-asides where they were supposed to let the land lie fallow), so after 490 years they accumulated a deficit of 70 years they owed the Lord in Sabbaths. Hence God threw them out of the land for 70 years to reclaim what he was justly owed, per standing agreements). In that one lifetime of 70 years, an older generation who "forgot God" died off, and younger generation had to rekindled their faith. It's often forgotten today the role that church played in toppling communism and the Soviet bloc. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:34, 16 November 2018 (EST)
Orthodox Christianity, which existed in Russia before the rise of the Soviet Union and is now seeing an uptick in its growth, is far different than evangelical Protestantism.
Second, Christianization of a culture does take time, but it is worth noting that Vietnam is one of the places on the globe where Protestantism is growing the fastest.[24][25] And the growth of their stock market has been excellent for the last couple of years (until recently which is probably due to the USA-China trade war).[26] If the US-China trade war does not end soon, a lot of factory production work from China could go to Vietnam. On the other hand, if China's economy goes down, it could have an adverse effect on the economies of Asia, including Vietnam.Conservative (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2018 (EST)
The US-China trade war can't end, it's the cornerstone of MAGAnomics. Even if Trump is out in 2025, there will be high-paying US manufacturing jobs at risk if globalists want to end the trade war. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:00, 16 November 2018 (EST)
Of course the China-USA trade war could end. Either side or both sides could increasingly face economic/political pressures and an agreement could occur. MAGAnomics isn't exactly etched in stone either. Trump has changed his mind about various matters depending on the circumstances. That being said, the USA trade deficit with China is something that Trump has felt strongly about for a long time.Conservative (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2018 (EST)
Again, it's foundational to manufacturing job creation and MAGAnomics. Each manufacting job has a "multiplier effect," meaning it spawns creation of 1.3 - 1.7 new service jobs.
But I see there's much misunderstanding and misinformation about China tariffs.
The U.S. has principally three, now four main exports to offset trade deficits: (1) commercial aircraft (Boeing); (2) military hardware; {3) agricultural products; and now recently (4) oil drilling (fracking) technology. Agriculture has longtime been a mainstay of U.S. exports (since the New Deal & Marshall plan). Agriculture, a perishable product, will suffer with Chinese tariffs. But here's where misinformation comes in.
Last night a local news report claimed donations to local food banks were down because of "Chinese tariffs." This makes no sense, and is an example of leftist propaganda. If agricultural producers have surpluses of perishable goods because of a trade war, it gets donated to food banks. But the local news and liberals operating a food bank are using a tear-jerker story to attack Trump. That's why it's incumbent on yourself to get in command of the facts, cause right now (your above posting) is in support of leftist propaganda.
Here's a good article published yesterday, briefly excerpted:
the outcome of those MAGA tariff policies are EXACTLY what we said they would be. The BLS released information yesterday : The food index declined 0.1 percent....fruits and vegetables index fell 0.7 percent in October, its third consecutive decline....The index for cereals and bakery products fell 0.6 percent, and the index for dairy and related products declined 0.4 percent....Notice how the prices for food are dropping as the MAGAnomic trade policies of President Trump are being carried out. Notice how the timing of the decline is directly related to the tariff actions, and the counter-actions, by the targeted countries.....President Trump is fracturing the multinational corporate ‘controlled market’, and his trade policies are beginning to reconstitute supply and demand pricing in a nationalist market. [et seqq]. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:22, 16 November 2018 (EST)

My post above was not in support of leftist propaganda. And I was already familiar with how manufacturing jobs spawn service jobs. I am also familiar with how GNP is computed and Trump making better trade agreements will help to boost his numbers as far as growth in GNP. In addition, it would help him win rustbelt votes. Furthermore, it would increase social stability. Part of the reason why both right/left populism has taken off is the loss of manufacturing jobs.

At the same time, with the increase of robotics/AI, the educational system is going to have to be improved to create more entrepreneurs and more creative thinkers and less substandard employees. And more vocational training will have to be done because not everyone wants to go to college. Because if robotics/AI keep getting better and better, they could relentlessly chip away at manufacturing jobs.

Finally, Trump is a deal maker. If the Chinese offer him a good trade deal he will take it. Trump says he is upbeat about a trade deal being made at this point.[27] The Chinese just submitted a response to Trump's demands. I hope a deal is made and that the USA holds the Chinese to any agreement. But if a deal is made, it will likely be part of an ongoing process. The Chinese economy would have to make significant changes and so it would require a transition time. My guess is that Trump would want the Chinese to move as fast as possible because there is no guarantee that Trump's successor will believe in fair and reciprocal trade.Conservative (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2018 (EST)

China's problems are not our problems. It's all about jobs - manufacturing jobs, not GDP growth or approval ratings. Those are merely symptoms of success.
Another area is theft of intellectual property. An Apple phone that sells for $600 in the US Apple sells for $60 in China. Pirate versions sell for $6, dominate the market, and Apple gets no help from the government tracking down pirate manufactures or justice in the courts when they sue for theft of intellectual property. This amounts to hundreds of billions annually, in addition to the trade deficit.
For MAGAnomics to be successful, two things have to occur: (1) China will endure a period of lower wage growth and GDP growth; (2) the United States must endure a period of consumer inflation to meet the expanding payrolls and higher wages. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:44, 16 November 2018 (EST)

China having problems would not cause problems in the USA?

Investopedia: "China is the second largest importer or goods and services in the world... If China suffers a hard landing, it will definitely impact the United States. The impact wouldn’t be direct, which is why many investors aren’t worried about it. But despite the impact being indirect, it would still be powerful. We now live in a global economy. If the second-biggest engine sputters, it’s going to cause problems for the economic locomotive."[28]

"US goods exports to China continue to outpace export growth to the rest of the world. In 2017, the United States exported more goods to China than ever before—more than $127 billion. US exports of goods to China have grown by 86 percent over the last decade, while exports to the rest of the world grew by only 21 percent.

China is the third-largest market for US goods and services exports. China was a top market for US goods exports in 2017, with only NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico buying more goods last year. It was also the third-largest market for US services exports, following the United Kingdom and Canada."[29]

The trade deficit is very big and China's track record in keeping its trade promises is poor. Trump is right to stand up to China. China's mercantilist beggar thy neighbor approach to trade and its intellectual property theft should be stood up to. Trade should be reciprocal.

Trump said he wants a win-win trade agreement. This is a sensible approach. If China opens its market wider and engaged in reciprocal and fair trade, it would create a lot of manufacturing/service jobs for Americans.

And God forbid the USA go to war, but if one cannot be prevented, it is important for the USA to have a strong industrial base. Conservative (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2018 (EST)

Now you are beginning to get the picture. China is no longer a child, which is how we've treated them since the 1970s, to get a start in life. By the late 1980s and 1990s, we began sacrificing our own people's jobs and future to give their economic development a boost. This was the path begun with Nixon, rather than sacrificing endless, unwinnable wars such as Korea and Vietnam. We had to give them a hand up by not having reciprical trade agreements. Yes, it destroyed unionized labor in the United States which was always a hotbed of communist infiltration and subversion; it had a temporary effect (over several decades) of stabilizing inflation and bringing in lower cost consumer goods (thus improving living standards for some, but not all, on both sides of the trade agreements); and provided enormous profitable opportunities for investors.
But China has reached a more advanced or mature level in it's economic development (somewhere beyond childhood and adolesence, into early adulthood). It was hoped that closer cooperation with China (rather than them arming North Vietnam and North Korea to resist Western capitalism) would have a democratizing influence. That hasn't happened. China's leadership knew this day would come, when US largesse in trade agreements would end, the gravy train would stop, and the umbilical cord cut. As a true equal, they now must take responsibility for their own development. They've tasted of the benefits of capitalism, but Americans now must face the reality of the failure of the Cold War theory that capitalism and democracy go hand-in-hand. They don't. China and Iran are the two shining examples. Free trade to promote democracy is a flawed theory (this is the theory behind the Magnitsky Act). China's problems (democratization) remain China's problems. We're not sacrificing any more of our children and people's jobs to give them a hand up.
One more thing: your cited reference supports exactly what I said: "In 2017, the United States exported more goods to China than ever before—more than $127 billion. " This is principally agricultural products - which in 2018 should have been donated to American food banks by now as producers adjust to the new realities. But they're not, and leftists are spreading misinformation to incite class warfare. And you're aiding them by (1) not being in command of facts, and (2) repeating some of their buzz phrases. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:10, 17 November 2018 (EST)
There is plenty of opportunity in the USA for those who want to study hard and are mature enough to create stable families. Unfortunately, many Americans would prefer to waste their time consuming entertainment and many Americans are not mature enough to form stable families.
And America has a big problem with obesity and not starvation. As far as adults, there are plenty of food pantries and opportunities for those who want to study/work. There is too much child hunger in the USA, but unfortunately much of it is the result of single, unwed parents who are irresponsible and engaged in premarital sex. Ultimately, the core problem in this case is a spiritual problem manifesting as a lack of self-control/responsibility.Conservative (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2018 (EST)
This is how the trade war affects you. It will have an impact on your everyday life, living standards, and inflation. The "get rich quick" in China schemes of educated investors are gone. China is communist, and communists will fight back with class warfare. It's a propaganda war right now. Pelosi announced yesterday income inequality is her top priority.
In the larger scheme of things, what is the difference between impeaching Trump, and derailing MAGAnomics with fake news and a propaganda war to promote socialism and income inequality? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:58, 17 November 2018 (EST)
By in large, if an American adult worked hard/smart and engaged in prudent savings, a USA/China trade war will not have a significant impact on their quality of life.
In terms of economic opportunity in the USA, let's take the example of Indian immigrants to the USA. "Coauthored with Sanjoy Chakravorty, a geographer, and Devesh Kapur, a political scientist, The Other One Percent: Indians in America (Oxford University Press, 2016), breaks down the fascinating story of how a population from a poor developing country with low education became the most educated, highest-income group in the world's most advanced nation—in a single generation."[30]
Again, if people: study/work hard, form stable families and are financially responsible, there is a low likelihood they will suffer from poverty in the USA.Conservative (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2018 (EST)
Now you have (1) changed the subject; (2) are using the Frankfurt School of immanent critique (see also Critical thinking) on American culture; (3) spewing leftist propaganda.
You will recall this a discussion about China. Not American obesity. Not mature American adults. Not premarital sex. And you can't even make up you mind if hunger is an issue in the United States, to wit: "America has a big problem with obesity and not starvation.....There is too much child hunger in the USA..." You're just trolling right now. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:48, 17 November 2018 (EST)

You brought up the matter of allocating some of the existing fruits farm production to food pantries.

^^^^ No I didn't. I brought up the matter of leftist misinformation to attack Trump because people don't fundamentally understand economics.

With that being said, hunger is not starvation. And adult hunger is not a significant problem in the USA. It would be nice if some kids didn't skip some meals due to irresponsible, unwed parents, but that is ultimately a moral problem with some parents and not an economic problem. By in large, America doesn't have a problem as far as feeding its population. It does have a significant problem with obesity.

^^^^ continuation of immanent critique after you've been called out on it.

Secondly, MAGAnomics is merely a partial solution to improving America's economy. Manufacturing jobs will likely suffer future losses due to improved robotics/AI. If corporations employ sufficiently improved robotics/AI in the future, the era of them employing large numbers of people in manufacturing could end. If this turns out to be the case then the future will significantly reward people who are entrepreneurial and/or who are proficient with information technology. Education, an entrepreneurial spirit, hard work and stable families will be the keys to the future. In the relatively short term, people who focus on health care careers in the West will prosper due to aging populations.

Now what group in history is known for its hard work, entrepreneurship, playing an important role in the scientific revolution (and the development of many technologies), the founding of many universities/colleges and having stable families? Bible believing Protestants! See: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Christianity and science and The biblical origins of science.

Although he is an atheist, Harvard University historian Niall Ferguson declared: "Through a mixture of hard work and thrift the Protestant societies of the North and West Atlantic achieved the most rapid economic growth in history."[31]Conservative (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2018 (EST)

Technology is to serve humans, not the other way around (look up the Greek root of the word "techne" to see how even that word is misapplied). All your doing is spouting leftist talking points, and science fiction. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:57, 17 November 2018 (EST)
Your argument sounds like Hitler - with AI, automation, and robots, we don't need people any more. Let's round 'em up a gas 'em before they starve to death, or at least give them a guaranteed income. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:00, 17 November 2018 (EST)
RobS, not everything you disagree with or don't like is leftism. You cries of me spreading leftism are not persuasive.
Lastly, your reliance on calling me Hitleresque rather than addressing my legitimate points is a sure sign you lost the argument! Conservative (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2018 (EST)
No. Obesity is off topic. You a don't consider elder hunger, which is very real, "adult hunger," which we were never discussing anyway.
You reiterated my point, By in large, America doesn't have a problem as far as feeding its population, using agricultural exports - a victim of the trade war - as a conclusion. You didnt address the context it was being discussed. And finally, your comments about MAGAnomics all come from left-wing sources. If you wanna help Trump, stay away from discussing, China, technology, or economics. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:21, 17 November 2018 (EST)
The articles I cited did not (or largely did not) specifically focus on MAGAnomics, but rather on issues related to MAGAnomics. Second, I don't believe that the sources were all left-wing sources (I have my doubts for example that Investopedia is a left-wing source). More importantly, you are employing the logical fallacy of the genetic fallacy.
The right-winger Vox Day wrote: "If you look at at other mistakes that people make I would say probably the biggest one, and the one that is the biggest single problem, is the tendency to apply the genetic fallacy. You see that applied all the time to people like me who are on the Right, but you also see people on the Right applying it to people on the Left. What you need to understand is that it is a logical fallacy to dismiss someone because of the nature of the source. Let me rephrase that: it is a logical fallacy to dismiss something based on the nature of the source."[32]Conservative (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2018 (EST)
bla bla bla stick to the issues. If you wanna debate how to debate, create a thread on that subject.
I would agree Investopedia is a good source. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:19, 18 November 2018 (EST)

Maganomics in a nutshell

Trade deficits produced by cheap Dollar Store consumer goods (1) have destroyed manufacturing in the United States. (2) Each manufacturing job lost has a multiplier effect of destroying 1.5 service jobs (a factory that closes with 50,000 jobs kills 125,000 total jobs in the local community). (3) Trade deficits are an extraction of wealth.

MAGAnomics seeks to reverse this 30 year plus trend. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:40, 16 November 2018 (EST)

Discussion on hunger

There are elderly people who are hungry in America.

Did they work 6 days a week during their working years or 5? Did they put a high value on education and lifelong learning? Did they save money or waste it on frivolous things? Did they eat healthy when they were younger and stay active or did they make poor dietary choices and choose to be sedentary? Did they work past 65 or did they retire early? Historically, for thousands of years people worked until they could not work anymore. Did they have stable families and treat their children well or did they poorly raise children who do not take care of them? Were they entrepreneurial (even a part-time side business)? Regardless, unfortunate things do happen to people (such as sickness) and there is a place for a social safety net for the elderly.

The fact remains that many Indian immigrants, who came from a poor country with low education, are now among the wealthiest Americans. For a people of reasonable intelligence, there is no lack of opportunity in America for people who study/work hard, have stable families, are financially responsible and exercise prudence. Indian immigrants became the most educated, highest-income group in the world's most advanced nation — in a single generation. And by in large, Indian immigrants did not due this via becoming factory workers. Indian immigrants to the USA value family and education and are more likely to engage in entrepreneurship. Of course, this does not mean that America should abandon manufacturing, but manufacturing is merely a part of a nation's economic success and not its entirety.Conservative (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2018 (EST)

I'm reminded of the words of the poet Goethe:
Herauf, herab und quer und krumm
Meine Schüler an der Nase herum
Up and down wherever it goes
I lead my students by the nose.
RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:35, 17 November 2018 (EST)
Indian immigrants did not become the highest income group in America via factory jobs. They did it via putting a high value on education/family and via having higher rates of entrepreneurship. Quit trying to "win" the argument via "title gamesmanship". The fact that you have repeatedly tried to do this shows how badly you lost the China argument above. Take your debate loss like a man! Manufacturing jobs in a country are important, but they are certainly not the entire answer to a countries prosperity. Conservative (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2018 (EST)
Whatever. I didn't even read your above off topic comments. You're brainwashed by leftist anti-Trump media.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:56, 17 November 2018 (EST)
Your inability to focus on the Trump agenda shows how infected with left-wing thinking you are. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:57, 17 November 2018 (EST)

Trotting out Hitler, futilely attaching knowingly political incorrect labels to an opponent, engaging in title gamesmanship and claiming to not read your opponents material after engaging in multiple posts in an argument you ultimately lost. Sad! All signs of a fragile ego that cannot accept defeat!Conservative (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2018 (EST)

Oh, so instead of exterminating people you have no use for, you wanna cut them a check like Mark Zuckerberg. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:26, 17 November 2018 (EST)

Avenatti

Visual Editor

Can someone tell me how to get Visual Editing on this site? I can't seem to figure it out. --KerryC (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2018 (EST)KerryC

Not sure we have the Visual Editor, I have always edited text. Progressingamerica (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2018 (EST)

Sharpton "saved America," Pelosi says

Just before the election, we witnessed the absurd spectacle of the media and Dems posing as friends of the Jews. They alone could protect Jewish America from anti-Semitic Trump supporters. With the election is over, the Dems are now telling us how they really feel. See "Pelosi Thanks Al Sharpton for ‘Saving America’." and "After Winning Election, Democrat Ilhan Omar Now Says She ‘Supports BDS Movement’" PeterKa (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2018 (EST)

It's difficult to imagine how a far leftist can make a hard left turn further to the left, but you're seeing it. Class warfare via identity politics is back. Income inequality is her top issue. They wanna destroy prosperity for the sake of posterity. Should be interesting. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 08:07, 16 November 2018 (EST)
The communist killers are in control of America . RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 08:11, 16 November 2018 (EST)

The Florida recounts

As we all learned in 2000, the state governor has the final say on how a state's electors vote in the Electoral College. The winner of the 2018 Florida governor race could easily be kingmaker in 2020. The final count has just been completed and puts Republican Ron DeSantis ahead by 30,000 votes, although Democrat Andrew Gillum still isn't conceding.[34]
The Florida senate race, meanwhile, is in a hand recount. As usual, Ann Coulter has a terrific idea to resolve it. The Senate itself has the final say on disputed Senate races. If the Dems cheat their way to victory, McConnell should announce that Democrat Bill Nelson won't be seated. That's what the Dems did with a disputed New Hampshire race back in 1974.[35] The outgoing House can do the same with disputed House races. PeterKa (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2018 (EST)

Pages 133-135 shows you how Lyndon Johnson's disputed first Senate campaign was handled in 1948. What's happening in Florida is all too familiar. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:58, 16 November 2018 (EST)
For the record, Gillum hasn't re-conceded. He conceded the election then reneged and said he wanted to "count every vote" (the new Democrat phony slogan in Florida, its employment by them in political opposition presupposing the falsehood that conservatives ever suggested not counting legal votes to begin with).
Somebody alert John Kerry—after the 2004 election that he lost to George W. Bush, he went to Florida and told a large audience (including the TV evening news) that one million Floridians had been "disenfranchised". So what has John Kerry done in the last fourteen years to fix that? Did it even happen at all? They couldn't have been stopped by big bad Republicans as they certainly aren't afraid to discuss negative things Republicans do, even that the party liberating black slaves from slave-owning Democrats would ignore the legality of citizenship rights as prescribed to be acknowledged in the amendments to the constitution, amendments they themselves wrote and passed into effect? And if you still think they would, why hasn't any judge examined this claim, found it to be accurate and applied adequate court-ordered remedies? VargasMilan (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2018 (EST)
Democrat Presidential nominee Kerry was making the argument in 2004 that illegal aliens have the franchise to vote. They will never come straight out and say that (in fact, they'll deny it). But that is how the position is articulated in code. Far leftists always speak in code. Deciphering the code is where the focus should be. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:52, 17 November 2018 (EST)
While I think "focusing" on reducing demented—even in their prima facia aspect—"social justice" policy ideas to absurdity is just as fun. Rush Limbaugh seems to agree. VargasMilan (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2018 (EST)
Newsflash! If candidate Kerry spoke in code, billionaire Kerry is leading opposition to his former self says John Shade Vick, who brought us a brand new alert from socialist-liberal Kerry, tacking Appalacian-voterwards together with his fellow social-liberals, though he more deftly than most due to his prolonged weekday sail-boarding practice during his tenure as Secretary of State.
Speaking at a Guardian Live event at Central Hall in London: "Europe is already crushed under this transformation that is taking place due to migration," Kerry said. "In Germany, Angela Merkel is weakened. Italian politics is significantly impacted." As you can see by the lefty Guardian pals that surround him on stage under the purview of the United Kingdom's capital's Muslim mayor, whose host nation's cultural balance isn't so bad that a citizen's broaching freedom of speech issues can result in a denial of any more than one essential service (that is, banking, well, two if you open your yap about socialized medicine and then want to seek healthcare in another country, or er three in prison at the discretion of a judge embarrassed by the juridicial proceedings of the former two), by "Europe" he must mean "the continent".
But being pushed by unseen winds (or is that demographic voting patterns research?) he hastens to scold Trump for ignoring global warming and like strangers on a train telegraphs what burden America's coal-producing regions must assume to receive the privilege of border-enforcement. VargasMilan (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2018 (EST)

Tijuana doesn't like immigrants

The migrants in the caravan marching toward the U.S. border have received a very hostile reaction in Tijuana, one that they probably won't receive in the U.S.: [36][37][38] Tijuana is a city in Mexico, the country that claims to support all immigrants, and it is populated by Hispanic people. I guess they're not too happy at thousands of uninvited people storming in and causing disruption.

Good riddance to the MSM narrative (aka. lie) that opposition to mass migration is rooted in "racism" against non-White Europeans. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2018 (EST)

There's a lot of material there to be added to 2018 Migrant caravan, I've just been too busy with the new Congress, election results, and Mueller.
I'd like to see the caravan organizers prosecuted. `RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:12, 19 November 2018 (EST)
I can even see the plot of this story provide a lot of material here for a hit song with lots of crossover potential and, of course, mariachi music. Where is Herb Alpert when you need him?! VargasMilan (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2018 (EST)
I can even see the headlines, George Soros arrested on human rights violations. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:20, 19 November 2018 (EST)
Now they're marching on the streets to kick the migrants out: [39] Who knew Mexicans could be so racist as to commit the unspeakable crime of opposing mass migration into their own communities! Surely the Left is condemning them.... --1990'sguy (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2018 (EST)
Yep. Those racist Mexicans are prejudice against Latinos. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:59, 19 November 2018 (EST)

Can somebody update 2018 Migrant caravan with the Tijuana riots? I got my hands full right now. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:02, 19 November 2018 (EST)

Disspelling a 2018 myth

It wasn't suburbanites driving the 2018 election, it was African American turnout: "Nearly twice as many African-Americans voted Nov. 6 as in the 2014 midterm cycle, a turnout on par with the 2016 presidential election." Blacks returned to polls because Hillary wasn't on the ballot. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:52, 19 November 2018 (EST)

Whether it was driven by suburban women or by Blacks the bottom line is probably the same. The Dem's scare tactic about Republicans coming to take your health coverage worked, at least for House races. The "pre-existing conditions" line was quite effective despite the fact that it is a golden oldie from 2008 that doesn't relate to any currently pending legislation. A lot of people didn't bother to vote in 2016 because the media assured them that the election was in the bag, at least as far as "blue wall" states were concerned.
We can thank Kavanaugh for our gains in the Senate. PeterKa (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2018 (EST)
GOP had the momentum up to the fake bomber and the synogogue shootings (the anti-gun movement was more inspired, despite the media trying to blame Trump for anti-Semitism). That, and nationwide ballot box stuffing cost the GOP. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:21, 19 November 2018 (EST)
While the news hounds laughed at the ridiculous accusations of anti-Semitism, the Dems were unleashing the real October surprise. See "New strategy: Democrats go all-in on health care in midterms." This is an AP story dated October 14. PeterKa (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2018 (EST)

Ocasio-Cortez

She's gone from hero to zero, from media darling to media blackout.

She lead a NeverPelosi sit down protest in Pelosi's office, with zero mainstream coverage. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:48, 20 November 2018 (EST)

What are the odds that a leftist vs. liberal civil war will break out among Democrats. Like corporate Democrats vs. leftist Democrats? And if you think it will happen, when will it happen? Conservative (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2018 (EST)
It's more of a generational change. But it goes beyond that. The under 35 generation are not traditional liberals - they despise liberalism in fact, for several reasons (although they will embrace the label from time to time when it suits their purposes). They are socialist, and in many cases committed socialists.
The horrors we read about in the streets of Moscow or Berlin in 1918 are now here, in America. And they will be the dominant force in the Democratic party going forward. They fundamentally do not believe in a two party system, as we've seen in the Obamagate scandal. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:12, 20 November 2018 (EST)
As Hayek said, "By the time Hitler took power. liberalism was dead. And it was socialism that killed it." We're already living in the post-liberal age. Conservatives need to realize that. Liberalism is not the prime boogeyman any longer. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:16, 20 November 2018 (EST)
While helping with Conservative's Conservapedia articles' footnotes, I read a copy of the New York Times from about 1901. The daily newspaper described I think two or three bomb extortion threats in the New York City area alone, and they weren't necessarily on the front page, and they certainly weren't very long articles. President McKinley was assassinated around that time, of course, by an anarchist for political reasons. Today a party lost the presidency after only eight years in power, replacing an occupant, despite large changes in demographics in favor of that party, who had dared to be dismissive of a large swath of terrorists' motivations (Islam).
And there was a New York City kidnapping case that day that got about the same coverage as the extortion threats, that might have been used to fuel a revolutionary movement with large sums of money. How many political kidnapping or extortion cases for political ransom cases have there been in the last 20 years? Don't include pirates. At the same time large trusts were monopolizing large industries and engaging in restraint of trade for profit.
James O'Keefe, who has over a million dollar budget, has discovered a socialist party's members working in the government, and their misconduct was on the order of prolonging food stamp coverage for poor people who had sought it out and were not relying on local charities, or using an eight-hour a day government job at the GAO to work two hours and work on activism for the remaining six. And the Chicago Trump campaign rally political disturbances didn't turn out to be grass roots after all. The people who conducted it also implicated Hillary Clinton in breaking "co-ordination" campaign finance laws—to send a man in a duck suit to protest a meeting in New York City.
We are going through a wave of mass shootings, but less than half seem to be political, especially if you don't count revenge shootings. And despite media blackouts and political shenanigans hiding abortion horror stories, abortion has become more unpopular, including among young people.
Can you see why I'm getting a bit of cognitive dissonance in your comparison of reports of political activism between America today and those of pre-revolutionary Russia and Germany early in the last century? VargasMilan (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2018 (EST)
The 1918 revolutions came on the immediate heels of a big upheaval (WWI). But there were decades of underground planning and ideological indocrintion before. It was a matter of seizing the moment. "You never want to let a crisis go to waste." The first crisis was the 2008 crash; the second crisis is the election of Donald Trump over the establishment candidate Hillary Clinton.
But the main point I'm emphasizing is the focus on liberalism. Politics, by its nature, involves lies and deception. Socialists, who seek to overthrow the entire system - government, constitution, bipartisanship and a two party system - have for 80 years operated under the cloak of "liberalism." They first penetrated the federal government 80 years ago during a crisis. They've lied to their fellow liberals and conservatives what their true aims are. As conservatives, we need to stop lying to ourselves, or at least living in denial and self-deception.
Liberals are dupes. Liberals are fools. But liberals aren't the big boogeyman anymore. The socialists have come out of the closet (for the moment) and sit in Congress. They aim to destroy the constitution and opposition. Their opposition is liberals and Republicans. Most liberals are too stupid to see the danger, and many Republicans are too partisan to see the truth. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:06, 21 November 2018 (EST)
Socialists know they can never win at the ballot box. That's why the emphasis is on infiltration and subversion. Subversion of the liberal movement is complete. Infiltration of the federal government has been long underway.
Socialists can never win democratically. That's why there were two Russian revolutions - the February and October Revolutions. The people overthrew the Czar because the Marxists' were never strong enough to challenge the powers that be. The Marxists' overthrew and hijacked the people's revolution. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:24, 21 November 2018 (EST)
Vargas Milan: What you neglect is mob violence and Democratic Socislists' shooting. public harassment, and intimidation of government officials is why 36 incumbant Republicans retired and led to turnover of the House. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:37, 21 November 2018 (EST)
I look forward to thinking about your replies and appreciate the generosity of your time in making them. But I have a newsflash I need to announce that came up a little less than a day ago: James O'Keefe (mentioned above) had a protégé named Laura Loomer. Her Twitter account (265,000 followers, about the level of followers of David Limbaugh or former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann) was suspended by Twitter on the basis of the smear of "hateful speech" after she simply pointed out there of the obvious incompatability of social liberalism (or socially-targeted socialism, if RobS's ideas are to be believed) and sharia law, truthfully and non-sensationally. VargasMilan (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2018 (EST)
I'm vaguely familiar with the Loomer case, but haven't delved into the particulars yet. Let me get this straight: Twitter considers comparing cultural Marxism (or for that matter, anything) to Sharia, a "smear"? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:36, 22 November 2018 (EST)
No, politically correct Twitter judges consider non-sensationally comparing sharia law and cultural Marxism and finding them incompatable to be "hateful speech". I consider their politically correct verdict of "hateful speech" to be a smear against Laura on their part. Her side of the story at her Gab (a Twitter rival) account is linked here. VargasMilan (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2018 (EST)
People laugh at Laura Loomer, but her appearance at that Julius Caesar play to scold the audience in New York City where Caesar was nightly dressed like Donald Trump and summarily executed, evoked a lot embarassing publicity towards the producers, and she didn't engage in any unlawful civil disobedience beyond that.
It's little wonder she would have been targeted by liberal socialists at Twitter after her reporting at the Florida recount, where she made use of her Twitter account to record her activities as a one-woman wrecking ball against the veneer of respectability Broward county put into place to cloak their serious ballot-counting misconduct.
Laura
              • warned everyone she was coming to Florida on her Twitter account,
              • pointed out a head election official's destruction of ballots from the previous election before the twenty-month minimum (which would have been used to help trace illegitimate ballots),
              • challenged the same woman's ability to inspire confidence in her reliability when her surrogates were trotted out,
              • asked the only question she answered at a later press conference,
              • videorecorded with other journalists the transfer of shipments behind the election office, which if not outright suspicious was suspiciously awkward,
              • reported a scoop that a ballot box was found in a county election official's rental car at an airport, after which the Broward county sheriff of Stoneman Douglas High School non-crime-reporting-policy fame actually called it in as a threat and according to her screened the media who sought to report on the story,
              • interrogated the legal counsel of Florida state Democrats into professing that he didn't think destroying ballots was fraudulent,
              • used a megaphone another member of the media gave her to ask questions when MSNBC arranged a set piece at the election office and monopolized the election officials' media spokesmen,
              • was shown to be prescient in her skepticism when the head election official tried to drive out the media from observing the recount, reported the recount to the Florida Secretary of State several seconds too late, causing it to be disqualified when the results of the recount apparently didn't turn out to her liking and resigned shortly after the failed recount.
VargasMilan (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2018 (EST)

At a time when the federal government can least give away money it does not have (aging population, heavy federal government debt, a rising totalitarian power - namely China), it is funding colleges/universities (student loans, etc.) who indoctrinate students into big government leftism/socialism.

A line from the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai seems appropriate: "Madness!".

At least the USA has Trump that will collect revenue from tariffs on China. I have my doubts that Trump will make a lasting deal with China. China is run by communists and a dictator. Communists/dictators are often unreasonable and often fail to keep their promises.Conservative (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2018 (EST)

Perhaps the millennial situation is just generational conflict.
The millennials see the boomers leaving a big national debt and wringing what they can out of social security and medicare (no serious reforms being done). In addition, the boomers are not making any serious attempts to control college tuition (less required courses such as eliminating fluff courses not related to a person's major). The millennial's lives are probably going to be economically harder than their parents. So maybe they just want to milk out of the federal government all that they can before the boomers get the money. So essentially selfish baby boomers raised selfish children. Obviously, it is more complex than this, but this may be part of the equation.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin FranklinConservative (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2018 (EST)
It's the end of democracy and the two party system. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:11, 22 November 2018 (EST)

Clintonism is back

Two days ago the Gallup poll said Immigration was the number one issue.[40] The next day, that right-wing neo-fascist bigot Hillary Rotten Clinton said immigration should be curtailed. [41] She's definitely running for president. More leading from behind, or alternatively, leading with your head up your culo. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:59, 22 November 2018 (EST)

It seems a little early to be running against Trump. Does she think she has the nomination in the bag? Michelle Obama is making a lot news lately for someone who supposedly hates politics and isn't running for anything. PeterKa (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2018 (EST)
In her mind: 1) She is the most qualified person to be the USA president. 2) She was robbed of her right to be president by Vladimir Putin and James Comey (This is the "adult" version of the kids show Scooby-Doo. Namely, "And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids".). 3) It was her turn to be president.
She will never give up. She will have to give up her whole false narrative to embrace reality and she is not willing to do that. She is a "victim" of her own lies.Conservative (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2018 (EST)

An article for you

https://www.persecution.org/2018/11/20/american-missionary-reportedly-murdered-hostile-tribe-india/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IntlChristianConcern (talk)

I found it interesting that the Indian government banned people from visiting the island because it wanted to "protect" the lifestyle/culture of the tribe. Other countries with uncontacted peoples are the same way. However, violence and cannibalism are actual parts of their cultures, and they have a lower standard of living than "contacted" peoples. The mindset of the Indian government is common among leftists -- and we again see the result of that. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2018 (EST)

Attn Cons

Re ""Black Friday shoppers 'spending less'" in Britain, as spending drops 12% from last year."

I notice some US papers are saying much the same thing about America. Every year, more and more people are relying on the Internet and shopping online. (In know this family is.) It even says so in the article you partly quoted. AlanE (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2018 (EST)

I didn't make the main page right post about British shopping. Andy Schlafly made the post.[42]
Some shopping malls are going to have to be converted to alternative uses. It is already happening as can be seen here: Micro Apartments in the Mall: Innovation in Abandoned American Malls.Conservative (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2018 (EST)

Ma[rio]n[ette]churian candidate

If President Trump's strings are being pulled by Russia and Saudi Arabia, does his leadership path follow the parallelogram law? Where is SamHB when you need him?! Could somebody forward this to sam4557@gmail.com? VargasMilan (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2018 (EST)

Ok, before we go any farther with your ridiculous premise, let's begin with simple logic that would convince a jury of laymen. Answer the following:
  1. Why would a 70 year old indepently wealthy man sell himself to be a slave of another entity or person?
  2. Assuming your answer is, He doesn't need anymore wealth or power for himself, he's doing it for his grandchildren. Then answer, Why would a 70 year old indepently wealthy man sell his grandchildren as slaves to others?
  3. Assuming your answer to #2 is, He's crazy, then please explain in detail how one of the world's richest persons, who gained wealth power and success by not being indebted or under the control of others, and wishes to pass his legacy on to his heirs, in his mentally deficient old age begins doing things irrationally that run counter to everything that made him successful, to mortgage the future of his heirs to corrupt elements? Please cite sources, after which we can then begin examining your ridiculous premise. Thank you. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:18, 25 November 2018 (EST)

Secondly, to shoot down your entirely assinine premise: Saudi Arabia and Russia have been at war for at least 4 decades (probably farther, back to 1945) in (1) the Anti-Soviet jihad of the 1980s; the Chechen Wars of the 1990s; the rise of Russia surpassing Saudi Arabia as the largest oil producer and possessing the largest oil reserves; (see also Dore Gold's Hatred's Kingdom laying out in detail how two US allies, Russia and Saudi Arabia, in the early days of the War on Terror, had been at war with each other for two decades already); the Syrian War and the Saudi-US backed Islamic State. Are you for real or just trolling us? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:45, 25 November 2018 (EST)

Calm down, RobS, it's a joke that's going around Twitter. The liberals say "Trump's indifference to Kashoggi (or whatever his name is) is proof he is being controlled by the Saudis!" Then a conservative says "Hmm. I thought he was being controlled by Russia?" The responses by liberals to their sudden loss of traction and leverage by such a simple reply are getting more and more hysterical.
"BREAKING: Democrat Adam Schiff claims without evidence that Trump is secretly controlled by Saudi Arabian financial interests" —Jack Posobiec
Russia, Saudi Arabia, “I’ve got to be flexible on the country since the Russian claim was finally outed as bogus...” (@RepAdamSchiff )
"News Flash!! Adam was the first to say it was RUSSIA no evidence, now it is SAUDI ARABIA no evidence."
"I thought Schiff said The Donald was under the control of Russia?"
"... that was last week .. #shiftyshiff"
"When Russia proves to be a dead end, switch to Saudi Arabia."
"Hasn't he said for the last 2 years that the Russians have been controlling Trump but now it's Saudi Arabia. Adam your stupid is showing"
"Well, the Russia collusion hoax collapsed so #FullofSchiff is setting the table for the next fictional narrative. The tail keeps trying to wag the dog to no avail."
"Wait a minute....I'm still waiting for proof Trump is controlled by Russian financial interests???? Now I'm supposed to just move on to muh Saudi Arabia????"
"Now that the Russian witch hunt is fizzling out like a fuse with water on it, Saudi Arabia is the boogeyman."
"Saudi spends billions to buy voices at DC! #fact"
"Khashoggi was a critic of the president. His murder was a win-win for Trump. Maybe they even planned it together? #MobsterInChief"
"[on the neo-cons piling on] The hypocrisy on display today from those who had a hundred reasons why sending billions to terrorists was a great idea, but an authoritarian regime rubbing out a regime critic should be treated as a vast geopolitical scandal, is a sight to behold. Are they so swept up in the pleasures of condemning Trump they don’t realize they themselves excused far worse than a single murder?" —Noah Pollak
"Next when this story doesn’t work, they will say there is a little man inside of Trump working the controls"
"Yup, all that evidence that has led to indictments, prison sentences, and all of that election interference has been debunked. Mist be some good dope you are smoking"
"All the people who have been sentenced are for unrelated crimes
All the indictments against Russians for election meddling are PR
Once again Schiff talked a lot abt collusion with Russia
nothing has been proven yet and does mot look like it will be
Hence the pivot to SA"
VargasMilan (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2018 (EST)
Another Kashoggi was the guy Oliver North sold weapons to. I'm still trying to wrap my head around having sympathy for a Khashoggi simply because he works for the Washington Post. `RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:43, 26 November 2018 (EST)
There's no reason for you to have any sympathy for Khashoggi. He was Erdogan's lackey. Muslim Brotherhood. Friends with Bin Laden. Nevertheless, I cannot bring myself to support the Saudis, or either side for that matter. When it comes to the Iranian-Saudi-Turkish triangle, it's all about which Islamist regime first dominates the region and then perhaps becomes a great power capable of strengthening the global jihadist movement exponentially. Until Trump and his State Department appointees (fully) wake up to this reality, I see a massive foreign policy blunder in our future. --Geopolitician (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2018 (EST)
  • "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," according to the old Latin saying. "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests," as Lord Palmerston said.
    (I was busy so I outsourced this caption to a liberal. Enjoy!) Pictured are the two gamechangers keepin' it real congratulating each other on their hip new dual control over President Trump with Trump looking on in the background with no expression on his face. Deep down, however, sources say that his feelings are really hurt, so it must be because Congressman Schiff found out about it.
    If we going to take down the ayatollahs in Iran, or at least prevent them from nuking Israel, we will need Saudi help, regardless of what happened to Khashoggi. When a Saudi murders another Saudi in Turkey, it should logically be an issue between Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The alliance with Saudi Arabia pre-dates Trump, but the media never objected to it when Obama was president. PeterKa (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2018 (EST)
Sources and methods. The real story is how did Turkish intelligence and the CIA get audio evidence inside the Saudi embassy? I thought friends don't spy on friends. I thought Saudi Arabia had enough money to take adequate security precautions. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:49, 26 November 2018 (EST)
Because Saudi Arabia and Turkey were in bed for so long over Syria, I suspect that there is a serious dual loyalty problem within the Saudi government. More than likely there was a Saudi embassy staff member who was spying for the Turks and installed whatever tools were used to eavesdrop. --Geopolitician (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2018 (EST)

I take it all back. Everything I know is wrong. I disavow! I disavow! I also relinquish, abdicate and renounce. Clearly these two men are in cahoots! VargasMilan (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2018 (EST)

What's the story here? Russia and Saudi Arabia have been at war with each other since 1979 and are strategic competitors in oil production. Putin and MBS find common ground as both are targets of the Global Magnitsky Act. So both will get richer off of higher oil prices due to oil embargoes.
Alternatively, this can be viewed as victory for globalists and the far left; the sacrifice of Khashoggi and the Washington Post will lead to higher oil prices and a reduction in carbon emissions. Targeting MBS with sanctions accomplishes the same thing Macron has done in France without a tax increase and Yellow Vest riots in the street. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:43, 1 December 2018 (EST)
To say this crisis is a victory for globalists in general is wrong, regardless of the outcome. For some globalists this will indeed a victory, but for others it will be a defeat. Same thing with nationalists. With Syria being one of the defining issues of the globalist-nationalist divide and the anti-Assad camp beginning to fall apart thanks to the Saudi-Turkish cold war, we're soon going to be seeing a re-alignment where globalists and nationalists will ally with each other against other globalists and nationalists in order to protect their interests. --Geopolitician (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2018 (EST)
What do you think of the rumors that the US recently used white phosphorus in Dar-e-Zeir (I think that's where it's alleged to have been used)? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:46, 8 December 2018 (EST)
I haven't heard about those rumors until now. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, considering that we have white phosphorus weapons and we have used them before in Syria, as well as in Iraq. Nevertheless, if we indeed used white phosphorus that does not automatically make us guilty of war crimes. Two important questions need to be asked before we can jump to any conclusions on that. First, who were the targets? And second, how were the munitions used (were they used to cause smoke and camouflage or were they used to spread toxic properties)? [43][44]--Geopolitician (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2018 (EST)
It's a nasty weapon that the legality of which depends on who and where the targets are. Or so the US argues. It basically can burn your skin right off. It's use in any urban or village setting, in my estimation, can be considered a war crime, although the US military has a long history of dissent from this view. If it indeed was used, I think it was used more as a psychological terror weapon. Dar e Zoer is the last holdouts of the Islamic State, and the US may be demonstrating to jihadis, Assad forces, and Russians how far the US is willing to go to end the conflict without risking any loss of life to the US. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:40, 8 December 2018 (EST)

CRS reports

Here's the reading list for incoming Congressmen to update them on where everything stands as of now. Just pick out the area that interests you. I doubt most all Congressmen read every item on the list.

There will probably be more in coming days. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:48, 27 November 2018 (EST)

G H W Bush has died

I liked him. The Contras was a bit of a scandal (sorry that was Reagan) but he served you guys well. https://www.foxnews.com/us/george-h-w-bush-41st-president-of-the-united-states-dead-at-94 JohnSelway (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2018 (EST)

You lied again. Papa Bush was in charge of Iran Contra and Bill Clinton was one of his chief cronies who got uppidy and challenged the boss with blackmail. Reagan was just a senile idiot who hadn't a clue what was going on.
How soon commies forget their the main talking points. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:49, 1 December 2018 (EST)
Umm, why are you calling me a communist? And Reagan was the Prez and Bush was the VP. I was confused about who was in charge because I am, surprise, an Australian so not as astute to US political history. So why "commie"? JohnSelway (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2018 (EST)
Read Chip Tatum's Pegasus File. Here's a short video to give you some idea what's in it.
And if you don't like being called a commie, don't regurgitate commie agitprop. Simple solution. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:02, 2 December 2018 (EST)
Sorry what "commie agitprop" are you talking about? I am exceedingly confused now. JohnSelway (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2018 (EST)
Trashing St. Reagan. Only a commie would do that. The best you can hope for is being just a commie stooge. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 06:32, 2 December 2018 (EST)
Until now, I've never seen a conservative refer to Reagan as "St. Reagan." Before that, every time I've seen that term be used it was by a leftist who wanted to mock conservatives for admiring him and his accomplishments. --Geopolitician (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2018 (EST)
It's the technique of immanent critique - turning societal norms back on itself. It's common among leftists. Recently, for example, I cut-n-pasted a paragraph directly out of Wikipedia to define Progressivism and just added the words "racist" and "white" twice to elucidate its proper context. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:25, 8 December 2018 (EST)
Okay. I actually forgot about immanent critique. Very good tactic to use even though it's now commonly associated with critical theory, considering that in theory it can be used to challenge (with differing degrees of success) the orthodoxy of any belief on any side of the political spectrum. --Geopolitician (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2018 (EST)
Exactly correct. While conservatives can construct good, logical arguments, they often are at a loss for words to respond to a good immanent critique zinger. Conversely, many liberals don't think through the logic of their conclusions (but that's what immanent critique is, it doesn't propose solutions or alternatives, it only focuses on inconsistencies and leaves the hearer to imagine their own conclusions). Too much of modern liberalism is based on immanent critique, that's why pinning down core principles is confusing. IMO, conservatives should master immanent critique and apply it to the mountain of garbage liberal logic has created, it would be time saving for all involved. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:12, 8 December 2018 (EST)
can’t tell if you are actually serious, crazy or just pulling my leg now. Maybe all three. JohnSelway (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2018 (EST)
Bush was a globalist who called for a "new world order." Also, he raised taxes after promising not to do so (while spending continued to increase[45]), and while he made many conservative promises in 1988 (which he probably didn't believe in, considering his pre-1981 positions), he didn't act on them as president. A good manager/caretaker? I would say so. But not a conservative visionary. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2018 (EST)
Well, I won't contest the whole globalist views bit of Bush Sr., since he unfortunately had them, and I definitely know about the read my lips bit. That said, I'm hesitant to say whether Clinton was actually on the CIA, especially during Arkancide and Mena, let alone doing it under Bush's watch (or Reagan's for that matter). There's been plenty of evidence uncovered that Clinton by that point was actually serving the interests of the USSR and China, and knowing how being accused of being a CIA agent is a mark for death or at least censure in leftist circles, it really doesn't seem as though Clinton would have EVER been the type to be CIA, especially given his radical left-wing views (especially when the CIA was specifically formed to combat Communism after its predecessor was too riddled with them). In any case, we really should note Bush's death at this point. If we can note his wife's death on here, we most certainly can note his death. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2018 (EST)
Cord Meyer was Bill Clinton's case officer. When Papa Bush reactivated Clinton in 1982 he reminded him, "Once a Company man, always a Company man." Clinton was among the first of communist infiltrators into the CIA, John Brennan came a decade later.
It's a generational thing. Papa Bush made the same mistake as LBJ; the World War II generation assumed the generation of the 1960s' first loyalties were to the United States. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:51, 1 December 2018 (EST)
Eh, I'm not sure I buy that claim about "Once a Company man, always a Company man." I know that CIA agents if they do badly or disagree with the higher ups at times get "cut loose" (ie, fired from their jobs) if Peace Walker and NCIS is of any indication, so in some cases, even if you're once a member of the CIA, you CAN just be thrown out of being a Company Man permanently. And besides, I've seen leftists actually use the term "CIA agent" as a way to disparage a rival (case in point, Jean-Paul Sartre actually accused one of his rival philosophers, Bernard-Henri Levy, I believe it was, of being a CIA agent, and I know that Che Guevara when admitting before his death that he killed people justified the murders by claiming that they were, among other things, "CIA agents"), and knowing how radical left Clinton is, I don't think he'd be the type to just work willingly with the CIA barring infiltration, not unless they had leverage anyways, especially not if he wanted to keep his leftist credentials intact. And besides, its not just the 1960s generation that had little loyalty to the United States: There's sufficient evidence that Howard Zinn, who was of the World War II generation, actually served in that war as a bomber pilot to aid the USSR, not the United States. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2018 (EST)
What you forget is Clinton served during the draft. Clinton lost his draft deferment when he was booted out of Oxford. Clinton owed the country two years service. At first he enrolled in ROTC, but never showed up. That was his cover. His political mentor, J. William Fulbright, arranged for Clinton to give two years service in the CIA. You're right, it wasn't voluntary, and Clinton always resented it. His assignment was to infiltrate organized anti-Vietnam war protests in Europe and find Russian influence. Cord Meyer confirms his service, which was likely between 1969 and 1971 (although there is evidence he may have entered as early as August or September of 1968, or at least that's when the deal was negotiated and finalized.
Hey, a Rhodes Scholar drop out is quite a catch for any US agency, and it appears the US Army, the ROTC, and the CIA all wanted him. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:17, 2 December 2018 (EST)
Well, if that was his cover, he didn't fool very many. I definitely know that Colonel Eugene Holmes before his death notarized a letter exposing that Clinton was doing, heck, outright organizing anti-war protests while still eligible for the draft (and also exposing Clinton's own letter explaining that he effectively duped them, and Holmes even indicated that Clinton "volunteered" for the draft BEFORE headed to Oxford, and that if anything, his going to Oxford was insurance that he does avoid the draft.), and Lt. Colonel Tom McKenney in The Clinton Chronicles even indicated that he was orchestrating anti-American protests during that time and, if a document shown during the latter's talk is of any indication, may have even continued doing them up to Nixon's time as president (based on the fact that one of the leaflets explicitly referenced Nixon as an "Imperial Chieftain"). Somehow, I don't think either of them would have said that if Clinton was in fact serving the CIA during the draft (in fact, knowing how he's the weasely type even back then, he could have easily used his serving the CIA as an excuse for skipping out on the draft in order to elude suspicion). Plus, during his train/plane ride to Moscow, he apparently got his funding from KGB sources, not CIA. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2018 (EST)
Now you're getting it (all the details, with citations, are available on this site). Heres the facts: (1) Clinton was booted from Oxford & the Rhodes Scholarship program for sexual misconduct; (2) Clinton lost is draft deferment; (3) Oxford and Clinton's sponsors needed to coverup a scandal; (4) registering with the ROTC maintained his "political viability" (his own words) while not showing up built bona fidas with the anti-war groups he was assigned to infiltrate.
He basically was drafted into the CIA grudgingly. As an anti-establishment hippie, he "loathed" (his words) the CIA as much as the military. The ROTC stint was a non-too elaborate cover story for a covert operation.
Former CIA chief Papa Bush reactivated former CIA low-level snitch Bill Clinton for active duty in the Iran Contra scandal.
By 1982 when VP Bush recruited and reactivated Gov. Clinton, Papa Bush thought Clinton had grown up, outgrown his anti-establishment hippie days, and adopted the patriotism of the elder generation. In studying the Bushes and Clintons, you can broadly see the institutionalized federal corruption from two different historical, cultural and regional motivations - the Bushes representing the Yankee North and East, and the Clinton's representing the South which traditionally is less inclined to close ranks with domestic opponents against foreign threats. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:20, 2 December 2018 (EST)
It's a phenomena all Americans are aware of unconsciously since Lincoln's Second Inaugural and assassination: While Yankees want to forgive and forget and move forward, Southerners tend to view Yankees with suspicion. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:33, 2 December 2018 (EST)
I still have my doubts. The only time infiltrations actually work is for stings/drug busts/taped confessions where you basically after managing to catch them in the act then swarm in and raid the area to arrest everyone. Why the heck would Clinton be allowed to outright helm anti-American rallies during the late sixties, early seventies, up to and including reciting quotations from Mao Zedong, encouraging everyone to say "Down with the U.S.", and distributing leaflets basically denouncing Nixon as an "Imperialist chieftain" by the CIA especially for infiltration purposes (not to mention outright organizing the rallies indicates he wasn't "low level")? There's literally nothing to gain by doing that and if anything that just gives their enemy more ammunition and leads to more defeats (which goes against CIA policy of making sure to defend America against various threats). A good contrast to give an example of how infiltrations are supposed to be done would be someone like, say, Larry Grathwohl, where he as an FBI member infiltrated the Weathermen Underground, and as soon as he learned their exact aims, he exposed it to the world, risked his life in the process. Clinton by outright organizing them and apparently outright aiding them wouldn't have actually helped the CIA with gathering any intel on their enemy to use against them. And as far as the ROTC, I don't think you quite understand: the Colonel indicated that Clinton volunteered to the ROTC program BEFORE even heading to Oxford in the first place, let alone being kicked out from that area, and he then sent a letter essentially bragging that he tricked them upon arriving at Oxford. So unless you're implying that he was recruited into the CIA to act as an informant BEFORE he ever set out for Oxford, let alone got kicked out there, I think you really need to rethink what you're stating. And besides, I also have plenty of sources claiming Clinton was actually aiding the KGB and had membership there, like the whole trip to Moscow thing being paid for in KGB cash. And even regarding the differences of Northeast and South politics and culture (I'd know, I was born in Connecticut and spent most of my life in Georgia), I still don't quite buy it since it has too many holes and conflicting aspects. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2018 (EST)

So, the CIA effectively hoaxed Clinton's ROTC recruiters, which built credibility for the cover story. As to the alleged KGB funding. two factors are at work: (1) this event occurred in the early days of Kissinger's detente, which the Russians wanted; (2) the KGB and Russians did in fact want Khrushchev's Memoirs published in the West for propaganda purposes, but not in the USSR. They still wanted to filter out any of its content returning to the Soviet masses. They couldn't publish it thrmselves. The whole event shows backchannel cooperation between the CIA & KGB in the darkest days of the Cold War, leading up to Nixon's 1972 Moscow visit, and Clinton played a role in these backchannel communications, likely as a courier, which again builds credibility for his cover story as an anti-American protest organizer. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:34, 2 December 2018 (EST)

When Clinton accepted the Rhodes Scholarship, he knew he maybe called upon by the CIA or UK for some intelligence task. This not only is a condition of the scholarship, it's the purpose of the program. Stefan Halper currently resides in the UK overseeing the US end of the ongoing program. When Clinton was booted from Oxford, he was pressed into service for a task he otherwise wouldn't have been asked to do had he remained a student. The ROTC cover story was already in place. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:50, 2 December 2018 (EST)
That still doesn't seem to work, unfortunately, especially not when that would have ultimately sabotaged far too much of their goals which include, first and foremost, the protection of America and its interests against its enemies. I know if I were CIA, I'd make SURE to at least hint to the ROTC guys as to what's going on, if for no other reason than to make absolute sure that there's at least some in the know and not spoil any problems later on like if they are so incensed they decided to just expose him as a draft dodger at an inconvenient time, and I'd also make sure they're patriotic enough to handle it (and the Colonel at least definitely would have been patriotic enough). Not to mention, an organizer is NOT low level, someone who is low level does grunt work, meaning someone who would be the type to just picket and be told what is to be done. Like I said, someone like Larry Grathwohl fits the whole low-level snitch concept far more than Clinton did, and he actually had a cover story. And somehow, I don't think a courier would go out of his way to see Lenin's exhibit. And yes, I would not be surprised if the KGB and the USSR wanted it published for propaganda purposes. However, had I been CIA, I'd make sure I get the unaltered copies, risk my life in other words, and deliberately translate it to give the full, unvarnished truth, ESPECIALLY to sabotage the USSR, since that's the entire POINT of being a CIA agent. As far as the Rhodes scholarship, that may have been the intended purpose, but as WND pretty clearly showed, it stopped being that the second it just let in radical left-wing groups push their public policies, which is completely AGAINST the point of espionage. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2018 (EST)
When Clinton was booted from Oxford, he was faced with a choice: (1) return to US, serve out his time in ROTC and risk going to Vietnam, or (2) remain in Europe, pose as an anti-American protest organizer, and develop KGB contacts. People in the intelligence community such as Cord Meyer & Papa Bush considered him a natural in the business for making the right choice. However the hippie in Clinton always resented coercion. He has no other loyalty than himself, not the KGB or CIA. Here you see his real Southern roots. Papa Bush mistook it for Yankee patriotism. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:08, 2 December 2018 (EST)
Yeah, sorry, someone who is merely "posing" as an anti-American protestor would NOT organize them. Look at Larry Grathwohl, for example, who DID in fact pose as an anti-American protestor. And yet again, I still fail to see how Clinton distributing explicitly anti-American pamphlets and encouraging them to say "down with the US" does ANY benefit to intelligence operations, especially not when mass arrests have NOT been made against them. My idea of an actual benefit is to catch them redhanded via a sting of some sort, do a mass arrest of the anti-American protestors, and then interrogate them into squealing on the rest and continuing to do so until we get all of them off the streets, and THEN use it as leverage against the USSR, maybe even exploit that information to take down the USSR. The entire POINT of intelligence operations is to find out the enemy's motives, expose it, shut down their operation, heck, trap them especially. So no, had it been me in Bush's position, I'd fire Clinton, even put him to the firing squad for distributing anti-American pamphlets and NOT getting mass arrests or any results, and even fire the handler for failure to produce results, and that's speaking both as a Yankee AND a Southerner. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2018 (EST)
As to ROTC/CIA competition, your talking about a classified leak now. Military and intelligence institutions hate each other and don't trust each other - as the Michael Flynn/John Brennan cage match lies at heart of Trump-Russia (later carried forward by Adm. Rogers; Clapper is a traitor to the uniform). Even in the Soviet Union, the GRU survived politics and communism - its arch rival the KGB did not. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:20, 2 December 2018 (EST)
They may hate each other, yes, but they also would be smart enough to realize they'd still need to collaborate with each other ESPECIALLY if they are to complete vital objectives, in that case, getting rid of the USSR, and ANY communist organizations similar to it in ANY way (working with Mao Zedong was a mistake if you ask me, one of a few mistakes Nixon made. I'd rather fight both at the same time and wipe OUT both, since I don't intend to ally with ANY Communist organizations.). To put it another way, the Army and Navy aren't exactly chummy friends either, having a bit of an intense rivalry regarding jurisdiction, yet when push comes to shove, they work together to complete their mission objectives during a wartime situation. And the Cold War is STILL a war, meaning they can't exactly afford to let petty squabbles ruin any chance at defeating the enemy, especially if said squabbles mean the country loses as a result of engaging in them. As far as leaks, it's more like allowing for some knowledge by related parties on our side on what's to happen to ensure there's no problems in the future, being closer to, say, joint operations than a true leak. If it were a leak, it would be closer to the whole Pentagon Papers situation or the Steele Dossier. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2018 (EST)
In 1969, then President Nixon, the late Joe McCarthy, and James Jesus Angleton were the only people who believed Bill Ayers and the Chicago Seven were KGB plots. Nixon wanted proof. That was Bill Clinton's task.
If Bill Clinton handed out anti-American leaflets or quoted Chairman Mao, it was to impress leftists and the KGB he was a bona fide protestor. Knowing Clinton, his view of anti-Americanism has always been rooted in being anti-Republican party. He particularly resented being forced to work for Nixon. In Clinton's mind bereft of any foreign policy interest or knowledge, an anti-American leaflet would be a pro-Klan leaflet. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:55, 2 December 2018 (EST)
I'm pretty sure Larry did far more to actually GET proof there than Clinton did, though, especially considering what Bill Ayers told him about how they planned to kill a quarter of the American population, and Grathwohl made that public in that video. And as far as Clinton, he would have been anti-American even towards Democrats. After all, even if I were anti-Republican, I would NEVER try to aid the Chinese communists in any way, being far too pro-American or at the very least anti-Communist to even consider it. I certainly wouldn't sell the Chinese state secrets for campaign cash or ANYTHING else, and I'd also make clear that I'm not doing it for the Yankees either. And considering the Clintons actually DID support the Klan (who do you THINK backed them during their various political races), yeah, they'd definitely support anti-Americanism. Heck, even when he became President, he did everything he possibly could to sabotage any intelligence gathering or military operations, meaning his anti-American activities were no act. Besides, considering the Chinese and Soviets were technically fighting against each other by that point, using Mao's words wouldn't have impressed the KGB. The leftists, sure, but not the KGB, and besides, like I said, it didn't result in mass arrests like a sting operation in those crime dramas. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2018 (EST)
You're beginning to see the real Bill Clinton. He's not a nationalist or patriot it any sense. He's a true blue right wing conservative who believes in rugged individualism and had his eyes set at an early age on becoming a greedy one percenter through the only way he knew how. Not through business accumen and entrepreneurship, but through political corruption in the single party, anti-democratic, Democrat party machine he inherited as his white privilege in The South. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:26, 2 December 2018 (EST)
Yeah, I wouldn't even call Clinton a right-wing person at ALL, let alone a conservative, or even much of an individualist. Last I checked, being right wing requires that you hold love for your family, close ones, and your nation and its values, and conservativism also requires that as well. Just because one's self-serving like Clinton doesn't mean they are any of those things. Look at Sartre or Foucault. They're self-serving and individualistic enough to basically reject ANY form of authority, and yet they explicitly adhere to the left-wing, hold disgust for any right-wing concepts, and their individualism if it could be called that actually has them being downright nihilistic as a result. And I've seen the real Bill Clinton a while back when he constantly went out of his way to sell out his country that he swore loyalty to like a cheap car and from reading up on his actions. That's why I do NOT buy him being CIA or merely POSING as an anti-American. Pokeria1 (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2018 (EST)
By conservative I mean he's intelligent and self-motivated. He's not anything the left imagines itself to be - kind, compassionate, generous, loving, etc. Being irresponsible is a leftist trait however.
Unfortunately, being a sociopath and pervert are traits that are seen across the spectrum. That makes him more of a centrist. However, the left is more accomodating toward criminals in their ranks and representing them in elected office. That does not mean that the sociopath and criminal they elect actually holds the same values the voters do, however. If the official they elect has a demonstrated lack of integrity and wholesale disregard for the truth, is motivated by greed and and self interest, manipulates people to achieve ends that benefit himself, has anything but a collectivist mentality, and this is how liberals define conservativism, that puts Bill Clinton squarely on the right. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:20, 3 December 2018 (EST)
To be fair, by that definition, ALL Liberals are squarely on the "right"/conservative, even, no, ESPECIALLY leftist icons such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, the Marquis de Sade, Vladimir Lenin, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, George Lucas, and the like, as most if not all of those examples, despite the PR, aren't kind, compassionate, generous, or loving (heck, many of them actually invoked trying to make an even gorier remake of the Reign of Terror, and openly discarded such concepts of humanity as "tokens of ideology" in the case of Foucault and Lenin). Heck, that even goes for the collectivist-advocating ones (Lucas, for example, advocated for Occupy Wall Street as well as "pure democracy" and not having corporations control government, even advocating on taxing the rich, yet when Obama grants him his wish, he sells Star Wars to Disney so he'd get out of the tax hikes he pretty much asked for). Pokeria1 (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2018 (EST)

Again, the hypocrisy

People that we've patiently listened to for 45 years viciously spew their hatred of Papa Bush, now speak of his public service....

I can't handle it anymore. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:08, 2 December 2018 (EST)

It's because he voted for Clinton, meaning the media can use him as a posterboy for NeverTrumper Republicans." Also, they probably realized that his presidential record really wasn't that conservative when you actually think about it (and until Trump, the Left believed both Bushes were far-right extremists or something). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2018 (EST)
Yep. Papa Bush voting for Hillary showed he's a deep state team player, at the exclusion of the American people. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:16, 2 December 2018 (EST)

Now we've seen it all. They're starting to say good things about Dan Quayle. Who's next. Sarah Palin? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:18, 2 December 2018 (EST)

Honestly, if they're speaking good about Dan Quayle, that's even more odd, especially when Quayle, unlike Bush Sr., doesn't really seem to be the type to be a Globalist. Pokeria1 (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2018 (EST)

Parallel construction

With a heading this boring, future Talk:Main Page readers, you may already have skipped it. But it has to do with a central idea in the Mueller Investigation that RobS keeps mentioning—fruit from a poisonous tree.

RobS argues that since the evidence that was procured to prosecute Trump's appointees came from an illegal use of the FISA court (under the false pretense of investigating Carter Page), Mueller won't be able to use that evidence and all evidence based on that evidence, against them.

Mueller's tricks somehow never seem to work as planned as far as swaying public opinion over to his side, and here is another legal instrument that he and his apologists will fail to use effectively, get caught and then deny it, but waste a lot of time for conservatives in the public arena in the process.

That is, what Mueller's team is doing trying to make certain neutral actions politically charged and then to connect all the "suspicious" actions into a chain of causation instead of just presenting the actions with a non-poisonous basis separately to speak for themselves about whatever they have to say, is that he is building a parallel construction.

Parallel construction is a law enforcement process of building a parallel—or separate—evidentiary basis for a criminal investigation in order to conceal how an investigation actually began.

My hope in presenting this is that it will immunize you early from losing your temper over the sudden appearance of the use of such a cynical and outrageous ploy, if reports of the prosecution's behavior does happen to suddenly appear in that form. VargasMilan (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2018 (EST)

Thanks for the plug, but there are three other events that predate the illegal FISA warrant (which spans from July 31, 2016 to October 18, 2017). They are:
  1. illegal FISA 702 search queries beginning circa November 2015 to April 2016;
  2. use of FBI informants beginning in the October-December 2015 timeframe and as late as October 2017 (aka Spygate);
  3. intelligence sharing activities outside the Five Eyes process with the UK & Australia.
At bottom, the Mueller probe was never intended to investigate Trump; it was a cover to give immunity and thwart Congressional investigation of Comey, Brennan, McCabe, Baker, Ohr, Lisa Page, Rice, and the other criminals in Obama administration. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:06, 3 December 2018 (EST)
And while parallel construction certainly accounts for Cohen's problems, Roger Stone is still being actively pursued with evidence gathered by illegal electronic surveillance on Stone & Corsi. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:23, 3 December 2018 (EST)
FYI Corsi just filed a criminal and ethics complaint against Mueller eight hours ago alleging Mueller sought his false testimony. VargasMilan (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2018 (EST)
FYI2 This morning: Congressional investigators with House and Senate committees leading inquiries on the Russia question stated that it looks like Mueller withheld from the court details that would exonerate the president. They made this assessment in light of the charging document, known as a statement of “criminal information” (filed in lieu of an indictment when a defendant agrees to plead guilty); a fuller accounting of Cohen’s emails and text messages that Capitol Hill sources have seen; and the still-secret transcripts of closed-door testimony provided by a business associate of Cohen.
On page 7 of the statement of criminal information filed against Cohen, which is separate from but related to the plea agreement, Mueller mentions that Cohen tried to email Russian President Vladimir Putin’s office on Jan. 14, 2016, and again on Jan. 16, 2016. But Mueller, who personally signed the document, omitted the fact that Cohen did not have any direct points of contact at the Kremlin, and had resorted to sending the emails to a general press mailbox. Sources who have seen these additional emails point out that this omitted information undercuts the idea of a “back channel” and thus the special counsel's collusion case. VargasMilan (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2018 (EST)
RobS already has these stories in his Russiagate timeline 2018. For some reason I thought the Cohen story came out this morning, but RobS, who linked to the same source, said it came out last week. Oh well, now you don't have to follow the link to the Cohen story on that page if you just want the executive summary. VargasMilan (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2018 (EST)
It did come out this morning, but I linked it back to the date of Cohen's guilty plea. With all the fake news going on, the Cohen plea occupies too much space.
I'm following up on Sundance's theory, which requires a little more study, but is worth a gander. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:38, 4 December 2018 (EST)

What a nightmare. Been reading all 235 pages of the Comey transcript. Can you imagine being locked in the same room with James Comey for 7 hours? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:21, 9 December 2018 (EST)

Trump and Pence - The last gasps of a concern troll

As a Christian with conservative leanings I believe Trump amoral, opportunistic and a serial liar. He is a provable liar with no integrity for the office. None of this is disputable as he has proven time and time again to be a complete charlatan. Which is why I hope he moves aside so Pence can take charge. Pence has a quiet authority. Pence has a moral code. Pence is a believer whereas Trump is a pretender. You might think that because I’m an Australian it has nothing to do with me however the US has worldwide moral sway which Trunp is chipping away at. Everyone laughs at him and by extension they laugh at the US. I feel Pence is in the position to reclaim the preeminence of the US as a beacon of freedom and integrity. Anyone else have thoughts on this? JohnSelway (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2018 (EST)

Hey, I had my doubts about Trump myself especially after he implied in a New York stump speech that he was not going to undo Roe v. Wade. In fact, him choosing Mike Pence as his VP was pretty much the only reason I decided to vote for Trump since at least he was very outspoken about the right to life (my initial choice was neither Trump nor Cruz, it was Ben Carson). And make no mistake, whatever Trump's moral failings are, at least he's no Hillary Clinton (and make no mistake, Hillary would have been the even worse option when you get right down to it), and at least HE stands with the right to life right now. Besides, if you think about it, Ronald Reagan wasn't always the dyed in the wool conservative we all know and love, he was originally a New Deal Democrat, but changed to be a Conservative. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2018 (EST)
Trump's only moral failing is a failure to prosecute Hillary Clinton, so far. But he's got six years to get it started. I'm patient. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:36, 6 December 2018 (EST)
I hate Clinton, both of them. But that doesn’t make trump any less of a conman. He lies with almost every breath. Pence/Cruz 2020. JohnSelway (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2018 (EST)
"reclaim the preeminence of the US as a beacon of freedom and integrity" -- hopefully, these aren't codewords for Pence enabling mass migration of low-wage people who have no interest in becoming American and who care nothing about the U.S. except to fill their wallets and send the money back to their home countries.
"He lies with almost every breath" -- once again, you're blindly accepting the leftist media's spin -- if Trump says "life begins at conception," they're going to call it a "lie", by the criteria they've been using for the past two years. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2018 (EST)
Oh, really? Why would he lie? To make himself rich? To get rich after he leaves office at the age of 78?
Seriously John, as a Christian, you need to stop filling your head with lies and repeating lies. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:58, 6 December 2018 (EST)
Are you seriously contending Trump isn’t a liar? It’s not even disputed. It’s evidenced almost by everything he says regardless of the source. Do I need to list them for you? JohnSelway (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2018 (EST)
I gave you three sources on Andy's talk page that said what you said. They were filled with comments similar to "life begins at conception" with the media calling his political/cultural point of view a "lie." --1990'sguy (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2018 (EST)
I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make. But he lies all the time. He does know Whittaker then claims to not know him. He had no business ties at all to Russia but then it comes out he did. He never knew about any payments to Daniels but then he it gets found out he did know of it. Says he handed out the biggest tax cut in history which he didn’t. Said he signed more bills than any other president - completely untrue. These aren’t just spin, it’s provable fabrication. It’s isnt fake news - these are words from him mouth which aren’t supported. Yes Clinton was beaten and that’s a good thing however it doesn’t make Trump an honest person. People here seem more concerned about their team winning even though that person is a dishonest grifter. JohnSelway (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2018 (EST)
If I were to have my way, I would have had Ben Carson as POTUS. But guess what, Trump's president right now, so whatever his moral problems are, we still have to put up with him since he's still our best, if not only shot at restoring America (and getting rid of Roe v. Wade). At least be glad that we didn't get either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders as President, either one of whom are much worse (heck, the fact that Sanders is a hardline socialist is more than enough to make him bad news, lying like breathing as all socialists do.). And if you're going to claim that he said those things, I suggest you at least cite WHERE he said them, whether it be TV interviews, news articles, heck, his own tweets even. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2018 (EST)

"I love this guy right here." - Kanye West on Donald Trump.Conservative (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2018 (EST)

  • He had no business ties at all to Russia but then it comes out he did.
JohnSelway, you lie. Next you're going to tell us John McCain was a war hero and Bush 41 was a great President. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:00, 7 December 2018 (EST)
*Said he signed more bills than any other president - completely untrue.
You're right. It's Ocasio-Cortez's job to sign bills. We'll give you that one. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:05, 7 December 2018 (EST)

Koch Brothers and the Daily Caller?

Did I read this right, or did the globalist Koch Brothers infuse the Daily Caller website with hundreds of thousands of dollars? This is Tucker Carlson's website if I'm not mistaken. I don't know if this is related but Chuck Ross there repeated an embarrassing remark that Jerome Corsi made two weeks ago. VargasMilan (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2018 (EST)

Corsi? an embarrassing remark? Must've missed it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:13, 7 December 2018 (EST)
VargasMilan, just to clarify, are you implying that Carlson is false opposition?--Geopolitician (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2018 (EST)
Does Carlson still own the Daily Caller? --1990'sguy (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2018 (EST)
Not certain on that (but I think not). I also heard once that the Daily Caller and Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) are two separate entities. Judge Clarance Thomas's wife is heavily connected to DCNF. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:44, 8 December 2018 (EST)

When does interventionism cross the line?

Those of you who have read my past contributions to this site know that much of the content I post on articles and talk pages are about foreign policy dangers that I believe have been neglected by both left-wing and right-wing media; and that on multiple occasions I have brought up scenarios where we end up going to war with one of our own allies (particularly Germany and Turkey) for no reason other than their imperialist ambitions being a threat to American hegemony over Europe and Asia (which by the way may in fact be necessary to prevent the rise of a European or Asian power that would be interested in undermining the Monroe Doctrine). Not surprisingly these contributions have been deemed by some to be highly controversial, not because of my promotion of interventionism per se but because of the fact that I even thought about such scenarios to begin with. I'll admit that what I've written in the past may have been a bit extreme. I don't want to ignore what I honestly believe could become serious threats in the future, but I also don't want to sound like a complete lunatic over them either. We can all agree that in some cases delivering a good message in a poor manner would be worse than not delivering that good message at all. If what I've written was one such case, then I apologize. I have a hot temper and I need to control it. That being said, I have an important question to ask. When do you believe interventionism is necessary, if at all? I know some conservatives have absolutely zero tolerance for interventionism (for example, Rand Paul seems to oppose John Bolton almost as zealously as Bill Kristol opposes President Trump[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]), but others are willing to accept it in limited amounts. Where do you stand? When does interventionism cross the line?--Geopolitician (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2018 (EST)

Do it when absolutely necessary, even if the more immediate threat is already vanquished (I recall how our just packing up and leaving Afghanistan after driving the Soviets out and leaving them to their own devices just let Osama bin Laden take advantage of the disaffected youth and cause the whole mess of 9/11, and I would NOT want to make that mistake again, which is the only reason I support occupation of Iraq and, yes, even Nation-building if such is absolutely necessary.). Such threats include Islam and Socialism in all of its stripes. If there is no reason at all for intervening, whether it be accomplishing strategic outcomes or otherwise aiding allies, don't bother intervening. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2018 (EST)
And if the ally is just as hostile to our national interests as is the enemy (examples: Saudi Arabia)?--Geopolitician (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2018 (EST)
Intervene against said so-called "ally" then, especially if they attempt to pull something similar on us. Last thing I want is something like Afghanistan to blow up again. Where we help them and they "repay" us by attacking us. Pokeria1 (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2018 (EST)
Interventionism is OK only when it is in clear U.S. political/security/geopolitical interests (as opposed to humanitarian reasons or simply because the country has a form of government we don't like). The problem is Iraq and Afghanistan is that those wars were not in clear U.S. interests, and that's what separates neocons from other conservatives such as John Bolton. I like Rand Paul, but I think he goes a little too far in his opposition to unnecessary wars. On the other hand, I strongly disagree with Pokaria1's comments on the Iraq war and nation building. Those were not in U.S. interests, considering the rise of ISIS in place of Saddam Hussein and the trillions of dollars wasted because of that (also, democracy is a foreign concept to Muslims, so I don't think we should force it on them -- the result: ISIS).
I think the Barbary Wars serve as a good example of when the U.S. should take advantage of interventionism. Thomas Jefferson (like the other founding fathers) strongly (and rightly) opposed interventionism, but it was in clear U.S. interests to take action against the Barbary States who were attacking U.S. ships and forcing ransoms from the U.S. government. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2018 (EST)
To be fair regarding Iraq, as someone mentioned below, he also was allied with terrorists at the time (and not just any terrorists, the same terrorists responsible for 9/11). While I personally don't agree with bringing democracy to Iraq (democracy was NEVER a good thing. Just ask the French during the French Revolution.), the problem is that if we didn't try to do SOMETHING to fix that government, they'd "repay" our efforts just as Afghanistan did by forming al Qaeda under Osama bin Laden's direction. Personally, I would have preferred a full-on republic for Iraq, or even better, a Christian theocracy. Pokeria1 (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2018 (EST)
Defeating Saddam Hussein prevented him from putting a chokehold on the oil supply at that time. He was also harboring terrorists, and he was assaulting American fighter jets with fighter jets of his own in the no-fly zone established in the armistice of the Persian Gulf war. Also, in the past he had used weapons of mass destruction and as a tyrant had been terrorizing his own people for years on end.
Hussein's defeat was responsible for democracy in Iraq and the Arab Spring, and though Clinton and Obama wrecked Libya after they had participated in it, the Egyptian people fairly quickly overthrew a despot and then the Muslim Brotherhood caliphate attempt, the attempt of a regime which promised to end democracy in that nation permamently.
The emergence of Daesh (ISIS), as you know, was caused by Obama removing all American forces from Iraq, whose presence was not atypical even among American allies.
The biggest threat to positive results from American interventionism, therefore, are the Democrats and in the case of the Middle East, the Obama Administration, including their attempt to form a religious state (theocracy) there under the pretext that it would somehow balance out Iran's hostility in the region. VargasMilan (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2018 (EST)
This question is too large to answer in a few paragraphs or even a single discussion thread. But it's probably clear since at least 1991 the nature of modern warfare has change exponentially for the US with low casualty rates. Since 1950 in Korea it's clear the object is not to "win". For decades it's clear fighting to protect our democracy or influence others to become democratic is a farce. All wars at root are over trade. No war can be won without a popular consensus.
I'm just laying out basic premises for discussion to build a consensus for discussion of such an important issue. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:36, 9 December 2018 (EST)
@VargasMilan: Hussein using gas on his people and being a tyrant should not be a reason for us to invade his country -- that's blatant neocon thinking. Also, him being a national security threat is debatable at least, and if the national security (to the U.S.) concerns were true, it could easily have been solved through airstrikes or other forms of limited military action rather than a full-fledged invasion.
Simply being a bad leader and a tyrant is something for a country's own people to solve, not the U.S. -- we need to look our for our own people, our own system of government, and our own national interests first, and not those of others. I refer you to George Washington's Farewell Address.
The biggest threats to positive interventionism are globalists of both parties -- GOP and Dems, who think our foreign policy should be based on bringing democracy to everybody (never mind the very different cultures and natural political systems of "everybody"). They're idealist ideologues who think humanity will become enlightened, adopt liberal Western thought, then we'll all unite into a global community and sing kumbaya forever after -- stupidity on the globalists' part.
Lastly, the U.S. isn't even a democracy -- we're a constitutional republic. If we promote "democracy" as the neocons want, we're not even promoting our own system of government. When's the last time we went into another country and added the equivalent of the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments into their constitutions? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2018 (EST)
1990sguy raises two important points (1) the nature of modern warfare. Today wars are fought covertly by Special Operations Forces, small groups of 16 man teams such as the U.S. in Niger or the Russians in Syria. The public barely knows of these engagements or why forces are deployed. (2) The US has essentially forfeited its democratic rights [insert long discussion with examples]. While the U.S. fought two world wars and half century long cold war to democratize Germany, Germany today is probably the largest country on Earth where people take their democratic rights seriously and guard them preciously, whereas Americans are marching headlong into socialism, totalitarianism, and serfdom. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:41, 9 December 2018 (EST)
@1990's guy, you call globalism the biggest threat to positive interventionism. But what about anger and lust for power? In my opinion, there is a light side and a dark side to waging a foreign policy based on Mearsheimer's regional hegemon theory. The light side is that in theory it is quintessential positive interventionism. But the dark side? In practice it can and has been used to justify the extreme interventionism that we've seen come out of Washington over the past two decades.
Think about it for a second. What is the only way you can permanently prevent the rise of a regional hegemon on Europe or Asia? By bringing both continents under your control at all costs, even if it means treating your allies as vassals instead of allies and demanding regime change to any country that pursues a foreign policy that is independent from your own. That was the mentality that I had when I wrote my discussions about war with Germany (and to some extent Turkey, although that discussion had far more to do with the threat of Islamism than anything else). I wrote with that mentality, driven by fear, anger, and hatred towards those countries for their threats to American hegemony more than anything else, more than even their roles in the rise of globalism and Islamism. And I am ashamed of myself for writing with that mentality. Yes, I still believe them to be threats, but fear-mongering to the point where I sounded like it was necessary to go to war with them preemptively was way out of line.
And let me tell you something else. There have been many occasions where I've seen people accusing (perhaps correctly) neocons of having this mentality. This (perhaps correct) accusation is especially common among National Globalist circles, who see globalism itself as being the product of this mentality among neocons (that is why they tend to side with the European Union, the Muslim Brotherhood, China, etc. over the United States; they believe the real battle is between an ultra-interventionist America and literally the rest of the world, not between nationalism and globalism). Nevertheless, even if the accusations are correct, the solutions these people advocate are not. That is why it is imperative that we pursue a foreign policy where we do not obsess over having European or Asian vassals. We don't want to alienate people and drive them into the National Globalist camp, now do we? --Geopolitician (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2018 (EST)
Geopolitician: Have you ever read this chapter, The Suicidalness of Militarism? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:49, 10 December 2018 (EST)
RobS, I tried to read it, but Google Books won't show the whole thing. But either way, I'm glad you found a single word to describe that mentality I once had and am trying to purge from my head: militarism. A few years back when I was studying international relations in college, I was introduced to the concept of geopolitical realism. That fundamentally changed my way of thinking. I felt that the ideas that (1) the world is always in a state of anarchy; (2) human nature is inherently bad; and (3) the proper response to anarchy and human nature is to participate in an amoral zero-sum game of what is essentially "survival of the fittest," to make perfect sense in virtually every sector of life: foreign policy, military affairs, domestic politics, business, and even personal relationships. Although the world can indeed be a dangerous place and looking out for your own security is a virtue, when taken to its logical extreme geopolitical realism can become very dangerous. A person who takes geopolitical realism to its logical extreme would believe that nobody else can ever be trusted and that everybody is out to get each other (including you). That person would then -- perhaps out of paranoia -- start responding to conflicts with the most drastic measures (such as war) being the first resort instead of the last resort, because that person would have already concluded that there is no hope for the opposing side. It is that paranoia that leads to militarism. I once embraced that logical extreme, and believe me when I say it is toxic. It clouded my judgement. It made me into a bitter and angry person who always felt that a fight or argument was around the corner for one reason or another. And where did it get me in life? Nowhere. Just like how it got the militarist powers of old nowhere.--Geopolitician (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2018 (EST)
Here's another format. The argument is basically, if a society doesn't kill itself on the battlefield (like Prussia), it'll ultimately bankrupt itself from growing fat, happy and corrupt (like Rome or the US is trying), or kill itself trying to grow fat and happy (like the USSR). It's a warning against an overreliance on defense spending for security, and a loss of spiritual values. But the chapter should also be seen in its wider context of just one of several paths to the Breakdown of Civilizations. Sure, maybe nobody else is going to beat you on the battlefield, but you'll kill yourself trying to stay on top and proving you're No.1. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:30, 10 December 2018 (EST)
Thank you. I just scanned through it (I'll read it more thoroughly later), and I'm actually surprised this chapter doesn't mention Thucydide's comment on the Peloponnesian War: "It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable." A very wise comment, and one that can be easily be misinterpreted, as I once did. I (and I presume others before me) had focused on the first part of the comment only, and concluded that the rise of new powers alone would make war inevitable. But that is false. There have been several occasions where a new power rose and the competition with an older power did not end in war (examples: Portugal and Spain in the mid and late 15th century; the UK and the US in the early 20th century; the US and the USSR during the Cold War[55]). The correct way to interpret Thucycide's comment is to read it as it is: "It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable." There needs to be a fear factor for war to be inevitable in such cases. And that fear factor needs to be avoided. And believe me when I say from personal experience that avoiding that fear factor is easier said than done. We're all human. Fear is a natural feeling.--Geopolitician (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2018 (EST)
Yes, you're putting your finger on an important concept applicable to today. While some point to the rise of China and Iran as threats, others cling to fear of an old power - Russia, as a threat. This discussion can go many directions from this point. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:45, 10 December 2018 (EST)
(Edit conflict)
Your understanding of these terms to me seems hout of focus. Hussein being a tyrant may not be a positive reason to invade, but it allows an attempted liberation to face less of an obstacle. You'll notice there were zero democratic majority-Muslim countries before.
If you are arguing against democracy, bear in mind you are arguing against Abraham Lincoln (of the people, by the people and for the people). I don't think it's outrageous to have thought a beachhead of democracy in the Middle East might have had a positive effect against the volatile tyrants who rule there. And it did as I described in my second paragraph above. You can argue that tyranny is a suitable government, but you can't argue against results—at least not yet. Even results thwarted and reversed by a theocracy-loving President and his Secretary of State.
And to be inferred from my remarks above, I think a beachhead of democracy is different from "bringing democracy to everybody". VargasMilan (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2018 (EST)
The U.S. is not a democracy -- the founding fathers did not want a democracy. A constitutional republic is very different from (and superior to) a democracy: [56][57][58][59]
A constitutional republic is the best form of government -- but I'm not going to force it on people in other countries. They should choose their own governments, and any form of government besides authoritarian dictatorship or theocracy is foreign to them. No wonder so many Muslims abandoned the U.S.-built Iraq and joined ISIS. Same thing is happening in Libya, and the only reason Kabul (Afghanistan) is not under theocratic rule is because of U.S. occupation -- and that's not a good thing (not in U.S. interests to spend the trillions of dollars only to have the Taliban inevitably sweep in if/when we leave).
Bottom line: it's not our job to tell other countries what type of government they should have, and even if it is our job (which it's not), we're not actually promoting our own type of government (1st, 2nd, 10th amendments?). --1990'sguy (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2018 (EST)
Maybe, but on the other hand, you could argue that it WAS ultimately in US interests to stay in Afghanistan. We left Afghanistan, naively thinking they wouldn't attack us after we saved their butts against the Soviets in the eighties. Look what happened there: Because we barely did ANYTHING at all for them beyond that, just up and out left them to their own devices, they got angry with us, threw their lot with a psycho like Osama bin Laden, and that led directly to Al Quaeda plaguing us with terrorist attacks up to 9/11, not helping matters is someone like Bill Clinton letting his anti-War left-wing views basically let Laden and al Qaeda have free reign in continuing their attacks. If anything, leaving Afghanistan behind peacefully is AGAINST American interests in that we made an enemy as a result that resulted in another war. At least we had far more of a reason regarding American interests than our involvement in the Kosovo war, which was purely due to SJW sensibilities as Bill Clinton put it. Pokeria1 (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2018 (EST)
You had it right the first time: the Barbary pirates were interfering with trade. Ideology factor's in when dealing with cultural differences by an occupying force. Even Islam is as much of an economic system as an ideology, for example, the notion that only non-Muslims pay taxes to support the regime, or women are restricted from competing with men for higher wages in the job market. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:35, 10 December 2018 (EST)
(edit conflict) This is ridiculous. Surely you can tell the difference between me observing some democratic institutions in a government useful for stability and political liberty and me calling the state that government is in "a democracy". VargasMilan (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2018 (EST)
Nation's don't go to war over ideology. They go to war over economic circumstances. Ideologies are created to protect or justify economic systems or circumstances. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:58, 10 December 2018 (EST)
And here's a definition of economic system: the method by which people feed, clothe, and house themselves. And all economic systems are by nature capitalist; the variations exist in who owns assets. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:07, 10 December 2018 (EST)
So much for Patrick Henry and George Washington. VargasMilan (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2018 (EST)
The American Revolution was entirely economic in nature. The colonialists, born in America, had to pay quit-rents to Lord So-and-So back in England, a stooge-friend of the King who never set foot in America and the King gave him a landgrant to soak the colonists for a quick buck. If the colonist moved a few acres over to get away from his landlord, the King deeded the new settled land over to some other crony living in Britain who never lifted a finger to clear the land or make it arable. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:49, 10 December 2018 (EST)
I'm not entirely sure I agree that wars aren't ideological, or rather, that they're purely economical. Do I really need to point out the 1960s Futbol war in Central America? That was literally fought over the results of a stupid soccer game, had absolutely nothing to do with economics at all (or for that matter ideology). And I'm pretty sure the September Massacres and Reign of Terror in France were motivated more by radical left-wing ideology than economic factors (especially when they tended to slaughter more of the peasants than the aristocrats despite the PR). Pokeria1 (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2018 (EST)
The ideology is borne to justify or explain the underlying economic circumstances or change. In France, it was the gradual change from an agricultural based fuedal social system to an increasing merchantile, urbanized economy with a successful middle class and hordes of urbanized unemployed before factories were built and consumer economy arose. Ideology didn't cause the revolution - the ideology explains the underlying economic circumstances. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:54, 10 December 2018 (EST)
You still have yet to actually explain the Futbol war, for example, which literally resulted from the results of a soccer game, nothing political or economic or anything that made sense beyond that bit. And besides, economics barely even factored into the French Revolution and the Jacobins, it was actually more of the Philosophes' work (Timothy Dwight more than made that clear in the 1799 commencement speech, as did The New American and other sources), most of whom didn't even give a darn about economic change and just wanted humanity to reject Christianity in favor of their more Joker-esque view of the world. And if that's not enough, then even after the factory rise, they still do general strikes and mayhem for little reason other than getting a kick out of the carnage like May 1968, not to mention Karl Marx openly advocating when creating Communism trying to make a gorier remake of Robespierre's Reign of Terror (heck, Michel Foucault even advocated going further than that, doing a remake of the September Massacres of all things in order to allow for "popular justice", ie, lynch mobs and full-on anarchy.). Pokeria1 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2018 (EST)
We see my thesis in action today. "Populism" is used to describe a reaction by people loosing their jobs in France and the U.S to foreign trade agreements and robotics. Populism didn't cause anything. It's an ideological label or grouping to explain a change in economic circumstances. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:31, 10 December 2018 (EST)


Certain ideologies/religions make people more/less warlike. For example, Muslims make bad neighbors (see: Irreligion/religion and war).Conservative (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2018 (EST)


The problem with non-interventionism is summed up by the old saying "evil triumphs when good men do nothing." Anti-interventionism often sounds too much like the infamous Prime Directive from Star Trek. Many arguments against interventionism stem from that philosophy, which is a liberal one of moral and cultural relativism. Shobson20 (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2018 (EST)
Conservative: cultural norms and ideolgy may be two different things, although closely related. Again, a warrior culture can grow from economic conditions. A hunter-gather society (e.g. Mongolians, Native American, etc.) for instance. Other warrior cultures have different traditions (Romans, Turks, Arabs, Germans, etc.). Some grow to defend against intruders/outsiders. The ideology evolves to justify a system of law that people use to adapt to their economic environment. If people live by looting their neighbors, an ideology will evolve (Marxism, Islam) to justify theft. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:10, 10 December 2018 (EST)

Nick Ayers and Never Trumpers

I'm open minded, but the decision to group Nick Ayers with Never Trumpers is interesting, considering the fact that he will work on Trump's re-election campaign. Can anyone clarify? Sportsguy (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2018 (EST)

People can repent, can't they? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:05, 11 December 2018 (EST)
I hardly take the #NeverTrump label seriously anymore. At this point, when you've got Mark Levin (who was #NeverTrump from April to September of 2016 and since the election has become one of Trump's staunchest defenders against Mueller) on one hand and Omarosa Manigault Newman (who was zealously pro-Trump during the election and now calls him a racist) on the other, I find obsessing over who was #NeverTrump in 2016 to be counterproductive. People can repent (as RobSmith says), because people can change. They can change for better or for worse for whatever reason.--Geopolitician (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2018 (EST)
You might be misreading Levin. He's not a defender of Trump. He's a defender of the Law. And Omarossa, she owes every dime she's made, past, present, and future, to Trump. Trump haters are making her rich. It's a conspiracy between Omarossa and Trump to fleece Trump haters of their money. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:59, 12 December 2018 (EST)
And Omarossa exposed the racism of the left, how she gone from being an Uncle Tom and race traitor to hero overnight with the publication of a book, in which she and her readers readily admit she owes all her success to Donald Trump. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:03, 12 December 2018 (EST)

Kavanaugh and the Deep State

Joseph Farah seems to be implying in this article that Brett Kavanaugh may in fact be a Deep State plant, given his connections to Ken Starr.--Geopolitician (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2018 (EST)

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't Farah also the same guy who implied in an article back in 2013 that Catholics funded the Communist movement in Vietnam during the 1960s despite Catholics being the main targets of the atheistic movement? Not to mention, if he were indeed a deep-state plant, why the heck would the deep state supporters try to keep him from getting in via trumped up and completely false charges of him committing sexual assault? As far as Ken Starr, wasn't he the same guy who nailed Bill Clinton with the whole Monica Lewinsky affair? Pokeria1 (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2018 (EST)
Of coarse Kavanaugh is deep state - he wrote the White House legal opinion to give John Brennan authority to set up the Torture Program. Brennan used the Torture Program to advance his personal career.
Even the Deep State, Uniparty, and statists have a Leftwing and Rightwing, debates, and compromises. Their fundamental goals may be similiar or the same, their differences are in how to get there.
The big difference between leftist deep staters and rightwing deep staters is best illustrated between the Clintons and Bushes. While they share similiar goals, one group considers public service above personal aims; another considers greed, ego, and personal power the ultimate aim, and public service the way to achieve it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:15, 12 December 2018 (EST)

How the Deep State operates

You saw it yesterday in the Oval Office. Trump calls it "The Wall" (a campaign slogan). Schumer calls it "funding the government" and "border security". Trump needs Schumer to give up ten Democrats to vote for the wall, border security and to fund the government, but Schumer doesn't want to be seen as supporting Trump's campaign slogan. Trump wants to educate the American people and expose how the system works. This made Pelosi and Schumer extremely nervous, cause it means giving up an anti-Trump slogan. That's almost too much for Trump to demand. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:32, 12 December 2018 (EST)