Talk:Main Page/Archive index/147

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Are you sure Neil Gorsuch doesn't have a pro-life record?[edit]


I'll admit I got panicked when I learned that Neil Gorsuch was nominated largely because of what was revealed on this site, but then I did some digging and I might as well ask, are you sure his record wasn't pro-life? Pro Life News indicates that he was actually a staunch defender of the right to life. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2017 (EST)

Yes, I'm sure. I looked at your link and couldn't find any evidence that Gorsuch opposes abortion or supports overturning Roe v. Wade. And there is much evidence to the contrary.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2017 (EST)
Many of these pro-life institutions, like the National Right to Life Committee, have been infiltrated and they exist just to mollify pro-Life voters and keep them on the conservative Republican reservation. There full of disinformation and are useless. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 01:52, 1 February 2017 (EST)
NRTLC was the original pro-life group founded by the Catholic bishop's conference back in 1967. It seems that Andy's views on this matter have already created a stir: "The Truth about Trump’s Pro-life SCOTUS List." PeterKa (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2017 (EST)
There is no way to get a direct answer to this question. I am sure that any qualified candidate would respond that he understands the importance of stare decisis, hates judge-made law, and looks to original intent. So, his vote would end up depending on how the actual case was framed and the politics of the court at the time. I could foresee a pro-life justice biding his time until another vacancy was filled. JDano (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2017 (EST)
By looking at a judge's record, personal background, and other factors, it is easy to determine with almost 100% certainty whether a candidate would overturn Roe v. Wade as a Supreme Court Justice. Gorsuch won't.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2017 (EST)

Here are a few other resources:

  • Gorsuch, 49, now attends an Episcopal church, but he attended Catholic schools.[[1] "While the Episcopal Church recognizes a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, the church condones abortion only in cases of rape or incest, cases in which a mother’s physical or mental health is at risk, or cases involving fetal abnormalities. The church forbids “abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection or any reason of mere convenience.”[2]

These resources supply some direct/indirect evidence on his views in terms of whether he is pro-life and also supply indirect evidence of his views on abortion.

After the David Souter appointment, I think Andy wants someone with a more clear cut background. And if the Republicans choose to employ the legislative tactic of the "nuclear option" in terms of getting a SCOTUS nominee confirmed, if I am not mistaken, they could conceivably nominate whomever they wish. And given the way the Democrats are acting post Trump being elected, Republicans don't have a lot to lose by playing political hardball in term of getting a very conservative judge to replace Scalia. Conservative (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2017 (EST)

The filibuster is a quaint Senate tradition that assumes a bipartisionship that hasn't existed for a long time. McCain is the man to watch on this. He and the "Gang of 14" nixed the nuclear option in 2005. The current Senate is 52 Republicans and 48 Dems. So they will need every vote to change the rules. PeterKa (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2017 (EST)
Bipartinship is probably decades away and may never come again to the USA should Jesus tarry. If McCain cannot see that then he is not paying attention to US/European politics.
The liberals are saying that 2016 was a terrible year due to celebrities dying and Trump's election. Conservatives and those on the right are less interested in celebrities and are more resilient.
I think with baby boomers aging there are going to be a lot of celebrities dying in coming years. And the Democrats might be out of power for 8 years. The liberals could be in a real sour mood due to their celebrity idols passing away and being out of power. Sourness is not the stuff which bipartisanship is made of. Conservative (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2017 (EST)
Here is the latest: "Trump to McConnell: Go nuclear if necessary." In 2005, Republicans ran the show, much like today. The base wanted the filibuster gone, and McCain screwed us over. That left conservatives without much to vote for in 2006 and contributed to the Dem takeover that year. So if history is any guide, this issue could be make-or-break for Senate Republicans. PeterKa (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2017 (EST)
Trump has had an ongoing working relationship with Schumer for decades; Trump's relationship with Ryan & Priebus is strained and opportunistic for both sides. I think the bipartisan framework is in place. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 01:16, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Here's some additional reading material: This doesn't really strike me as someone who is pro-abortion. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

European Union[edit]

My conservative American friends, I'm against the far left and undemocratic institution known as the Europen Union. For that reason I would like to ask you to sign this petition for President Donald Trump to not recognise this unelected bunch of Cultural Marxists. Many thanks! --Gentenaar (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2017 (EST)

The EU is probably the organization that I most strongly oppose (as a citizen of both the U.S. and Switzerland). Their leaders have a strong and real vision for a socialist, one-size-fits-all United States of Europe with no borders or national identity. And they are undemocratic: Switzerland was forced to tighten its gun laws in conformity to EU standards (even though it is not an EU member) because it is part of the Schengen Area (the people should have known better when they originally voted to join, however). I find it interesting: when the UK voted to leave the EU, the Brussels establishment proposed even more integration.[3] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2017 (EST)
I'd agree, though I also think we should not just get rid of the EU, but also the United Nations as well. The latter was specifically created as a Trojan horse for communism anyways, and the UN's existence was technically a repeat of the mistake we made with the League of Nations, not to mention the overabundance of treaties that caused World War I, so there's no real reason to NOT get rid of it. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2017 (EST)
Yes, the UN is not an organization that I'm proud of either. Not only does it advance and support left-wing ideology, but it is not friendly towards Israel. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2017 (EST)
I totally agree, many of these international organisations are a complete failure. --Gentenaar (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2017 (EST)
U!timately, in a few decades time, it will be up to China to decide if it wants to keep the UN to govern the planet. They may have their own ideas. For now, yes, reform is badly needed in the Security Council structure that may have worked in the post-1945 world, but is sorely outdated in the 21st century realities. NATO too needs a fundamental structural overhaul and reform. Only a world statesman/woman and visionary can supply the leadership necessary to overcome the inert global bureaucracy. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 20:49, 15 February 2017 (EST)

But why did his hair turn orange?[edit]

And whatever happened to doctor-patient confidentiality? "Donald Trump’s Longtime Doctor Says President Takes Hair-Growth Drug" PeterKa (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2017 (EST)

Isn't it remarkable that the media can print the full details on Trump's health, but never had any curiosity regarding Hillary's health? The official story was pneumonia -- and that was all the sheep people were entitled to know. PeterKa (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2017 (EST)
If it came from the liberal media, it's most likely made up or embellished to make it sound worse than it really is. They have no shame whatsoever and refuse to even admit that their insistence on sticking to what caused them to lose viewers and subscribers will only serve as the final nail in their proverbial coffin. Northwest (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2017 (EST)
Hillary isn't President PeterJohnD (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2017 (EST)
We know that, but that's beside the point. The point is that the liberal media, given their pro-Hillary bias, were/are so to the point of basically cheerleading for her like they did for Obama for the past eight years while they never pass up any opportunity to take anything on Trump they perceive to be negative, no matter how small or obscure, and blow it up all out of proportion and spin it to make him look bad. That's just one of the reasons the liberal media is now regarded as a joke by the public (akin to tabloid journalism) and is no longer trusted by us, it just still hasn't taken with them yet and probably never will.
And the irony of this is that now, even the National Enquirer is more trusted than CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post. The liberal media dug their graves with their words and actions during the election campaign and they'll continue doing so even now, all the while refusing to see why they'll have to lie in them eventually. Northwest (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2017 (EST)

Gorsuch and Fascism Forever[edit]

High schoolers beware! That dumb yearbook joke may come back to haunt you should you ever get nominated to high office: "Fake News Media Goes Crazy Over Gorsuch ‘Fascism Forever Club’ In High School Yearbook" and "#FakeNews on Gorsuch on Imaginary ‘Fascism Forever’ Club" PeterKa (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2017 (EST)

Trump acts to resolve refugee crisis[edit]

Like Romans observing the onrush of barbarians, Obama and Merkel watched as Middle Eastern refugees poured in. With a few phone calls, Trump has created refugee safe areas in the Middle East and staved off a second collapse of civilization, according to Stefan Molyneux: "Did President Trump Just Save Western Civilization?." PeterKa (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2017 (EST)

They are not refugees. They are migrants. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 20:41, 15 February 2017 (EST)


"Mainstream tress upset" -- I assume it should be "Mainstream press upset" PeterKa (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2017 (EST)

Another typo: File:Lief Ericson.jpg -- "Lief" is a typo; it should be spelled "Leif." --1990'sguy (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2017 (EST)

Unions target DeVos[edit]

The Congressional switchboard is the busiest its ever been in history. It's not about the Muslim ban either. It's about Betsy DeVos, Trump's nominee for education secretary. Everything about the opposition is dishonest. The teacher's unions focus on DeVos's "qualifications," as if anyone cared about her resume. Of course, it's all about school choice. Do the schools belong to the teacher's unions or to the parents? The final vote is Tuesday: "DeVos opposition snowballs into avalanche."
Vermont has had school choice for many years. Why not the other 49 states? "Where School Choice Is a Way of Life". PeterKa (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2017 (EST)

Kuwait's "Muslim ban"[edit]

The leftist establishment is obviously going hysterical against President Trump's "Muslim ban," but if it really were so racist and etc., then why did Kuwait do the same thing? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2017 (EST)

Aye, you've properly nailed it there, fella. Make America Kuwait Again! JohnZ (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2017 (EST)
This has to do with security. Kuwait, like Trump, is recognizing a major risk. Also note: Kuwait's ban came one day after Trump signed the U.S. ban. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2017 (EST)
Don't be daft. At best, Trump's travel ban is security theatre that makes his supporters feel safer, whilst needlessly inconveniencing thousands of innocent people.
Your back door (Canada) is wide open. I doubt that's escaped the attention of anyone plotting to cause serious harm on American soil. The fact that hordes of extremists haven't already poured in and wreaked havoc via that route is probably a pretty good indication that there are far less of them than you think. JohnZ (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Fortunately, there is much less illegal immigration from the north. It's not a clean comparison to Mexico. I'm not opposed to more restrictions there either, however. I support securing national borders regardless of the threat of terrorism. There's much more at stake than terrorism (such as national sovereignty and identity). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Fair enough. You're clearly happy for your tax dollars to be spent on an incredibly expensive game of "securing" the borders whack-a-mole, irrespective of any discernible bang for your buck. I salute your consistency on this issue, if not your clarity of thought. JohnZ (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Securing the borders is worth it. It is the right way to spend our money. Protecting our sovereignty, security and national identity is very important. I'm tired of politicians cutting the wrong things from our budgets and still maintaining deficits. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Everyone wants a Muslim ban now. Even the Europeans are jealous: "A majority of Europeans want a ban on immigration from Muslim-majority countries, a poll has revealed." Only 20 percent are opposed. PeterKa (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2017 (EST)
On the Islamic immigration ban front stateside, the liberal judges' decision to refuse to uphold the ban won't stand. Trump runs the country now, not Obama and not those Obama-appointed corrupt shysters in black robes. Trump should just tell the bunch of them to take a flying leap and implement the ban anyway because it's the right thing to do at this point. Northwest (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2017 (EST)
The Syrian Government, United Arab Emirates, and even the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an Islamic absolute monarchy that enforces Sharia Law mind you, supported Executive Order 13769. These Muslims would vouch that it wasn't a move against Islam, but prevention of terrorists getting in from countries that could serve as gateways. Lest we forget how despite the warnings of the Russian government, the neocon Bush Administration let two Chechen Islamist extremists in to later commit the second Boston Massacre. Even though the warning came during the Obama Administration, they came in in the early 2000's. KommissarReb (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2017 (EST)

Superbowl floundering[edit]

I really don't care about sports, but it's interesting to note that for three years straight, the Superbowl has been receiving progressively lower ratings. Somehow, the liberals are flummoxed at this development. [4] --David B (TALK) 13:09, 6 February 2017 (EST)

Soros funds the RINOs[edit]

"The biggest recipient of Soros-connected cash [in 2016] in the GOP was none other than House Speaker Paul Ryan," according to Breitbart. Ryan's opposition to Trump during the campaign makes more sense now. Neither Trump nor Cruz are on the list of recipients. PeterKa (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2017 (EST)

RINO isn't just a pejoritive like 'racist' to be thrown around loosely. It's an actual position of elected officials who represent voting constituencies who need to be respected.
Ryan represents some of the most sold GOP counties in the United States that have not voted for a Democrat since 1964. If you are intending to trash Ryan as a RINO, then Trump owes his entire presidency to the Ryan/Priebus machine that delivered Wisconsin to him, because it surely wasn't the popular vote that did. I would prefer to think you simply don't have a clue what you are talking about. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 21:17, 15 February 2017 (EST)
Wouldn't it be more logical to credit Scott Walker for the win in Wisconsin? He's the governor and all. Ryan isn't literally a RINO. He's sound on almost every issue except immigration. But that's a pretty big exception. He also took money from Soros to make trouble for Trump, or at least that is what the Breitbart article is suggesting. PeterKa (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2017 (EST)
Walker owes his 3 wins in 4 years, which include surviving a recall, to Priebus the state GOP chair. Those wins are what got Priebus the national chairmanship. And Priebus owes both career advancements as state and national chair to Ryan. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 20:00, 24 February 2017 (EST)
If Briebart is attacking Ryan, it reflects competition on the White House staff between Bannon & Priebus. Mind you, (a) Bannon is not qualified or capable of filling the position of Chief of Staff, and is better situated to advise the president on actions, recommendations, or apointments made by the Chief of Staff, and (b) it would be virtually impossible to find a better replacement for Priebus whose job is to get the House of Representstives to carryout the President's proposals for legislstion. A slap at Priebus is a slap at the entire House, who elected Ryan as leader and got their boy in position to fill appoinments throughout the federal bureacracy.
The question is quite simple, does Trump want to govern effectively like Reagen working with Congress, or like Obama by Executive fiat whose legacy is undone by the stroke of a pen? That SOB Soros gave money to sow discord, suspicion, and division. Ryan's no fool. If Soros want's to squander money on stupidity, I'd take it too just to offset the money he spends against me. Don't take the bait. Look at the reality. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 20:20, 24 February 2017 (EST)

Now that liberals are getting violent and acting like trapped rats, how long before liberalism collapses?[edit]

Now that liberals are getting violent and acting like trapped rats, how long before liberalism collapses?

It took the Soviet Union 74 years to collapse and economics played a big part.

One key block of the liberal coalition is the secular leftists, and the future does not look bright for them. See: Militant atheism vs. Christianity, Islam and right-wing ideology Conservative (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2017 (EST)

Leftists are being trained to fight at this club in Florida: "'Leftist Fight Club' trains UCF students to fight Republicans"
My money says the "Black Block" at the Berkeley protest was trained on how to commit vandalism at a Soros-funded camp somewhere. They should prosecuted under RICO.
As far as the left collapsing goes, they used violence on an even larger scale in 1968. The backlash caused them to lose the election that year. But they certainly didn't collapse, at least not on their own. If it gets any worse, we may need a son of COINTELPRO, the FBI operation that took the New Left down. PeterKa (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Given the fact that there are so many effete liberal elitists and limp-wristed liberals, some self-defense lessons is probably not a bad idea. Perhaps, they will develop some machismo and become more conservative! :) Conservative (talk)
In other news... Don't shoot the messenger. JohnZ (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Six points: 1) According to Gallup, Belief in God just saw a 3% uptick unless it was merely a regression to the mean.[5] 2) New Atheism is effectively dead as is the atheist movement. The last Reason Rally was a total flop. 3) America is merely 5% of the world's population and in a world of globalization where there is a global resurgence of religion that 5% can certainly be influenced in the 21st century. And there is the issue of immigration 4) Even a more pessimistic view of American religiosity indicates that godlessness will plateau before 2043 due to immigration, higher rate of fertility among religious, etc. (see: American atheism). 5) America's federal debt is gigantic. Vox Day predicted the 2007 financial crisis and the Trump presidency. He predicts a 2033 economic depression that will be worse than the Great Depression. Historically, there is generally an inverse relationship between atheism and economic difficult times and uncertainty. Pentecostalism often thrives in poor countries. 6) Global atheism is shrinking in terms of its global market share and this trend is expected to continue in the 21st century. Conservative (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Now that DeVos has been confirmed (Yea!!!!!), the schools may become more Christian friendly. PeterKa (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, see these two articles:[6][7] Denominations that adhere to Liberal Theology are shrinking while conservative denominations are holding steady and even seeing growth. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2017 (EST)
Cheers (to you and Conservative). I suspect, however, that the relative robustness and assertiveness of conservative denominations might be a significant part of the long-term problem. The insistence on a particular approach to scriptural "purity" - and a readiness to denounce others as CINO - appear deeply repellent to many of the young people who would otherwise represent the future of your churches. JohnZ (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2017 (EST)
Truth is truth regardless of what one thinks of it. The Bible, including Jesus, makes that quite clear. If we are able to attract scores and scores of young people but compromise Scripture and what we strongly believe to be the truth, we might as well disband the church. Of course, we must do this in a loving way. But that does not subtract from the fact that compromising truth for popularity is not right. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, please give me one historical example of liberal Christianity substantially growing Christendom. Worldwide conservative Christianity is more effective at evangelism and has had higher birth rates than much of its competitors in terms of religions. And the latter should not be minimized. Historically, since its beginning, Christianity has grown due to the pro-natal aspects of Christian theology (The early church had substantially higher birth rates than the pagans of the Roman empire).

My guess is that conservative Christians have a higher birthrate than "moderate Islam" (the moderate Muslims" faction of Islam) and certainly have a higher birth rates than liberal Christians/agnostics/atheists. Although having children is not as flashy as evangelism, over time the effects of higher birthrates is huge. Conservative (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, who has the long term problem? See: Global atheism statistics
Do we live in a world in which globalization is a very powerful force? Are aging developed world populations expected to have an influx of religious immigrants in the 21st century - both legal and illegal immigrants? See: Desecularization.
Will the growing hostility towards Muslim immigration in developed countries (especially Europe) cause an increased long term influx of evangelical Christian immigrants to developed world countries? Is evangelical Christianity rapidly expanding in the world and expected to increase its global market share? See: Growth of evangelical Christianity
I hope this helps to clarify things. :) Conservative (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2017 (EST)
Perhaps. It seems reasonable to suppose, however, that if US conservative denominations are now plateauing after several decades of strong growth, then something similar is likely to happen eventually to conservative denominations in the developing world.
I also note that, in highlighting globalisation and immigration as long-term destabilising forces, you appear to be implicitly predicting the failure of the wave of right wing, populist nationalism currently building in the US and Europe. JohnZ (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, conservative denominations have had several decades of growth in the USA? Conservative Christianity has been in America since its inception. Can you cite one example gay parade that happened in 1777 in America?
Second, are conservative churches in America plateauing? "The finding that Protestant fundamentalism may decline in relative terms over the medium term contrasts with a prevailing view that envisions the continued growth of “strong religion” (Stark and Iannaccone 1994a)." - Secularism, Fundamentalism or Catholicism? The Religious Composition of the United States to 2043, Journal for the Sientific Study of Religion, vol. 49, no. 2 (June) 2010, Kaufmann, Vegard Skirbekk and Anne Goujon,[8] See also: Baylor University researchers on American Christianity.
Third, you never addressed the issue of scholars indicating a plateauing of secularism in Europe sometime in the 21st century and a rise of religious fundamentalism in Europe. See: European desecularization in the 21st century
When the generous pension plans in Europe falter due to lack of young people to replace older workers, the business sector has a shortage of workers, I believe European anti-immigration sentiment will falter. Long term, I don't see politics solving Europe's problems associated with sub-replacement fertility in many European countries. It would take a Christian religious revival in European countries and the Protestant work ethic. See also: Atheism and fertility rates. On the other hand, a tough economy could lower the demand for labor in Europe. At the same, time there is an inverse correlation of atheism and hard economic times while conservative Christianity often does well in such a climate. Biblical Christianity often thrives during tough economic times and economic uncertainty.
As far as the Trumpian brand of right-wing politics, I think it could last at least 8 years given the current strength of the Democratic party. Conservative (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2017 (EST)
Interesting paper from Kaufmann. You should probably try reading it; ideally, from start to finish. JohnZ (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2017 (EST)
I wouldn't trust the sources you produced (including liberal-leaning pollsters Gallup) any further than I could throw a VW Beetle. As for your boast "you appear to be implicitly predicting the failure of the wave of right wing, populist nationalism currently building in the US and Europe", you assume too much. It's the Left which is collapsing, and in spectacular fashion as seen by the recent unhinged behavior of liberal "protestors" and Hollywood celebrities and the continued blatant spewing of fake news by the now-discredited and irrelevant liberal media and its refusal to see that it too is on the verge of collapse thanks to its refusal to change its ways. Northwest (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2017 (EST)
Don't do yourself down, fella. I bet if you put your mind to it and get just a tiny bit angrier, you'll turn green, grow massive, and be able to hurl that Beetle as far as you want. Lots of love, JohnZ (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2017 (EST)
Liberal condescension toward those who state the truth only makes the condescender look foolish. Northwest (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2017 (EST)
You're confusing condescension with (very) gentle mockery. JohnZ (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2017 (EST)
No, not even close. You don't like that I called you out on your condescension, so you (typical of a liberal) resort to denying engaging in condescension at all while continuing to do it. You're only proving exactly what the liberal style article says about those like you right. Northwest (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, you are secular leftist, are you not? Don't you leftist almost invariably go with the scholarly consensus? See: Atheism and groupthink. And of course, we know what the prevailing view is, don't we? "The finding that Protestant fundamentalism may decline in relative terms over the medium term contrasts with a prevailing view that envisions the continued growth of “strong religion” (Stark and Iannaccone 1994a)." - Secularism, Fundamentalism or Catholicism? The Religious Composition of the United States to 2043, Journal for the Sientific Study of Religion, vol. 49, no. 2 (June) 2010, Kaufmann, Vegard Skirbekk and Anne Goujon,[9] If only you were a conservative, rugged individualist, then you could escape the charge of atheist hypocrisy!

Please refrain from ad-hominem attacks. (I am aware that you have stopped accusing me of being an atheist, and I appreciate that. You still call me an "evolutionist", and I plead guilty.) @JohnZ: Please don't let people drag you into this sort of thing. Notice that, once Cons leveled that accusation at you, he then dragged you into his world of generalizations. Complete with links to his own articles. SamHB (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2017 (EST)
See what I mean about you trying to start fights on this site? Northwest (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2017 (EST)
SamHB, you do make a reasonable complaint in this matter. I do think it is odd though that JohnZ very selectively embraces Kaufmann's work. But I should not have found it to be very unusual. There are plenty of political/religious/irreligious ideologues who are given to partisanship over objectivity. And to be fair, I think Kaufmann failed to predict the extent of European backlash to Muslim immigration. I think that is the result of him being a Canadian (Canada is very pro-immigration compared to many countries). But as an agnostic, Kaufmann does certainly make efforts to not let his own personal wishes trump objectivity. He also has a very pleasant demeanor and sense of humor. Conservative (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Next, the paper by Kaufmann, Vegard Skirbekk and Anne Goujon was written in 2010. This was was BEFORE the atheist movement folded like an accordion in 2011/2012 (see: Elevatorgate and Atheist factions and Atheist pessimism about the atheist movement). In addition, 2010 was BEFORE the age of Trumpian politics and Brexit. Now, instead of advancing atheism in America, American secular leftists are bogged down fighting the public policies of the nominal Presbyterian Donald J. Trump! If only American atheism were not so dependent on the slender thread of statist atheist indoctrination.

It's so sad to see atheist men tremble at the thought of Betsy Devos. Thank God Christianity is not dependent on the state for its promulgation. In fact, historically Christianity often thrives under state persecution (See: Growth of Christianity in China). Conservative (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2017 (EST)

Just read the paper yourself. Whatever secondary source you've relied on for analysis has done you a considerable disservice. JohnZ (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, if you're such a big fan of the scholar Eric Kaufmann, then why aren't you adequately addressing his central thesis in relation to atheism vs. theism (see: Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London and Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century, Paperback: 320 pages, Publisher: Profile Books (April 19, 2011). Kaufmann has 320 pages of information which shows that the market share of atheism will be crushed like a tin can and you are completely ignoring his information!
Is this yet another case of an atheist using the fallacy of exclusion? See: Atheism and logical fallacies. Conservative (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, have you seen some of the post 2010 writings of Eric Kaufmann? The data looks grim for American secular leftists. I just added some Kaufmann material to: United States, irreligion vs. religion and demographics. Conservative (talk)
JohnZ, Kaufmann published this article in 2012: The Future Will Be More Religious and Conservative Than You Think by Eric Kaufmann, American Enterprise Institute Conservative (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2017 (EST)
OK. Let's spell it out, then. Kaufmann, Skirbekk and Goujon run their predictions to 2043, with fundamentalist Protestant denominations projected to decline from 19.5 to 16.7% of the US population. Those with no religion, on the other hand, are expected to increase slightly from 17 to 17.4%. This is all on p.305, incidentally.
Shall the Religious... reads mostly as a warning to any policy makers who think continued secularisation beyond 2050 is a done deal, especially in the face of sustained immigration and differential fertility rates. In case you hadn't noticed, Kaufmann sees conservative / fundamentalist religion as a deeply regressive force that must be resisted, lest it eventually come to dominate the political sphere.
Personally, I think he's far too pessimistic. He seems to assume conservative / fundamentalist values remain constant, when actually they don't. Now, you can dismiss the students in the linked article as misguided, misinformed, or better still, not real Christians (!), but refusing to accommodate such attitudinal shifts doesn't bode well for the future. JohnZ (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, read what Kaufmann said here: European desecularization in the 21st century. So Kaufmann said that In Europe, secularization could receive its day of reckoning as early as 2021. Also, Kaufmann said, "Committed religious populations are growing in the West, and will reverse the march of secularism before 2050."[10] So BEFORE.

As far as Kaufmann being pessimistic/optimistic, I think as far as secularization he may have been too optimistic about immigration not receiving a huge backlash in the future. He may have been overconfident about the strength of multiculturism/postmodernism. So that might delay his predictions.

On the other hand, if memory serves Kaufmann doesn't put a lot of stock in marketing/media/communications making a significant impact on the atheism/agnosticism vs. religion and liberalism vs. right-wing culture wars. But actually, the internet and Fox News have begun to chisel away at liberalism. For example, Trump used the internet fairly well as one of his means to defeat Hillary. Conservative (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, consider reading this article by a military historian about the fate of the state. The Fate of the State by MARTIN VAN CREVELD. He correctly states that governments are finding it harder to control what the public hears. And given that liberalism derives much of its power from the state and is statist, it was just a matter of time before liberalism/atheism got chiseled down by the internet. In 2011/2012 a lot of atheist dirty laundry hit the internet and New Atheism imploded. In 2016, Wikileaks hammered Hillary. Conservative (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, a few additional points:
The are liberal wings of American evangelicalism.
"In 2007, just 23 percent of Southern Baptists said homosexuality should be accepted by society, according to the Pew Research Center. By 2014, that figure had risen to 30 percent. Attitudes toward same-sex marriage have shifted just as dramatically. In a 2001 Pew survey, just 13 percent of white evangelical Protestants (the most conservative religious group on social issues) said they favored same-sex marriage. By 2015, that number had almost doubled, to 24 percent, and it was becoming easier for LGBT individuals to find a church home."[11]
At the same time, the Southern Baptist Convention is paying a price to becoming more liberal and they are now shrinking as a denomination while the more conservative Assemblies of God is growing.
I cite:
"The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the country, but it continues to lose members and baptize fewer people each year.
The latest statistics, compiled by LifeWay Christian Resources from church reports, show membership has dropped by more than 204,000, down 1.3 percent to 15.3 million members in 2015. It's the ninth year in a row there has been a membership decline.
Baptisms, which have declined eight of the last 10 years, totaled 295,212, a 3.3 percent drop, researchers said Tuesday (June 7).
"God help us all! In a world that is desperate for the message of Christ, we continue to be less diligent in sharing the Good News," said SBC Executive Committee President Frank Page in a statement.
Meanwhile, the Assemblies of God, the world's largest Pentecostal denomination, is continuing to see increases in this country. The latest statistics, compiled using reports from its churches and released last week, show a 1.4 percent rise in U.S. adherents to 3,192,112 in 2015, up from 3,146,741 in 2014."[12]
Next, the mainstream media and the public school systems are negatively affecting some evangelicals. On the other hand, things are changing on that front. Public confidence in the media got hammered in the 2016 election and is not at an all time low. In addition, Trump new Secretary of Education, Betsy Devros, is going to be pushing for school choice.
Consider this excerpt from an article at
"Contrary to popular belief, the United States has far less school choice than many other countries. For example, some European nations actually give students a constitutional right to attend any private school at public expense. Many developing countries also find ways, even with more limited resources, to give parents and students choice.
International evidence from these countries supports the positive qualities asserted by school choice advocates in the United States and invalidates the claims of harm made by some American commentators.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) surveyed its 34 member countries and partner countries in 2008 and 2009 for its annual Education at a Glance reports. As “the authoritative source for accurate and relevant information on the state of education around the world,”1 the OECD’s reports show that, of the 53 participants, 25 countries’ governments (nine of which have top 20 PISA scores overall) provide vouchers and/or tuition tax credits for students to attend private schools (see accompanied table).
Scholar Charles Glenn noted that “governments in most Western democracies provide partial or full funding for nongovernment schools chosen by parents; the United States (apart from a few scattered and small-scale programs) is the great exception, along with Greece.”2 Or as Diane Ravitch pointed out in a 2001 article, “The proportion of students in government-funded private schools is sizable in countries such as Australia (25 percent), Belgium (58 percent), Denmark (11 percent), France (16.8 percent), South Korea (21 percent), the Netherlands (76 percent), Spain (24 percent), and the United Kingdom (30 percent).”
In Finland, the government provides funding for basic education at all levels, and instruction is free of charge.3 In Sweden, schooling is “free,” and parents are able to choose their children’s schools; funding even follows the student when they change schools.4 In Portugal, the Ministry of Education finances the public sector in its entirety, and the state subsidizes each student in private schools.5 In Germany, the Netherlands, England, Northern Ireland, and Sweden, “public funding is provided so that families can choose to send their children to schools with a religious character.”6
In several European countries, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Ireland, school choice is a constitutional right. Article 24 of the Belgian constitution, for example, provides “all pupils of school age have the right to moral or religious education at the Community’s expense.” Belgium enacted universal school choice in 1958 in what it termed the “School Pact”; school choice was seen as a way of avoiding strife between Catholic and Protestant schools."[13]
In addition, homeschooling is growing in the USA.[14]
So it is conceivable that less evangelical young people will be educated in public schools.
Also, consider:
In 2011, a paper was published entitled The End of Secularization in Europe?: A Socio-Demographic Perspective. The authors of the paper were: Eric Kaufmann - Birkbeck College, University of London; Anne Goujon - World Population Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA); Vegard Skirbekk World Population Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).
An excerpt from the paper by Kaufmann, Goujon and Skirbekk:
"Conservative Protestants, a much larger group than the Mormons, also benefit from relatively high fertility. Hout et al. (2001) find that three-quarters of the growth of conservative Protestant denominations against their liberal counterparts is due to fertility advantage rather than conversion.
In Europe, there has been less attention paid to fertility differences between denominations. However, several studies have discovered that immigrants to Europe tend to be more religious than the host population and — especially if Muslim—tend to retain their religiosity (Van Tubergen 2006). Though some indicators point to modest religious decline toward the host society mean, other trends suggest that immigrants become more, rather than less, religious the longer they reside in the host society (Van Tubergen 2007). All of which indicates that religious decline may fail at the aggregate level even if it is occurring at the individual level (Kaufmann 2006, 2010). This article thereby investigates the hypothesis that a combination of higher religious fertility, immigration, and slowing rates of religious apostasy will eventually produce a reversal in the decline of the religious population of Western Europe".[15] Conservative (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2017 (EST)
The key numbers in your article seem to be:
  1. Evangelicals rising from 2.5% of Europe's population in 2010 to 4% in 2100. (Long)
  2. Muslims (of all different stripes) rising from 2-6% of Europe's population to 10-25% by 2100. (Kaufmann)
  3. 5%: Kaufmann's estimate for conservative Christians as percentage of current Europe population.
You'll forgive me if I don't see 1) as particularly noteworthy. As for 2), I'd argue the increase is likely to be at the lower end of that range, given both the current political climate and the fact that immigrants' fertility tends to converge with that of the host country. 3) is interesting because it's so at odds with Long's figures, and because Kaufmann seems to shy away from making a concrete growth prediction for 2100.
Let's split the difference on Muslims and say 15% by 2100, and take Kaufmann's estimate and charitably imagine it doubles in the same period to 10%. Clearly not all Muslims are fundamentalists, so you're talking about a voting bloc of considerably less than 25%, even in the unlikely event of conservative / fundamentalist Christians and Muslims mobilising politically in unison. That's not the kind of numbers or power base that's going to keep any secular leftists awake at night. JohnZ (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, you will find few academics projecting the rates of irreligion/religion in 2100 with any degree of preciseness/certainty. I did find a few, however (see: Global atheism statistics). That is because a lot can happen in a century due to their being many variable and interactions between variables.


Reverend Dwight Longenecker wrote: "In the late eighteenth century atheism, rationalism and Freemasonry seemed to have taken over Europe. By the mid to late nineteenth century religious revival had swept through Europe and Christianity was surging forward.[16]

In the United States, there were a series of Christian revivals/awakenings between 1730 and the 1970s (see: First Great Awakening and Second Great Awakening and Third Great Awakening and Fourth Great Awakening and Jesus Movement).

The Jesus movement was fairly contemporary and happened in the 1970s.

Consider also:

The American sociologist and author Peter L. Berger introduced the concept of desecularization in 1999. In contrast to many other forms of Christianity, charismatic/Pentecostal Christianity is very evangelical. According to Berger, "One can say with some confidence that modern Pentecostalism must be the fastest growing religion in human history."

Berger recently said that he previously thought that Pentecostalism did not have a significant future in Europe, but he recently saw signs that it could see significant growth in Europe.[17] In addition, Pentecostalism often grows fast in areas undergoing economic distress. Post 2007 there are concerns that Western economies which have high sovereign debt loads could see some significant economic turmoil in coming years - especially the European countries with aging populations that have been struggling in terms of economic growth." - Source, with attendant footnotes: Atheism vs. Christian revival and Christian apologetics

Berger sees signs that Pentecostalism could spread through the UK/Europe.[18]

France is in many ways the birthplace of modern atheism in the Western World (see: History of atheism).

On July 12, 2012, the Christian Science Monitor reported:

"French scholars say, evangelicalism is likely the fastest-growing religion in France – defying all stereotypes about Europe’s most secular nation...

Daniel Liechti, vice-president of the French National Evangelical Council, found that since 1970, a new evangelical church has opened in France every 10 days. The number of churches increased from 769 to 2,068 last year."[19]

See also: Immigrant evangelical churches are a fast growing movement in France

Since immigrants are often religious, another reason for not making precise/certain predictions for 2100 is the uncertainty about immigration policies and the degree of immigrant backlash (anti-immigrant laws, violence, etc.). Furthermore, people in developed countries may have varying levels of intensity in terms of engaging in legal/illegal immigration. For example, the rate of economic development in their respective countries, political stability in the countries, etc.

Furthermore, most atheists are East Asians (see: Asian atheism) and a lot of immigration comes from Asia. And Asia is seeing a lot of desecularization (see: East Asia and global desecularization) and it is happening at a rapid clip in some countries such as China (see:Growth of Christianity in China). Will the communists of Vietnam be able to suppress Christianity to the degree that they are able to now or will Vietnam see a growth of Christianity that we see occurring in China? This question is difficult to answer.

Why would the rate of desecularization be important in Vietnam? Wikipedia, a wiki founded by an atheist and agnostic, has an entire article on Vietnamese Australians! And according to that article, the number of immigrants coming to Australia from Vietnam has been going up since 2000.

China has the largest atheist population in the world. So from a global perspective, the fall of atheism that is occurring in China certainly has implications - especially since many scholars/futurists are predicting an "Asian Century".

At the same time, Britain has been a significant force in contemporary atheism (see: British atheism). And recently, its leading light Richard Dawkins has seen a precipitous fall in public favor (see: Richard Dawkins' loss of influence). In addition, Britain's leading atheists embarrassed themselves by shrinking from debate with William Lane Craig.

In August 19, 2011, Fox News reported:

"American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge. This month president of the British Humanist Association, Polly Toynbee, pulled out of an agreed debate at London’s Westminster Central Hall in October, saying she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style.” Lane Craig, who is a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif., and author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles, is no stranger to the art of debate and has taken on some of the great orators, such as famous atheists Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Harris once described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”.

Responding to Toynbee’s cancellation, Lane Craig commented: "These folks (atheists) can be very brave when they are alone at the podium and there's no one there to challenge them. But one of the great things about these debates is that, it allows both sides to be heard on a level playing field, and for the students in the audience to make up their own minds about where they think the truth lies."

”On August 19, 2011, the leading British Anglican weekly newspaper the Church Times wrote:

"The director of Professor Craig’s tour, Peter May, said: “If Craig is ‘wrong about everything else in the universe’ and his arguments for the existence of God are so easy to refute, it is hard to see why the leading atheist voices in the country are running shy of having a debate with him. “Rather than hurling ad hom­inem attacks on Craig from their bunkers, it would be good to see these figures come forward to rationally defend the atheism they publicly espouse.” (see: Atheism and cowardice).

Furthermore, on December 14, 2009, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported:

"According to the Mail Evangelical Christianity is on the rise.

Some 4.5million of the UK's foreign-born population claim to have a religious affiliation. Of these, around a quarter are Muslim while more than half are Christian – with Polish Catholics and African Pentecostals among the fastest-growing groups.

While traditional churchgoing is on the decline in the UK over the past decade, the latest immigrants mean Christianity is becoming more charismatic and fundamentalist.

'Perhaps the most significant change has been the growth of Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity within migrant populations, particularly those from Africa and Latin America,' the report found.

'In Lewisham, there are 65 Pentecostal churches serving the Nigerian community, and others serving the Congolese, Ghanaian and Ivorian communities.'

Professor Mike Kenny of IPPR said: 'The research shows that recent waves of inward migration have given a boost to some of the UK's established faith communities at a time when Britain's society and culture are generally more secular, and smaller numbers of the indigenous population are regularly attending churches.

'Recent migration trends are altering the faith map of the UK. Their biggest impact is being felt in some of our largest cities: London above all, where a rich mosaic of different faith communities has come into being.'

Evangelical Christianity might be heavily African-influenced but it’s also spreading among the natives as well."[20]

See also:

JohnZ, the days of atheists being able to effectively combat theism due to lame Anglican opposition are coming to an end. A more "muscular"/vibrant Christianity is moving in.

Why is this important?

Concerning the future of religion/secularism in Europe, Eric Kaufmann also wrote:

"We have performed these unprecedented analyses on several cases. Austria offers us a window into what the future holds. Its census question on religious affiliation permits us to perform cohort component projections, which show the secular population plateauing by 2050, or as early as 2021 if secularism fails to attract lapsed Christians and new Muslim immigrants at the same rate as it has in the past. (Goujon, Skirbekk et al. 2006).

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."[21]

JohnZ, for better or worse, when the English speaking public thinks of atheism, the person most likely to come to mind is the new atheist Richard Dawkins. And what does the public commonly see when it comes to Richard Dawkins? Desperation! Desperation and anger!! See: Richard Dawkins and anger

In 2013, Martin Robbins wrote in the New Statesman concerning the public persona of Dawkins: "Increasingly though, his public output resembles that of a man desperately grasping for attention and relevance..."[22]

JohnZ, on his telly, Dawkins is seeing religious immigrants take over London and other urban areas of Britain. He is reading about Muslim children/parents pushing back against the teaching of evolutionism in British schools and the teachers and school administrators quickly caving. [23] As a result of these things, Dawkins is working himself into a tizzy!

Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."[24]

JohnZ, have you read the article, What will happen to Western atheism and Eastern atheism after the dominos of British atheism and Chinese atheism fall??

The 21st century most definitely will be a century of desecularization. Timorous British atheists will not be able to stop it. Atheists in France are not able to stop the tide of religiosity that is beginning to sweep their nation. And the Asian stronghold of atheism is seeing its walls brought down by the ceaseless heavy artillery barrage of evangelical Protestantism. Conservative (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2017 (EST)

Thanks for the Berger article. Again, though, I'm left wondering how closely you're reading your sources, and whether reliance on poor secondary analysis is hindering your understanding of them. Berger repeatedly highlights Chemin Neuf's ecumenism, even noting how much it "impressed" Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Apologies if I missed the memo, but to the best of my knowledge, Welby represents the polar opposite of the "muscular" Christianity you reckon is about to sweep the UK, and ecumenism is the very last thing you're looking for in your holy howitzers. JohnZ (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, we already covered that liberal Christianity is imploding and another editor gave you a source about this. And the Anglican Church is imploding in the UK.

Also, "ecumenism"/cooperation/toleration among religious populations as far as its implications on the political realm may not help secular leftists in the long run.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? concerning America/world:

"High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family."[25]

Kaufmann sees a day when fundamentalist in the Abrahamic family form coalitions on social issues such as abortion/other social issues/creationism vs. evolutionism. He cites evangelicals/Mormons forming political alliances in some cases (Proposition 8, etc.)

Lastly, I still don't think you are adequately addressing the issue of global desecularization and its implications (see also: Global atheism statistics). Conservative (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2017 (EST)

Quick question before we proceed: are Catholics and Mormons real Christians? JohnZ (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, now that you are clearly losing the argument about secular leftism facing a bleak future, now you try to throw out a red herring in order to cause a distraction. You are clearly getting desperate.
I can certainly see why given the number of leftist defeats as of late and the global atheism statistics.
JohnZ, if you want to keep charging forward as a advocate of your ideology, you can certainly do so. But don't think it is going to make a difference in the big scheme of things. Conservative (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2017 (EST)
It's a pretty important question, one in fact that runs to the heart of your vision for the future. On the one hand, you seem to regard ecumenism as a byword for liberal dilution / betrayal of conservative scriptural principles, yet on the other, you crow about building triumphant coalitions with people you don't appear to regard as fully Christian. Which is it? JohnZ (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, it not my vision of the future. I just recognize that fact that people who have different views in various areas have often worked together to achieve mutually agreed on political aims. In fact, this is so common that there is a phrase for it: "politics makes strange bedfellows". You can deny this happens, but it happens nonetheless and evangelicals/Mormons working together politically to pass Proposition 8 shows that it certainly can and does happen.
If you want to put your head in the sand and ignore the fact that secular leftism is losing the war in terms of global situation and that this is going to have an impact on the Western World, again that is your choice. If you want to ignore the bulk of Kaufmann's scholarship, again that is your choice. Conservative (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2017 (EST)

JohnZ, I do endeavor to be objective. For example, I have no idea if Trump will be re-elected. I do hope he is re-elected given that I think the Democrat running will be a worse candidate. If you look at some of my comments on User: VargasMilan's talk page, I point out that since 1910, presidents who have followed two term presidents have faced recessions in every single case.[26] Maybe Trump will break that pattern. I really don't know. I do disagree with some of his economic policies such as massive spending for infrastructure as i think the federal debt load could cause major problems - especially if it grows. And the next recession, could be far worse than the 2007/2008 recession. I see the growing debt as the biggest risk America faces right now.

With that being said, from an objective standpoint, I see atheism collapsing on its Eastern front where most atheists live (see: Asian atheism). In Europe, I see evangelical Christianity growing and it is growing at a fast clip in France. In Latin America, evangelical Christianity is seeing rapid growth, but atheism is not. In Africa, evangelical Christianity is seeing excellent growth, but atheism is not.

On top of this, you have Islam, a religion with a proven track record of strong intolerance against atheism and deep skepticism of evolutionism, growing at good clip in Europe and becoming dominant in many areas of Europe and in many places in the UK which is the birthplace of modern evolutionism.

Now in the USA, the situation is bit more cloudy and uncertain , but the atheist movement stalled post 2012 and turnout for the 2016 Reason Rally was anemic. But even given the cloudiness caused by immigration policies, survey data issues, economic forecasts (irreligion is negatively correlated to economic instability), Americans/Canadians have a very low opinion of atheists and indicated they trust rapists more than atheists (see: Views on atheists). And America has a growing Hispanic population as well, so the odds of major victory for atheism seem slim in America. And over time, the percentage of Americans who are atheists has been very stable (see: American atheism).

Furthermore, atheism has been losing global market share for about almost 50 years and the trend is expected to continue in the 21st century (see: Global atheism statistics).

In addition, some of the biggest guns of atheism are in decline such as the mainstream media (see: Atheism and the media), the major publishing houses (they are losing market share) and public education (homeschooling/school choice is growing).

Next, even the prominent atheist philosopher Michael Martin indicated that there has been a stagnation in terms of atheist apologetics while theists have not been stagnant and offering more objections to atheism and more arguments for theism (see: Rebuttals to atheist arguments). Intellectually, atheists are moving backwards and not forwards. And they have a number of notable cases of shrinking when it comes to debate (see: Atheism and cowardice).

History teaches that when a team/cause/etc. keeps losing and racks up a history of losing, it often gets demoralized/discouraged and loses confidence and its performance further suffers. It gets caught up in a vicious cycle of defeat. Is this happening to the atheist movement? See: Atheist pessimism about the atheist movement.

On the other hand, when a team has a long history of being victorious and is not complacent, it is often bold and effective. Christendom has 2,000 years of success and there is high morale within Christendom (see: Future of Christianity).

Finally, atheists have a long history of making bad predictions when it comes to the promulgation of atheism.

Dr. Rodney Stark is an agnostic.

Stark in his book The Triumph of Faith wrote:

"People want to know why the universe exists, not that it exists for no reason, and they don't want their lives to be pointless. Only religion provides credible and satisfactory answers to the great existential questions. The most ardent wishes of the secularization faithful will never change that.

"Secularists have been predicting the imminent demise of religion for centuries. They have always been wrong—and their claims today are no different. It is their unshakable faith in secularization that may be the most "irrational" of all beliefs." (p. 212)".

But the secularization thesis failed miserably.

In 2016 and the in the beginning portion of 2017, the global internet market share of Richard Dawkins' website has been falling according to the web traffic tracking company Alexa.
File:Conservapedia alexa february 2007.png
Since April of 2016 and in the beginning of 2017, Conservapedia has seen an increase in its global internet market market share according to the web traffic tracking company Alexa.

JohnZ, you can claim that the situation is anything other than bleak for the promulgation of atheism, but you are not doing it on the basis of evidence and reason. And individuals in your camp have been making very bad predictions for centuries.

JohnZ, please read: The 21st century is a terrible century for atheism and Is atheism growing?
Game over. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Conservative (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2017 (EST)
JohnZ, Shockofgod is right. Atheism is madness! See: Secular leftists and psychogenic illness
By the way, secular leftist morale is pretty low. Once the acceleration of 21st century desecularization begins then the militant atheist psychiatric casualties will really start stacking up. Trump is merely the softening up of the beaches of American godlessness. Betty Devos and her minions are the landing troops. Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war with the cross of Jesus going on before! Conservative (talk)

So when did we take Never-Trumpers at their word?[edit]


I noticed that the most recent headline on the news panel had you guys quoting Ben Sasse from Nebraska on what Neil Gorsuch said. My question is, considering you supported Trump throughout the entire election cycle and put down Never-Trumpers, why are you suddenly taking a known Never-Trumper GOP senator at his word regarding Gorsuch? Isn't it a bit hypocritical? I know, I know, Andy Schlafly has issues with Gorsuch, but considering his mom Phylis, bless her heart, helped with the Supreme Court candidates list that Trump used, I'm pretty sure even she saw something in Gorsuch that meant he was viable enough to be considered a pick. Just asking why we are all of a sudden doing Never-Trumper messages even if it's in regards to Gorsuch. Besides, I'm pretty sure Gorsuch wrote a book denouncing Euthanasia anyways. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2017 (EST)

The liberals' Jesus[edit]

To a liberal, Jesus was a guy who would have supported Obamacare and was really cool about LGBT rights and Black Lives Matter too. If he was around today, he probably would have attended a Town Hall to denounce the GOP. Check it out: "Meet the Teacher Whose Powerful, Christian Defense of Obamacare Made a GOP Town Hall Go Viral" To conflate charity with taxes, as this woman does, misses an important point. Because charity is voluntary, it improves the soul the giver and prepares us for the next world. This aspect of charity was more important to Jesus than idea of a program to "pull up the people.” After all, "the poor will always be with you." PeterKa (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Right now, the USA has some messed up priorities and systems.
The Iraq/Afghanistan Wars are going to cost at least 4-6 trillion dollars. When the Israeli athletes were killed in the Munich Olympics, the Israelis used military intelligence and assassins to hunt down the killers. The USA by contrast used a methodology that is both costly and caused a lot of unnecessary loss of lives. And ultimately it was military intelligence and a SEAL team which killed Bin Laden (similar methodology to Israelis in other words).
And the USA spends a ton on health care compared to other developed nations, yet chronic diseases and obesity are rampant in the USA. The South Koreans/Swiss/Japanese live about 3-5 years longer than Americans. Conservative (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Drain this swamp: Evan Morris, drug lobbyist[edit]

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent article on how the Washington sausage gets made: "The Rise and Fall of a K Street Renegade." Remember the avian flu scare? That was a scam cooked up by lobbyist Evan Morris to sell more Tamiflu, a drug made by Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche. In 2005, he got 32 Democratic senators to sign a letter to Bush expressing their “grave concern that the nation is dangerously unprepared for the serious threat of avian influenza.” Bush authorized the purchase of $1 billion worth of Tamiflu and made Morris a rich man. He drank wine worth $2,000 a bottle and bought a speedboat and four Porsches. So what was his long game? He wanted to raise enough money for Hillary to be named an ambassador. When a drug company started investigating him for overcharges, Morris committed suicide. PeterKa (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2017 (EST)

WaPo continues to destroy its credibility[edit]

The Washington Post continues to destroy the remaining scintilla of credibility it may have had. In trashing Mike Flynn, Richard Allen, Bob McFarland, and Adm. Poindexter, it goes into detail of their post tenure as National Security Adviser, including such miniutia as McFarland's suicide attempt with valium and Poindexter & McFarland's Iran Contra related convictions. Then it brazenly says,

"George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush all had national security advisers who served three years or more. Compared to some of their predecessors, they were generally scandal-free."

Without mentioning the name Sandy Berger, convicted of theft of government documents from the National Archives to cover up Clinton administration negligence in the pre-9/11 days. Outrageous. RobSMake Exxon Great Again 20:34, 15 February 2017 (EST)

Democrats presumably call foreign officials too. How come we never hear about such calls? Because nobody would care. A story about a Democrat doing something equivalent to what Flynn did would not make even the smallest of waves. I'm not a fan of Flynn's. He seemed a bit unhinged at the RNC. These leaks apparently come from the CIA.[27] The agency has been a partisan tool since Clinton had Tenet purge it back in 1996.
Let's hope President Trump restores the CIA to be what it originally was, which was to try to find domestic threats to the nation regardless of the party in charge, and not a partisan tool. The CIA wasn't always a partisan tool. And to make sure something like what Clinton had Tenet do doesn't happen again, he probably should make a law stating that no one, not even under orders from the President, will be allowed to make purges of the CIA for political purposes, and also make clear that if they do make purges, its only if its members currently pose a very grave threat to national sovereignty. So far as WaPo, its mainstream media, when has it EVER been credible? Pokeria1 (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2017 (EST)
The CIA owns the Washington Post. Both Papa Bush & Clinton were CIA company men. They've moreless been running the country since Iran-Contra. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 08:49, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Okay, I know George H.W. Bush was former CIA, but I don't recall Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton EVER working for the CIA prior to ascending to the Presidency (and given their left-wing backgrounds, I find it extremely unlikely that they'd even align themselves with the CIA considering most left-wingers would demonize the CIA while allying with the KGB, like Jean Paul Sartre did where he denounced the CIA and labelled his enemies CIA tools even when they have absolutely no affiliation with the CIA at all and was frequently in bed with the KGB), so what's this about Clinton being CIA company? Pokeria1 (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Clinton was recruited into CIA by 1970 by Cord Meyer. Some sources say he was recruited as early as 1967 while working in Sen. Fulbright's office and attending Georgetown. Hillary represented Systematics of Little Rock beginning c.1978 which provided services for NSA. Both Clintons were deeply involved in money laundering for the CIA's Mena Arkansas operation which began in 1981. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 15:27, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Hmmm... maybe... but that doesn't explain why he would be protesting the Vietnam War during that time and even jipped his recruiter, not to mention making very anti-American statements during protests? Someone like that would not be considered for the CIA. If anything, the only consideration someone like Clinton back then would even in was someone to get rid of. Besides, I know that a lot of leftists tended to hate the CIA and side with the KGB, like Sartre did, and accuse any enemies of being CIA. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Clinton was booted out of Oxford and lost his draft deferment. Thru Sen. Fulbright, Clinton arranged to do his two years of service with the CIA (the ROTC deal was his cover story). Cord Meyer assigned him to infiltrate and spy on European anti-war movements which Nixon was convinced were orchestrated from Moscow. Clinton also was involved in the smuggling out of the Soviet Union Nikita Khruschev's Memoirs, which were translsted into English by Clinton's roommate, Strobe Talbot, and published in the West by the CIA. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 15:43, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Forbes has a story on Ted Kennedy's dealings with Moscow: "Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit." We know about this from the Soviet archive. The CIA never said a word. PeterKa (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Even CNN admits that Flynn's calls were nothing out of the ordinary -- or wouldn't be if he was a Democrat: "Officials emphasized that communications between campaign staff and representatives of foreign governments are not unusual."[28] PeterKa (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2017 (EST)
Or what about Nancy Pelosi and the Logan Act? She had nothing but praise for Bashar Assad when she met with him. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 20:00, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Excerpt from our Pelosi article:

"The trip was praised by terrorists as "brave". Members of the Islamic Jihad have said Pelosi aligns to their views about terror much better than Bush and Dr. Condoleezza Rice.Terrorists endorse Pelosi's 'good policy of dialogue', Aaron Klein, Israel News, 04.05.07. "Palestinian terror group members call US House speaker's visit to Damascus 'brave' and hope for talks with Iran; ‘I think the Democratic Party can do things the best,’ Islamic Jihad member says". Khaled Al-Batch, spokesman for Islamic Jihad, which along with Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel for the past two years, expressed hope Pelosi and the Democratic Party will pressure Bush to create dialogue with Syrian rebel and Middle East "resistance movements" and prompt an American withdrawal from Iraq." Wow, that was prophetic. Even WaPo, before the CIA purchased it, was critical of Pelosi. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 15:10, 17 February 2017 (EST)

As a result of the 2016 election, I have decided to largely not read the mainstream media anymore. They completely missed the boat when it comes to Trump winning the election. If I want to be informed by wise and intelligent people, why would I turn to the mainstream media?
And I am no fan of the Washington Post (WAPO).
Nevertheless, Jeff Bezos is a smart businessman and WAPO picking a fight with Donald Trump seems to have been good for business. The web traffic for the Washington Post website is up post 2016 election and so is its stock price as can be seen HERE and HERE.
Many people like to see a fight. And liberals smarting after their defeat are perhaps hungry for Trump bashing.
I think the WAPO is losing its credibility with sensible people, but there are a lot of people who are not sensible. Conservative (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2017 (EST)
Flynn argued with Pence over who knows what. Trump can fire Flynn, but he can't Pence. So Flynn is out. To the MSM, it's biggest scandal in American history. There is already impeachment and 25th Amendment talk! If there was any public friction between Trump and Pence, that would balloon. Removing Trump before his term is up seems farfetched. But Pence could certainly give Trump a scare in the 2020 primaries. PeterKa (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2017 (EST)
Flynn was out for the same reasons he was fired from DIA in 2014. Policy disaggreements and internal politics in the intelligence community. Plus he rubbed people the wrong way. When the CIA denied his chief aide a security clearance, Flynn was out two days later. You can't do your job if you can't get your people in, something Trump himself is finding out about Washington right now. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 22:49, 18 February 2017 (EST)

Update: Julian Assange just Tweeted on the WaPo-CIA-fake news-Russian connection. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 01:55, 19 February 2017 (EST)

  • Kelly and Mattis were also purged from the Obama administration, presumably for the reason as Flynn, i.e. opposition to the Iran deal. PeterKa (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2017 (EST)
Flynn got the boot about 6 weeks after the Islamic State took Mosul. He was probably pulling his hair out of his head before, during and after, with warnings and proposals to counteract while Obama was on the golf coarse. He was probably cussing up a storm and making it absolutely clear to anyone within earshot, as I would have, what he thought of the negligence of our commander-in-chief. As late as just last December, Obama was blaming US intelligence for not foreseeing ISIS. I'll wait for Flynn's memoirs to hear the truth, thank you. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 03:17, 19 February 2017 (EST)

China grants trademark to Trump Organization[edit]

At the recent press conference, Trump insisted that he has no business interests in Russia. But he certainly has interests in China. In fact, "Trump" is the new name in Chinese construction-related services: "China grants Trump a trademark he's been seeking for a decade."
Under the "one country, two systems" treaty, Hong Kong is supposed to be free of Chinese police. But China kidnapped billionaire businessman Xiao Jianhua at the end of January: "Missing China billionaire taken from Hong Kong hotel in wheelchair: source." Xiao had $6 billion in assets, more money than Trump. Chinese courts are big empty buildings. Who needs them? The police can "disappear" anyone in China -- and now in Hong Kong too. PeterKa (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2017 (EST)

After all is said and done, Trump becoming president was a sacrifice for him. He is constantly vilified by the mainstream press, liberals are not buying his stuff as much and he is probably making less money per year.
And while I realize the Secret Service beefed up security in a post Reagan assassination attempt and 9/11 world, given the violent history of the left, it is still is a possibility. Conservative (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2017 (EST)

Crocodile tears for Kim Jong-nam[edit]

China's Korean puppet has been naughty again. This time, a pair of female North Korean agents assassinated Kim Jong-nam, half-brother of maximum leader Kim Jong-un, at an airport in Malaysia. The killing may have been triggered by a news report that suggested that KJN was considering a possible defection to South Korea. As usual, China is the real victim, at least as far as the MSM is concerned: "In China, a sense of betrayal after the assassination of Kim Jong Nam." No, that's not a joke. That's an actual WaPo headline. I think we have heard this song before. Remember when we were told that the North Koreans were behind the Sony hack in 2014? It later turned out that the hackers not based in NK at all, but in Shenyang in northeastern China. PeterKa (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2017 (EST)

There is an important international lesson here regarding morality. In most decent societies, humans respect each other and do not violate another person's space or tranquility. The attacker was under the impression that she was performing a harmless stunt by splashing a liquid in Kim Jong Nam's face, but that this was acceptable behavior because it was a part of a television show prank. It turns out that the liquid was a fatal poison. The lesson for all nations is that crazy television producers should not have the power to suspend the societal standards of good behavior, and that every human is answerable for his own conduct both under the criminal law and to God. JDano (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2017 (EST)
It generally goes without saying, but I wouldn't doubt that the hotheaded tyrant himself ordered his own half-brother's assassination. With Communists, even family loyalty is virtually non-existent. Northwest (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2017 (EST)
Actually, if China did it, it could be a good sign, meaning China has given up on Kim jong-il and is trying to provoke international outrage against him. Not saying it is so, just offering a plausible scenario. Conversely, it also could be an effort to shore up his position. Putin it appears, may have given up on Kim jong-il, evidenced by his offer to invite South Korean and Japanese companies into economic development of Siberia & Sakhalin Island as part of a deal to lift sanctions. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 14:27, 23 February 2017 (EST)
Kim Jong-un kills his relatives because North Korea is a dynastic monarchy. Henry VIII did more or less the same. China protected KJN because he was a pretender to the Korean throne. This is also a tactic out of the medieval playbook. The Byzantines were famous for maintaining pretenders. My guess is that KJN threatened to defect to South Korea to get more money. That's all the motive North Korea needed. If he had defected, he would have lost his value to China as well. Here is a round up of what the talking heads are saying.
The WaPo story I linked to above is a part of a genre of journalism in which the Chinese claim to be disappointed with whatever North Korea has just done (or, in the case of the Sony hack, what they themselves have done). Although stories of this type have appeared in the international press regularly for many years, China continues to subsidize North Korea. It's a good cop/bad cop routine that protects China's relations with other countries, especially South Korea, which is a profitable market for them. PeterKa (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2017 (EST)
There's still a wider context in play. And the fact your source is WaPo means this is the version CIA wants in front of the public. The wider context is, the Trump administration has effectively cut a deal with Putin to end sanctions. The deal includes (a) not doing anything to aggravate China; (b) allowing Jspanese and South Korean companies to participate in Far Eastern economic development of Russia, which would include presumptively some of the most state-of-art oil drilling technologies at Sakhalin-I. China, it could be presumed, likewise would love to be invited in on these deals. (c) Having completed the early phases of this negotiation with Putin which includes taking down the Islamic State (Mosul airport fell this morning), Trump is now free to focus on the next priorities, North Korea for example, which he continually cites as an example of leaks he's concerned about published in the MSM. (d) As part of these Far Eastern projects, you can most assuredly presume Exxon and Japanese and South Korean companies would be concerned about North Korea before making any longterm, expensive commitments in the Far East, for security purposes. (e) It is likely Putin has pledged to give no more tacit support to the Kim jong-il regime in order to make these deals work. (f) China sees no further justification for supporting Kim jong-il, and has to mask its hand in ousting him by getting world opinion behind any actions they may take, overt or preferably covert. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 18:36, 23 February 2017 (EST)
South Korean intelligence says the hit was ordered by Kim Jong-un five years ago.[29] In that case, it has nothing to do with money, defection threats, or Trump's policies. The North Korean agents were just waiting for an opportunity. KJN lived openly in Macau, but perhaps an assassination on Chinese territory would have been too direct a challenge to China. PeterKa (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2017 (EST)
South Korean intelligence would make no public statements contradicting the CIA line. They work hand in glove. And in this case, the statement seems even more authoritive than if it came from the CIA itself. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 06:55, 24 February 2017 (EST)


Here is the Fox News report by Ami Horowitz about Sweden that Trump refered to. We should probably get out in front about this before the fake news media entirely destroys Trump's message. The details are covered here. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 19:04, 19 February 2017 (EST)

The Swedish police agree with Trump. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2017 (EST)
Swedish Muslim refugee responds to Trump. This guy is a great source for what's happening in Sweden to get around Sweden's censorship of the press and internet postings under their hate speech laws. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 19:09, 20 February 2017 (EST)
Pewdiepie, easily the most famous living Swede, stands with Trump: "Trump: Pewdiepie Approved." Pewdiepie's "This is How We Hunt in Sweden" video still cracks me up.
The refugees in Sweden aren't assimilating or even getting jobs. As far as being a "humanitarian superpower" goes, it would be far more cost effective to provide assistance to these people where they are. Creating an underclass of unemployed Muslims can only lead to social meltdown. Liberalism is a death wish. PeterKa (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2017 (EST)
My source sums it up great: "Sweden is what happens when you make political correctness the official state religion." We need a high profile place in an article to put that quote somewhere. And my source's wish is coming true, Trump is still talking about Sweden. Let's hope this will be ongping for months, cause ultimately, the mainstream media cannot deny it. And we got a pretty good well sourced narrative on the background facts here. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 12:30, 21 February 2017 (EST)

Liberal Swedish judge finds Syrian immigrant guilty of "sexual exploitation of a child" rather than rape of a child below the age of consent, given two months jail time[edit]

this was his second charge of child rape in a few months. [30] RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 21:27, 25 February 2017 (EST)

Europeans want travel ban[edit]

A poll in Europe, which has been ravaged by a migrant crisis, shows 55% want a Trump-style ban of Muslim migrants. [31] RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 23:11, 20 February 2017 (EST)

How Trump Spends His Time[edit]

Washington Post has constructed some useful infographs. Trump took it easy on January 21 and woke up late on February 12. But otherwise he's at work from 7 am to 7 pm. He was also on Twitter for 13 hours (out of 744). There's nothing in the graph about fundraisers, something that consumed a lot of Obama's time. PeterKa (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2017 (EST)

Perhaps Mar-a-Lago can be considered Trump's version of a fund raiser. He spent 106 hours, or 24 percent of his time, at the club there. PeterKa (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2017 (EST)
Even before he took office, we knew he'd use Mar-a-Lago, Trump Tower in NY, and his DC hotel for much business. Melania lives in Trump Tower, not DC. He doesn',t have to use the White House or Oval Office to be president. That's strickly traditional, and Trump will probably make it just ceremonial before he's through. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 18:40, 22 February 2017 (EST)
My point was that the wealthy pay to attend Mar-a-Lago and be in proximity to Trump, much as they did to attend an Obama fundraiser. Obama was a fundraising machine. He did another one every two or three days. As far as doing presidential business at the Mar-a-Lago goes, it's a nightclub not a secure area. See "A paying Mar-a-Lago member took photos of Trump being briefed on North Korea — and posted them to Facebook." PeterKa (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2017 (EST)
Trump had at least 300 people on private security payroll for himself, family, and close members of his organization before he was a candidate. There's no way he can be forced to give it up, and in fact that's a big issue right now:(1) who does Trump trust and delegate his personal security to? and (2) should Secret Service budget and protection be expanded since their primary role now is to protect the people the President trusts for his personal protection. No law can force the President to trust people he doesn't know with his personal security, especially given the record of performance with those organizations and past presidents.
As to the Facebook posting, Bravo! Perhaps Kim jong-il has enough sense to see it for himself. And we certainly don't have to worry about corruption, money in politics, and campaign finance reform since the president is now occupying his time doing the people's business rather than trading money for favors or grabbing for more power on the people's dime as Obama did. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 12:39, 23 February 2017 (EST)

Obama was a fundraising machine. What good did it do the Democrats? They lost big in Congress during the Obama years and Hillary lost.

Obama/Hillary have some similarities to fundraising machine Jeb Bush.

I think social media presence combined with social media adverting is more effective than expensive television adverts. Conservative (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2017 (EST)

It's up to Trump. Trump has got to move outside that 40-44% base he's got at somepoint. A minimum wage increase won't do it, but that could be a part. He's got to find some issues that sway people's votes that are likely inimical to his base. Something that for every vote he looses, he'll still gain 1.5-2 votes elsewhere. He needs about 6-8% of the electorate to put himself on a solid footing. Jobs could do it. But if another big crash beyond his control were to happen, he'd get blamed for it.
Hillary still thinks she's viable. Good. She can play the role of Jeb Bush for the Democrats in 2020. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 06:16, 24 February 2017 (EST)
Now that Hillary has no power, influence, or future in politics, the money has dried up. Clinton Inc. has put out one trial balloon after another lately just to stay in the news. It's too bad she decided not to run for mayor of New York City. She was a fine U.S. senator, better than either Obama or McCain. The media has given Trump a hard time for supporting Hillary in 2008 and opposing her in 2016. But 2008 was before Benghazi or emailgate. Her behavior during Benghazi made me wonder which side she was on in the war on terror. Khizr Khan's speech at the DNC made it clear: She is with the jihadists these days, or more exactly with their funders in Saudi and Qatar. Then there was the abomination of suggesting Obama for the Supreme Court, which I assume was done in the hope he would give her a pass on the email scandal. This is a man who clearly knows nothing about constitutional law and whose only skills are telling us how great he is and reading well from a Teleprompter. I don't want to belittle either of these skills, but they have nothing to do with being an effective justice. PeterKa (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2017 (EST)
A lot of the Clinton Machine effort to stay in the news is to promote Chelsea, whose destined to become the Kim jong-il or Bashar Assad of the Clinton Foundation, building on her parent's legacy, don't you think? RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 22:10, 24 February 2017 (EST)

2020: Trump leads Warren by six points[edit]

From reading the hysterical MSM, you get the sense Trump could be impeached at any time. But he is clearly doing something right: "Poll: Trump trails generic Democrat, but not Warren, in 2020," according to The Hill. Everyone agrees Bannon should go. Hopefully, Trump will take this hint. PeterKa (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2017 (EST)

Sensible Dems are already taking steps to head off disaster. [32] RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 18:45, 22 February 2017 (EST)
Whoever it is will have come through Obama. He is a big fan of Warren's -- and he doesn't care whether or not Warren can win in the general election. He got bored with governing years ago. His ambition is to be leader of the opposition, godfather of the left. Now he's got his Organizing for America henchmen going to town halls to scream at Republicans. There are also screaming at moderate Dems, so this is not about winning the midterms. It's payback for the Tea Party, a moment he has been dreaming of for years. It's also payoff for all that hard work he did fundraising for so many years. Hillary offered to put Obama on the Supreme Court, but that didn't stop him from using Comey to sabotage her campaign. PeterKa (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2017 (EST)
That's a pretty excellent summary of Obama and his legacy. There is big trouble brewing among Democrats right now, and I'm not sure the Progressives will gain control right now. The Democrats have no agenda or vision. The Democrats have become reactionaries with their heads screwed on backwards wanting to go back to the good 'ol days of yesteryore. All they rely on is hate to stir up trouble, thinking it will win back conservative Democrats who voted for Trump. In a way, they are somewhat like the GOP was in 2009-2011, only more angry with less power at the state and local level.
My guess is, if the national Democratic party is to stage a comeback in the next few years, it'll be less Progressive, more protectionist, more anti-immigration, more nationalist, more anti-globalist, more racist (let's be politically correct here, more tolerant of bigots). RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 19:04, 24 February 2017 (EST)

Something rotten in Denmark[edit]

Denmark paid $95,000 in welfare to 29 citizens who had gone to Syria to fight for ISIS. Until the passage of legislation just recently, there was no way for Danish intelligence to cut off payments to a jihadist.[33] PeterKa (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2017 (EST)

We need this in our European migrant crisis article. You want to put it in? RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 12:25, 23 February 2017 (EST)

Kim Jong-nam killed by VX[edit]

If North Korea used VX to kill Kim Jong-nam, they obviously have access to high tech WMD.[34] North Korea is so technically inept they can't even hack Sony without Chinese help. How can liberals be so sure that Saddam didn't have WMD? The CIA said it was a "slam drunk" -- and then one day, they decided it wasn't. CIA Director Tenet was a Clinton appointee. Bush's biggest mistake was leaving him in place. The MSM chose to believe Tenet one time, but not the other. It's all very selective and arbitrary. The Tenet-Bush strategy was to use the WMD issue to propel Hillary to the presidency in 2008. They didn't see Obama coming. PeterKa (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2017 (EST)

That's all good. The world is outraged. How many days has it been since he was killed, and it's still a headline. They're dragging it out pretty good.
I'm not sure a CIA Director has that much control over the agency. Cabinet Secretaries have several layers of undersecretaries who are presidential appointments, but the CIA Director is basically there by himself. The institution has a mind of its own, flooded with career bureaucrats who think they run the world. A CIA Director is there to explain to the agency what the president wants to do, and hopefully gain some allies, and match up his agenda with their agenda. It was Trump's own appointee, Pompeo who killed Trump's other appointee, Flynn. Why Pompeo had to do this was to make some compromise with the agency, and save his own skin. If he didn't get Flynn removed by withholding security clearance for Flynn's staff, he'd be isolated within the agency and nobody would listen to him. It wouldn't be long before news leaks said how incompetent and ineffective he is, how workers are demoralized, etc. Now the CIA is puffed up and full of itself, cause they have veto power over the White House National Security Council staff. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 06:30, 24 February 2017 (EST)
If China experiences an economic downturn, will they cut North Korea loose in terms of economic support? If they cut economic support for North Korea, will it implode like the Soviet Union?
How much leverage does Trump have North Korean via China if he is more of a hard bargainer than previous administrations? Conservative (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2017 (EST)
I'm shooting from the hip now, cause as everyone outside China always says, it's very difficult to gauge China's intentions. The removal of Kim jong-il doesn't necessitate the collapse of the North Korean regime or system. Kim jong-il isn't that strong a leader who commands personal respect and loyalty. He's unstable. North Korea is a feudal system where power has been handed down in a dynastic family -- a step backward from its alleged progressive Marxist beginnings. The Chinese, Cuban, and former Soviet Communist Parties had this problem. In China, children of the original revolutionary founders who grew up with privilege and know nothing of the real world are known as 'Princelings'. This faction in the CCP are the biggest opponents of reform, but in both the Chinese and Cuban cases, they cannot ignore the outcome of the model they are built on - the USSR. Eliminating a family member, whether it was China or North Korea that did it, means this feudal system is about to end. If it was Kim jong-il that did it, Why would he advertise to the world, and his own potential domestic challengers, how insecure he is about holding power for a lifetime?
My hypothesis is the powers-that-be in China recognize that Kim jong-il's mental instability has no place in today's world with nuclear weapons, and are giving in to US, Western, and now even Russian demands, to do something for the sake of international stability. This has lingered on the backburner too long and now is being pushed to the forefront. It's being done quietly and covertly, because of the effect it might have on the Princeling's power. But North Korea, like post-Castro Cuba, is likely to remain dominated by the Communist Party of technicians and bureacrats (not rulers by birth) after a transition of top leadership. In the Soviet and East German models, the entire party was discredited and lost power, something the CCP, Cuban, and North Korean communist parties want to avoid.
Trump is using the threat of re-arming the Japanese navy to help patrol the shipping lanes thru the South China Sea and Spratly's for Persian Gulf oil shipped to Japan (see pgs 10-11 pdf) and South Korea. China in the past two decades has piggy-backed on this massive defense spending cost of the United States and has become a huge beneficiary. Trump not only sees, understands, and has articulated the insanity of US policy more than anyone else, Trump is determined to restructure US Far Eastern policy to reflect the changes. No more free ride for China, especially if they want to challenge the US Navy daily in the Spratly Islands, while the United States is paying the cost of Chinese prosperity in blood in the Persian Gulf region, and money in defending the shipping lanes of Persisn Gulf oil destined for China. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 18:01, 24 February 2017 (EST)
BTW, the entire Kimjongilia is available here which I would recommend to everyone who wants a clear unadulterated picture of North Korea. Seeing is believing. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 20:34, 24 February 2017 (EST)
  • Tenet spent years politicizing the CIA and promoting his favorites. Brennan, Obama's CIA director, was a Tenet protégé.[35] Aside from Porter Gross's brief tenure in 2005-2006, Tenetites have run the agency since 1996. They have a pretty solid grip at this point. Gross tried to address the problem by shifting various CIA responsibilities to other agencies. DNI is supposed to be the lead agency for intelligence analysis now. But that hasn't stop media from treating the CIA as its go to source. Gross also fired Mike Scheuer, who was amazingly still employed by the agency at that time. This is three years after Scheuer wrote a book full of pro-Bin Laden spin. PeterKa (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2017 (EST)
There's been basically two types of CIA heads, insiders and outsiders. Insiders are oldtime intelligence hands promoted to lead the agency, Dullas, Helms, Colby, Papa Bush, Casey, Goss, et al; outsiders are prople without first hand experience sent to reform the agency, Turner, Pennetta, Pompeo, et al. Outsiders tend to meet with varying degrees of success or failure. Turner's been disgraced while Panetta probably enhanced the agency's standing when it was at its lowest after the 9/11 & WMD failures. Pompeo comes from a Congressional Oversite background, so he's more familiar with the agency and its problems than Panetta was going in. Typically the response to outsiders in the long run is, "Get this guy out of here and give us somebody at least familiar with what's going on".
The CIA, or at least the position of DCI (Director of Central Intelligence), was slapped down hard in the post-9/11 Commission reports and reforms. Originally CIA - Central Intelligence, was suppose to be the central collection point of all intelligence gathering from all intellgence agencies, DIA, Naval Intelligence, Army Signals Intelligence, NSA, NRO (satellite reconisence), State Dept BIR, DOJ FBI, etc., and the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) held cabinet rank with direct access to the President who reported on intelligence from all the 'intelligence community', theoretically. Problem with this structure was, who was whose boss? Who did the head of DIA (a position Mike Flynn once held) report to? The Secretary of Defence or the CIA Director? The lingering mistrust and anamosity between the two agencies was again recently played out when Flynn advised Trump to not trust CIA because of incompetence, which Trump went public with.
The position of DCI was castigated and casterated in the 9/11 reforms with the creation of DNI. No longer does the DCI have the President's ear, he is just the head of a lone agency off in the woods of Virginia that reports to DNI. The CIA is not the central collection point, rather just the largest of the 16 agencies that make up the 'intelligence community'. Sacking Flynn is their biggest coup as they stage a comeback. Even killing bin Laden they played little or no role in, the credit going to DNI and other agencies. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 02:02, 25 February 2017 (EST)

Scheuer & bin Laden[edit]

I wouldn't call Scheuer's book pro-bin Laden spin, I'd call it a more level-headed, dispassionate intelligence analysis of who, what and how bin Laden came to be, and his power and influence among Muslims. It stands in marked contrast to the propaganda garbage foisted on the American people.

Killing bin Laden was a huge mistake which ultimately led to the creation of the Islamic State. The Bush people could have killed bin Laden years ago, but the War on Terror was never about vengence. The Bush Doctrine is the doctrine of 'preventative war'. Jihadi ideology is about martyrdom, and when bin Laden died a martyr 10,000 more jihadis rose to take his place, each wanting to be the next bin Laden. This is the jihadi mindset. The Bush people let bin Laden live as a coward under house arrest by Pakastani authorities, hiding out in fear of his life, not as a martyr to be emulated.

Bin Laden was a coward who sent other people to thier marytrdom while he sat home with his 28 year old wife watching pornos and playing video games, until Barack Obama made a hero out of him by killing him. And did Obama killing bin Laden bring back 3000 dead from 9/11? or end US involvement in the Middle East or Afghanistan? Now people are beginning to understand the Bush era doctrine of preventive war. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 12:25, 25 February 2017 (EST)

We could do to the Jihadists what we did to the Japanese during World War II, which is nuke the Middle East a'la Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After all, the Japanese's kamikaze moves were ultimately similar in both actions and motives to the Jihadis martyrdom elements, and two nuclear bombs did drain kamikaze elements out of them. If it worked with the Japanese, it most certainly could work for the Jihadists. Since keeping bin Ladin alive to shame him is no longer an option thanks to Obama delusionally thinking that decapitating the leader causes it to fissle and disintegrate, nuking them is probably the last option left, even though I have grave misgivings over the subject (we already know with ISIS and Iran, they have absolutely no interest in peace, much like the Japanese view of battle). Pokeria1 (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2017 (EST)
That would kill innocents and do nothing about the Swedish, Danish, Belgian, and other jihadists who have returned home. And remember, in this culture of death, the martyrdom of one spawns the birth of 10,000. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 13:34, 25 February 2017 (EST)
Didn't the Japanese spawn a similar culture of death during World War II with their Kamikaze/suicide attacks? Last I checked, Hiroshima and Nagasaki shut their culture of death up with a whimper. Besides, all we need to do is exile the jihadists who are in those countries to the Middle East, even ship them back there to make sure they stay there before we drop those bombs, then they are quelled as a threat. It's not an option I'd personally want to consider, but then again, not many people wished to consider the atom bomb on Japan back then either. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2017 (EST)
Shintoism, as I understand it, was never for export or proselytisation. A purely nationalist sentiment. Islamic revival thru martydom, best exemplified and preached in Hasan al-Banna's, From Birth to Martydom, remains the primary text for recruiting Shaheeds. Al-Banna was a contemporary of Sayyid Qutb, and it is the marriage of the two that gave birth to the modern Islamic revival movement. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 13:53, 25 February 2017 (EST)
So, in other words, there ISN'T a similarity between the two at all beyond tactics? Well, might as well nix that option, then... Wish there was something that would absolutely end jihadism, though, especially considering that, now with bin Ladin being dead thanks to Obama, we can't even hope to do preventative war. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2017 (EST)
This is what 8 years of Obama and ending the War on Terror did -- it put the United States on purely a defensive posture while the global jihad, jihadism, jihadist militancy, jihadi recruiting, and the Islamic State expanded. To shift to an offensive strategy requires educating and informing the American public about the nature of the threat and garnering a national consensus to fight to a succussful outcome. Some American critics however, delight in the prospect of praying in the direction of Mecca 5 times daily. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 14:54, 25 February 2017 (EST)
Bin Laden thought of Scheuer as his kind of infidel: "In 2007, [Bin Laden] singled out two Western authors whose knowledge he had high regard for: Noam Chomsky and Michael Scheuer." In Scheuer's telling, Bin Laden is the noble Arab, a modern Saladin, the guy with lyrical Arabic and management skills. What can the West do to defeat jihad? Not Scheuer's problem. Instead, his books focus on evening the score with a long list of policymakers and authors, none of whom can appreciate Bin Laden's awesomeness the way Scheuer can.[36] PeterKa (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2017 (EST)
I've spent a lot of time on this subject, and Scheuer gives the clearest picture of bin Laden in the English language. There's not space enough to go into detail, so I will try to encapsulate.
In 1989 when bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia, he was the hometown kid who single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. He was a war hero. He fell out with the Saudi ruling family in 1991 after his offer to use his Afghan jihadis, who had just destroyed a Superpower and caused it to collapse, to expel Saddam's army from Kuwait was rejected. King Fahd opted instead to use infidels - the US military, with women & Jews in it, based in the Islamic holy land, carrying Bibles and crosses - to cross the border and kill other Muslims.
To avoid the embarassment to Saudi Arabia for the fact he was once a hometown hero and still commanded the love and respect of his countrymen, the Bush administration & CIA concocted a rather different slant on bin Laden and historical facts for US domestic consumption.
I'd be pleased to go into more detail anywhere anytime if you're interested. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 00:58, 26 February 2017 (EST)
For example here, page 238, final paragraph of footnote 33, beginning "A world where Islamic scholars of Muslim regimes..." Yes, this conclusion indeed is very frightening. Bin Laden has been a Martin Luther like figure, rejecting the interpretation of scripture by establishment clerics, and empowering individuals to take their own intrepretation from the scriptures. Setting off a bloody Reformation that may last 100 years. And Obama, the fool, made a holy martyr out of him, to boot. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 02:04, 26 February 2017 (EST)
Scheuer is not only your source for the claim that bin Laden was a hero of the Soviet-Afghan war, but also the source for the idea that bin Laden was a Martin Luther-like figure and a martyr. But you don't see any of this as pro-bin Laden spin. Okie dokie. Here's some more classic Scheuer: "It's worth noting that bin Laden was not only a master of media but also a master of silence" (p. 238, note 34). Oh that Scheuer, master of ass kissing. PeterKa (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2017 (EST)
Really, you need to step back and see who bin Laden really was. Bin Laden was always in the minority as to how the global jihad needed to be fought. Many before 9/11, and after, opposed his fundamental strategy. He had difficulty finding recruits for the 9/11 attack. Many jihadists thought it was a personal vendetta against the House of Saud. Likewise many opposed his coziness with the Shia of Iran in the Muslim Unity movement. Most jihadis today will say he was wrong to attack the far enemy and flirt with the Shia, nevertheless they are grateful to him for taking the jihad global and liberating them from the constraints of Islamic Scholars in the pay of national governments.
Most jihadists wanted to establish the caliphate first, which means overthrowing Saudi Arabia and Israel, then conquering the infidels of Europe and America. This strategy has been in play since 1967. It was interupted briefly between 2001-2004, at the time the spin about bin Laden you think you know was developed. The strategy ended when bin Laden accepted the alliagence of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which then went on an anti-Shia jihad against the Iranians who assisted in the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden betrayed his own principals of a Muslim Unity movement of all Muslims - Shia included - against the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Since 2004, the Qutbist strategy is back in force.
Now, what has the CIA, the State Department, or MSM done to educate you about the basic facts of the global jihad since September 11, 2001? RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 05:24, 26 February 2017 (EST)
Scroll back and read the whole of footnote 33. It summarizes the entire book, and certainly better than any NYT review or bureaucratic detractors making excuses for failure. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 21:51, 26 February 2017 (EST)

The list[edit]

Before we get into the significance of the msm news organizations barred from today's White House Press Briefing, let's understand something about the process of news gathering and reporting in Washington, and what this means for various mainstream outlets for the remainder of Trump's term.

When a journalist writes or goes on air with news from Washington, they typically know more than what is being reported there and then. This is born from the symbiotic relationship between news reporters and politicians - they need each. Politicians need the press for exposure and positive spin, and journalists need the politician to meet a broadcast or print deadline for a commercial enterprize that sells news. Democrats are very good at this game. With the exceptions of Henry Kissinger and Ronald Reagan, Republicans have never been good at it and view the press as hostile, so they avoid them. Consequently, cause it makes it difficult for a journalist to keep his job if he has no news to report, he writes nasty reports about the politician he's been assigned to cover so as to keep his job. It's all about access.

Backgrounder briefings are a huge part of news reporting. These occur daily with officials throughout Washington, are referred to as "off the record", and sometimes can last for hours filling a whole day. And substance of a 6 hour background briefing might not make it into the news for another 6 months. Here is where the relationships and trust between reporters and government officials are built.

A president, any president, might have as a priority Israeli-Palestinian relations or North Korean nukes which require quiet negotiation and a !ow profile for people involved. To avoid a snooping and disruptive media, and springing shockng headlines on the press and public without context, an administration will invite journalists in, ask for their cooperation and confidence, introduce them to the people involved in planning and negotiation, field questions, and keep the media apprised of progress until such a time as the government is ready to go public. Then they release thier full, comprehensive "Breaking News", with context. Here's an example of a published transcript of a Pentagon backgrounder, complete with anonymous sources, which is somewhat rare cause most State Department or White House high level background briefings go unpublished.

Now, to today's news. The White House has systematically excluded several mainstream news organizations from any future background briefings (for the time being at least). This means any news reporting from the blacklisted organizations report has to come from their fellow journalists who actually attend background briefings. The blacklisted organizations only claim to authoritive reporting henceforth must come from either (a) other news organizations, (b) illegal means, or (c) speculation and conjecture.


  • New York Times
  • CNN
  • The Hill
  • Politico
  • BuzzFeed
  • Daily Mail
  • BBC
  • Los Angeles Times
  • New York Daily News


  • Breitbart
  • Washington Times
  • One America News Network
  • ABC
  • CBS
  • NBC
  • Fox
  • Reuters
  • Bloomberg
  • Wall Street Journal
  • McClatchy.
  • Associated Press*
  • Time magazine*

(Note AP & Time were approved, but went on strike in support of the lockout).

To summarize, any reporting based upon "administration sources" from the blacklisted organizations is now by definition, not just pejoratively, "fake news". This list is something CP should pay attention to in context when posting Main Page items and sources. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 00:31, 25 February 2017 (EST)

I just wish he'd toss out CBS, NBC, the AP, and all the other equally liberal, slanderous, perjorative organizations. However, this is a good start. In the mean time, we need a conservative national news network to go mainstream. --David B (TALK) 01:29, 25 February 2017 (EST)
In those cases bare in mind editors and reporters have agreed by the rules to have access, which means professional cooperation between media and government. They still have editorial independence in reporting, but they are not as agenda driven to take down the president as the blacklist is. What's missing from the reports on this is WaPo, which evidently has to be handled separately. WaPo, as has been noted, is now the official propaganda organ of the CIA. It's up to the outlets on the trusted list to report and inform the American people about this, which they may not want to do. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 11:48, 25 February 2017 (EST)
I have to admit, I am a bit surprised that Trump kept left-wing organizations such as Time and Bloomberg. I am very glad, however, that he's actually doing something about the mainstream media, unlike most other GOP politicians. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2017 (EST)
Trump evidently is going after WaPo on a different track.
This is traditionally how the CIA operated. The CIA goes into a country and purchases a newspaper, for example La Prensa in Nicaragua to criticize the ruling Sandinista regime. When elections were finally held, the head of La Prensa, Violeta Chamorro, was elected President defeating Daniel Ortega. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 15:25, 25 February 2017 (EST)

The explanation presented on the PBS News Hour was that the daily "gaggle" conducted by the White House Press Secretary is in a confined space and that historically it included 1) the pool reporters and 2) certain other national media. They did limit who could attend the gaggle, but did exclude those news organizations RobS listed above. The argument is that the excluded organizations can still get the information through the pool reporters. It is not clear to me whether the reporters from the excluded organizations can rotate through the pool reporter role. JDano (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2017 (EST)

Interesting. However, I took a look at CBS last night, and they were bashing Trump, just like they always do. If they agreed to terms, then the terms must be lousy or they must be violating them. --David B (TALK) 20:02, 25 February 2017 (EST)
@JDano, the daily 12:30 pm briefings in the briefing room about scheduling etc, with the entire press corp present will continue. It is here sometimes the date, time, and location of backgrounder briefings are sometimes announced. It is these regular backgrounder briefings were "high level sources close to president", etc meet "off the record". These "high level sources" could be Bannon, Priebus, Miller, Tillerson, the NS Adviser, or even Trump himself. They meet to give background and context to things like summit negotiations with Putin, the Iran deal, North Korea, ISIS strategy, Israel/Palestine, Congressional relations, etc etc etc, to gave background and context to the administration strategy. It is the blacklisted organizations - their reporters and editorial room bosses - who are being exc!uded from these confidential briefings. Naturally they will be waiting outside the door for the other journalists to emerge saying, "What did he say? What did he say?" But the news organization with a reporter held in confidence priority is to return to their desk, write a report, and submit it to their editors before helping out the competition.
It'll be interesting. The first time the NYT claims an Exclusive, or does not print a copy-paste from the Approved list, we know its fake news. From the shear volume they will be able to produce, it's not even worth fussing about. I'd suggest CP just ignore them and virtually blacklist them from MPR on anything controversial. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 00:11, 26 February 2017 (EST)
The White House Press Corps has a long-standing pool arrangement. The pool reporters, cameramen and photographers make their raw data available to every other member of the press corps. So when President Trump sits down with the Prime Minister of Japan in the Oval Office a few pool reporters are in that room to take pictures and ask questions instead of having the entire herd of reporters pack into the Oval Office. So, the pool avoids the "What did he say?" problem that RobS describes above. In addition, the Washington Post and the New York Times have many connections in the government. If they get an exclusive story from some leaks, by definition it will be outside the process described above. So, stories that come from reliable but unnamed sources are not necessarily "fake news." JDano (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2017 (EST)
I'm referring to background briefings. These are routine and "off the record". For example, Henry Kissinger spent much time out of the country engaged in difficult, complex, controversial negotiations with the USSR, Chinese, Israeli, Eygptian, and North Vietnamese officials. The Secretary of State must return to DC once a month for a Congressional hearing. When in town, Kissinger spent much time in all day, secretive, background briefings with the State Dept Press Corp about strategy and negotiations. When earth-shattering news was announced - such as Nixon's visit to China - the press corp already knew about it for months, having learned of the whole strategy directly from Kissinger's mouth in background briefings. Reporters have to feign shock and surprise at the announcement. This is one way to combat leaks, by leveling with reporters up front and not lying to their faces in a background briefing. The relationship becomes open and mutually beneficial, plus the reporters get to feel important and flattered, carrying around privileged information directly from the horses mouth. Too bad Nixon and the White Staff never learned to play the game with the White House Press Corp.
When the announcements of Kissinger's efforts were made, they were always hailed as brilliant and the results of months of effort, and criticism of their negative aspects relegated to the back pages. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 03:49, 26 February 2017 (EST)
Now it goes without saying reporters are not beyond leaking information to each other. The Trump administration will have to cross that bridge when they get to it. The narrative will soon develop that this administration has the worst press relations since Nixon; never mind the fact Trump is just inexperienced in the ways of Washington. You're not dealing with New York tabloids or Hollywood rag mags. Here's Nixon giving instructions to his press secretary how to deal with an obnoxious hounding media. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 14:33, 26 February 2017 (EST)
RobS, I am suggesting that this is not a matter of "leaking information to each other." It is a long-standing formal agreement that if the venue can not hold the entire press corps, a pool is designated and they must share. So, the proposed criteria above for "fake news" will not work. JDano (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2017 (EST)
Okay. If the arrangement is routine, why are the excluded organizations complaining about it as unprecedented? RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 21:01, 26 February 2017 (EST)
It is a matter of "self-governance" of the press corps. The reporters who were expecting to go to the gaggle were stopped by the secret service and the Press Secretary announced that they were not welcome because their news organizations were being punished. Other reporters were invited to replace them. The only difference that this makes is that if the Press Secretary can hand-pick the people asking the questions at the gaggle, he will get softball questions instead of the best questions. When the pool's reporting of the questions are then shared with the entire press corps, the public's right-to-know will be diminished. JDano (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2017 (EST)
What has gone unreported is the substance of the "gaggle". The regular 12:30 briefing was held with all in attendance. This "gaggle" was after 3:00 pm. Priebus said in transition this may happen, well before Spicer was ever named. Rumor is, Spicer is on his way out already. I have the feeling in coming years Trump will change Press Secretary's like he changes dirty socks. The significance of this - a Press Secretary's resignation, I'll leave to another time. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 07:02, 28 February 2017 (EST)


Here is a classic example of the subtlety and fake news an organization like Bloomberg, which escaped the blacklist despite Mayor Bloomberg himself openly discussing using his own money to sink Trump last year when he himself had no chance of winning as a 3rd party challenger. Bloomberg reports

Trump isn’t the first U.S. leader to complain ... Germany spends about 1.2 percent on defense now...President Barack Obama in 2016 said in an interview with The Atlantic about his foreign policy doctrine that “free riders aggravate me.”...Germany’s foreign minister, said a few weeks ago said that meeting the 2 percent goal is “unrealistic,” although that’s a much lower percentage than the U.S. spends on defense.

Then it goes on to say,

Merkel has struck a hard line over incursions into Ukraine and the Kremlin’s support for Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad.

Really? A hard line? Trump had been soft and Merkel has "struck a hardline" with Putin.

First off, put your money where you mouth is before you strike a hardline. Secondly, the Germans have been lobbying for reduced sanctions on Russia since Obama placed them. Thirdly, Putin and Merkel's coziness is the biggest factor in Putin defying US sanctions. Fourthly, it was Merkel & Putin's "hardline" toward Iran that caused Obama to cave on Iranian nukes.

Evidently Bloomberg and others have a big problem distinguishing between a politicians words and reality. Hardline rhetoric and hardline policy are two different things. All this, basically, to use a McCarthyite smear on Trump - that isn't even operational anymore - that he's soft on Russia, maybe a KGB agent, and is a traitor. These people, these journalists, their editors, and organizations, deserve no respect, whatsoever. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 14:01, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Public pressers vs closed door backgrounder[edit]

As noted above, journalist know more than they report on any given day. Those with access spend the majority of their time in closed door background briefings. Yet daily the White House, Pentagon, State Dept, and other agencies (CIA does not have a resident press pool) have an open public broadcast for news releases and updates. These are usually scheduled for 30 mins, but can run longer under extraordinary circumstsnces.

So, being it's the same journalists sitting in on lengthy backgrounders as in public news broadcasts, they have to change hats when the lights go up and the cameras roll. Here, In a State Dept open briefing with school interns present, is an interesting exchange. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 12:29, 27 February 2017 (EST)


According to Buzzfeed [37] (a blacklisted organization):

Donald Trump on Friday railed against the media’s use of anonymous sources in stories. Four days later, he was one.
In a private meeting with national news anchors ahead of his address to Congress Tuesday night, Trump went on background with reporters as a “senior administration official” to discuss issues like immigration, telling attendees that it was time for a legislative compromise from both parties.
“There’s got to be a coming together,” an “official” said, according to CNN. As BuzzFeed News reported, citing attendees at the meeting, Trump was the one to make that remark, among others attributed to the official.
Reporters were allowed to put some of Trump’s comments back on the record at 6 p.m., according to a person familiar with the terms of the meeting. CNN later updated its story, ...Attendees at the meeting included NBC’s Chuck Todd and Lester Holt, CNN’s Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer, Univision’s Maria Elena Salinas, and Telemundo’s Jose Diaz-Balart.
Tuesday’s meeting ...blah blah blah...

Bottomline: Trump is a novice at the game, but he's learning. The media needs to be patient with him and work with. He has demonstrated, as Reagen did, he can go over their heads and speak directly to the American people, or his base at least. But Reagan never used his power to attack the media, which Nixon and Baby Bush sure would have liked to.

So, Chuck Todd, considered among the Top 20 most powerful people in Washington (the highest of anyone in his profession), was invited into the Oval Office and the confidence of the President. We'll see if is ego is flattered enough if he wants to be invited back to enjoy the confidence of the President again in private, closed door, background briefings if his attitude doesn't change by Sunday. It would do wonders for his career over the next four years. If he wants to continue being a schmuck and stirring up hate, then he can on!y be a total idiot. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 04:44, 1 March 2017 (EST)

RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 03:46, 1 March 2017 (EST)

Salon takes down pro-pedophilia articles[edit]

In the age of Milo, liberals pretend that they opposed pedophilia all along: "Salon Shouldn’t Have Unpublished Its Article by a Pedophile Author." PeterKa (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2017 (EST)

Interesting. I guess the general rule is that if we want the Left to adopt commonsense views, we should get a so-called conservative to advocate for their own leftist views. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2017 (EST)


Democrat racists and Islamophobes bypass Ellison for Perez. [38]. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 18:49, 25 February 2017 (EST)

Anne Coulter has a great tweet: "A Muslim passed over for DNC head. Aren't terrorists going to use this insult as a recruitment tool?" PeterKa (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2017 (EST)
Another example of hypocrisy on the part of the Left. We cannot pass a temporary immigration suspension from seven nations that happen to have majority-Muslim countries because it will enrage Muslims all over the world, but Democrats can vote against a Muslim. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2017 (EST)
Perez helped suppress the Sanders vote and stuff the ballot box for Hillary. Any wonder how he won? Obama & Progressives are again the big losers. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 23:53, 25 February 2017 (EST)

The Muslim Huma Abedin's ex-husband Anthony Weiner (who is a pervert or at least was a pervert if he recently reformed himself) reignited the email controversy which caused Comey to issue his re-investigation days before the election which probably cost her the election. And then Putin, who is an ex-communist and ex-KGB, probably kept the pressure on throughout the election by feeding information to Wikileaks. Given the Democrats ties to leftism, the sexual revolution and recent ties to Islamism, these are three ironies of history.

If only Barack Hussein Obama hadn't angered Trump at the 2011 White House correspondents dinner through his mockery of Trump, all this Trumpian destruction of leftism could have been avoided![39] :) Conservative (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2017 (EST)

I remember when comedy was funny, or at least supposed to be. Now its Samantha Bee screaming lies. The White House Correspondents' Dinner was traditionally a time when some lighthearted jokes were made at the expense of the president. Obama turn it around and used as an opportunity to spew nasty insults at Trump and other Republicans. Wanda Sykes told the audience that Limbaugh should be waterboarded, and Obama laughed politely. PeterKa (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2017 (EST)
Hillary was never liked. Period. Trump, who has been in the public eye for 30 years, the public had no reason not to like other than the rabid hatred that Clinton media surrogates put forth about Trump over the past 15 months. A poll out this weekend says 55% of the Jill Stein/Gary Johnson voters approve of Trump. It is the intense hatred and mistrust of Hillary that got Trump elected. No ammount of media cosmetics could ever mask it, not until all her contemporaries are dead and they can brainwash future generations that she was a trailblazer for women's equality rather than the power crazed, decietful, heartless killer with no concscience she is. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 16:04, 26 February 2017 (EST)

The transgendered go to which bathroom?[edit]

The media is up in arms about Trump and bathroom regulations. IMO, the issue is correctly framed as "the president should follow the law." Obama never had the authority to issue bathroom regulations, so the proper course is to rescind them. Title IX says nothing about transgendered. It was passed in 1972, so its unlikely that anyone in Congress was even thinking about the issue. The lying media says Trump is "telling people where to pee." But Trump's move would return authority to states and localities, which is where it always was up until 2015. The transgendered are tiny percentage of the population, so why do the Dems care so much? The issue driven by the PC claim that gender is simply a social construct -- in other words, by pseudoscientific claptrap. Surely the science of gender is better established than the science of climate change. PeterKa (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2017 (EST)

The legal basis for the Obama Administration action taken regarding school bathrooms was Title IX of the Higher Education Amendments of 1972. Although it does not use the word "transgender" it does prohibit discrimination based on sex/gender. So, if a transgender person is exposed to bullying or made to feel uncomfortable by being forced to use the other bathroom, there is a basis for a Title IX complaint or a private cause of action. There is a case from Virginia that will be heard soon by the US Supreme Court, and we will have a better answer. Note that the larger question of non-school restrooms are outside the scope of Title IX and has been addressed separately by several legislatures. The topic is a no-win situation for school administrators, teachers or people that operated multiuser public restrooms. JDano (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2017 (EST)
Telling a trans he's not actually a woman is cluing him in on reality. A court stayed Obama's "Dear Colleagues" letter back in August. If the Supreme Court considers the case after Gorsuch is confirmed, I assume it will uphold what Trump has done. Trump doesn't have any legal authority over pipelines either. But his executive actions seems to broken the logjam for both the Keystone and Lakota Access pipelines. PeterKa (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2017 (EST)
All of this is much more complicated than suggested by PeterKa. The Supreme Court has already validated private causes of action under Title IX. So, the question is whether a student can sue a school district for making him use a restroom other than the one for which he/she currently identifies. The Keystone XL pipeline requires a permit to cross the US/Canadian border, and Trump has invited TransCanada to reapply for it. The Executive Branch (State Department) under existing law, must review and approve all border crossings. Once approved, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will set the rates charged for transportation on the oil pipeline. The Lakota Access pipeline is crossing a river and needs Army Corps of Engineers approval. That was the last approval needed, so that "logjam" is broken subject to judicial review. Thanks, JDano (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2017 (EST)
The next stop for Keystone is the Nebraska Public Utilities Commission. Once TransCanada gets approval there, I assume they will take Trump up on his "reapplication" offer. I don't see Tillerson turning them down.
If declaring your own gender is a thing now, the next frontier is race. The MSM seems to be fine with Warren's fake Cherokee identity.[40] If Rachel Dolezal's case is any indication, don't even think about declaring yourself black.[41] Declaring yourself a Muslim sounds even more problematic.[42] PeterKa (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2017 (EST)
The "one drop" rule was abolished a long time ago. So affirmative action has operated on a declare your own basis for some time now. Look at Geraldo Rivera who grew up Gerry Rivers and is now, according to Conservapedia, "He self-identifies as a Republican." As a practical matter, if a man wears makeup, takes hormones, and dresses like a woman, nobody will be upset if he/she uses the women's room. If Elizabeth Warren claims to have some Cherokee blood, nobody will be upset if she reports that on her census form or asks for a hiring preference at the Cherokee casino. If a Christian walks into a church that is a different denomination from his parents' church, he will be welcomed. Everyone answers to God for all of their decisions. JDano (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2017 (EST)
Haven't you heard of "cultural appropriation"? It was a big issue as recently as last Halloween. Now the Warren is their gal, it's another cause the media will have to back down on, at least temporarily. Warren got hired as a professor at Harvard by claiming American Indian status. Her family had lore about a Cherokee ancestor, as many non-Indian families do. Nowadays, you can check these things on It's pretty clear that she doesn't actually have any such ancestry.
No, you don't get any sort of preference at a casino simply by claiming to be a Cherokee. The tribal government decides who is a member of the tribe.[43]
Humans are born male or female. Those who think otherwise are suffering a delusion. That was the official position of the APA as recently as 2012. Parents who give their children gender bending hormones should be prosecuted for child abuse. I am not overly concerned about who goes to which bathroom. PeterKa (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2017 (EST)
  • JDano said, There is a case from Virginia that will be heard soon by the US Supreme Court, and we will have a better answer.
Correction: we will have an answer. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 11:00, 1 March 2017 (EST)

This place still exists![edit]

Okay, I'll admit it, I did not see this one coming - kudos! Haven't checked in on this places in AGES. Any familiar faces still around? --Sid 3050 (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2017 (EST)

Although many editors are new, RobSmith, EdPoor, Karajou and Andy are still around. If you are looking for a constructive project, please look at: Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory. Welcome back, JDano (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2017 (EST)
Hey Sid, you know TK's dead, until I discovered he was Nutty Roux all along just a few weeks ago. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 21:04, 26 February 2017 (EST)

European politics shifting to the right has brought COnservapedia some new editors from Europe. Conservative (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2017 (EST)

Sid, one of Phyllis Schlafly character traits was persistence. Did you ever seriously think that Andy Schlafly would pull the plug and cause the website to go offline? Conservative (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2017 (EST)

Conservapedia still exists and traffic is booming since Trump has dominated the news cycles[edit]

File:Conservapedia alexa february 2007.png
Since April of 2016 and in the beginning of 2017, Conservapedia has seen an increase in its global internet market market share according to the web traffic tracking company Alexa.

Phyllis Schlafly was a supporter of Donald Trump. Her final book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was released the day after she passed away and became a New York Times bestseller.Conservative (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2017 (EST)

Since April of 2016, User:RobS was by far the largest generator of Mainspace content in Conservapedia with the Hillary Rodham Clinton article.
Chart courtesy RonLar of TOW.

Yah, and you owe it all to me who came off a nine-month hiatus in April 2016. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 21:30, 26 February 2017 (EST)

Conservapedia ranks #5 at Google USA for the phase: "Was Hillary Clinton born rich"[44] and ranks #8 at Google USA for the phrase "was hillary clinton born into wealth".[45]
RobS, you helped Trump win the Rust belt areas which were key to his presidential race victory!
In addition, Conservapedia ranks #15 at Google USA for the term "Was Hillary Clinton ever a Republican"[46] So every time Bernie supporters said that Clinton wasn't a true Democrat, you were there helping to support that view! Divide and conquer! :) Conservative (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2017 (EST)
I'd still like to get her up in the rankings for "Butch Clinton," but we'll leave it til '20 primaries, if she runs, and discuss it then. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 22:18, 26 February 2017 (EST)

Oscars television show[edit]

The MPR says, "Hollywood declares the wrong winner of the Best Picture Oscar". I did not watch the program, except that I tuned in for the late night news and the broadcast was still going, so I saw the Best Picture presentation. The above quote does not describe what happened and certainly "Hollywood" was not to blame. The votes were correctly tabulated and a card was printed saying the name of the best picture and who were that film's producers. Instead, Warren Beatty was handed an envelope that announcing who won Best Actress and that she was in the film "La La Land." When Beatty opened the envelope he knew that something was wrong, but Faye Dunaway grabbed the card and mistakenly announced La La Land as the Best Picture winner. A guy wearing a headphone jumped out onto the stage and tried to get the mistake fixed. While it was a mistake, the mistake was in putting the Best Actress card into that envelope and handing it to Beatty. The MPR makes it sound as though there was voter fraud and a recount, or that CP views the Academy's choice as "wrong." I would suggest dropping this item as being a bit petty. I personally think that the show is too long and that Jimmy Kimmel did a terrible job as host picking a feud with Matt Damon. Why focus on the card mixup? Thanks, JDano (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2017 (EST)

This was staged as a publicity stunt about Russian hackers. It's no coincidence Warren Beatty, who played a Russian spy in Reds, pulled off the stunt. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 12:45, 27 February 2017 (EST)
Can't wait to see what the viewer numbers for the Oscars were - wouldn't be surprised to see them take another nosedive from last year, especially given that it would predictably be more about Trump-bashing and politics as usual by the Hollywood elitists than about their overrated movies. Any actor that trashed Trump on the show will most likely become another actor whose career fades straight into oblivion after this as the public stops going to their movies in response. As for me, my time was better spent that night watching Columbo and Kolchak: The Night Stalker than watching the Oscars snoozefest. Northwest (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2017 (EST)
What does CP gain by the current phrasing of this news item? By the way, PriceWaterhouseCoopers now admits that they screwed up the envelope. So, the story should read "High priced accounting firm declares the wrong winner of the Best Picture Oscar". JDano (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2017 (EST)
The Hollywood "stars" who are glorified by the liberal media are as much to blame as the accountants are. The card never said that the wrong movie won Best Picture. But in typical liberal style, liberals never admit their own fault.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2017 (EST)
I think that Warren Beatty and Jimmy Kimmel both gave an adequate apology. The card said that Emma Stone won Best Actress for her role in La La Land. Again, given the two later news items on MPR, what is the benefit here? Thanks, JDano (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2017 (EST)
What was the liberals' apology? Is it really that difficult to read what the card actually said, rather than pretending it said something else?? Why didn't they act quickly to admit and correct their own error, to avoid the fiasco that followed? Liberal style is to be slow to accept responsibility and accountability.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2017 (EST)
I don't know about "liberals", but the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, Jimmy Kimmel, Warren Beatty, and PriceWaterhouseCoopers all apologized and the correction was made within 3 minutes of the mistaken announcement. The correct card, which was held up to the camera, said "Moonlight" and the name of its producers. PriceWaterhouseCoopers handed Warren Beatty the wrong card which said "Emma Stone, La La Land." I doubt that this mistake is worth including in a CP article, but I leave that call up to you. Thanks, JDano (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2017 (EST)
"Beatty and his co-presenter Faye Dunaway made a defiant appearance at the Governors Ball, the official Oscars after party last night, insisting they were not at fault for the Best Picture fiasco." [47] Is that what you call an apology??? The lack of acceptance of responsibility by liberals is something we point out from time to time, and it does open peoples eyes.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2017 (EST)

Here's what I saw: a condemnation of Trump for his Muslim "ban" of seven certain countries, immediately followed by Sting singing a best song nomination from a movie about a journalist beheaded by one of the Muslims from those countries;an Iranian sharia-supporting director from a country that wants to kill every Jew on earth, and there's a bunch of liberal Jews in the audience who can't quite grasp the connection. Never mind the fact that Iran also executes gays, but the libs in the Oscar audience would rather think Trump is just plain bad over anything else. If this isn't evidence that liberalism is a mental disorder than I don't know what is. Karajou (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2017 (EST)

I am sorry for commenting, because I did not watch the show except for the part after 11 p.m. which was delaying the local news. I think that it takes courage to put a pair of 79-year-olds on live TV with the task of presenting an award. If I were 79-years-old, I would be defensive against any suggestion that I was not competent. It is odd that the local and national news allowed this mixup to dominate more important facts such as who won the top awards or new terror attacks. My congratulations to all of the nominees who worked very hard to get to the top of their professions, including all the technical people who no longer get the limelight of the televised show and who have a separate awards ceremony. I withdraw my earlier Oscar remarks. JDano (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2017 (EST)
JDano, I appreciate your comments and you raised a valid issue. Your comments persuaded me not to post further about this issue on the MPR. But you might have noticed today that the liberals running the Oscars took surprisingly harsh action against the accountants, as they only they made the mistake. The liberals on stage made a mistake too by misreading the card. A conservative would have probably admitted the mistake rather than deny responsibility and cause others to bear all the blame.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2017 (EST)
Thank you for your response. When I hire a law firm or accounting firm to do a job, I am hiring them to both perform a technical task flawlessly and to become a part of the public reputation of my firm. If they are taking unauthorized behind-the-scenes photos and using twitter when they are supposed to be concentrating on doing their jobs they fail me on both counts. The Academy should hold people responsible. If you look at the replay of Warren Beatty, he saw the mistake and checked the envelope for a second card. He should have said "I think I have the wrong card" before handing it to Faye Dunaway. Faye Dunaway did not bother the read the entire card but saw "La La Land" on the card and just said it. Many actors (and TV newscasters) are trained to say whatever they read in a fluent manner, even if it is complete non-sense. Ms. Dunaway was embarrassed and left quickly, while Mr. Beatty (who is more of a politician) stayed to make statements to the press for personal damage control. If we look at this in political terms, the conservatives who manage PriceWaterhouseCoopers upheld proper accountability standards. If this were a liberal denial scenario, the story line would falsely ascribe the gaff to racial prejudice against the African-Americans involved in Moonlight. Spending the evening watching the Oscar show is like spending that time watching the Super Bowl or professional wrestling. The "drama" may be addictive and entertaining, but objectively it is a waste of time unworthy of national attention. JDano (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2017 (EST)

The markets party like it's 1999[edit]

Stocks haven't seen an upsurge like this since 1999. “I think market participants likely are anticipating shifts in fiscal policy that will stimulate growth and perhaps raise earnings,” according to Fed Chairman Yellen.[48] In other words, it's a Trump rally. Yellen is a an Obama appointee and she's certainly in a position to know what's going on. Actually, I suspect cuts in regulation are at least as important as fiscal policy. Once we stop worrying about carbon footprints, we can crank up the American job creation machine. People with jobs get married and vote Republican. PeterKa (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2017 (EST)

Or partying like early 1929??? Let's hope not!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2017 (EST)
With Trump in office, hopefully it will last for at least four years. Maybe it's partying like it 1926, but we'll see. Future elections can always mess things up too, and the media might decide to crash the market again, like they did to Bush. We'll see. --David B (TALK) 11:36, 28 February 2017 (EST)
There is a forecast for at least two interest rate increases this year. That would abort immediately any government stimulus, assuming Congress passes it. So the question for Congressional Republicans is, Who are you gonna believe, Trump or Yellen who holds the Sword of Damocles. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 13:47, 28 February 2017 (EST)
Trump is cutting back on regulations and might simplify the tax code, but his increased government spending on the military and infrastructure at a time America has a federal debt of around $20 trillion could cause debt related economic problems. Conservative (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2017 (EST)
Why Conservative, you almost sound like a liberal! You're right, defense costs a lot of money, but that is not the main budget expenditure. Entitlements, pensions, education, etc. cost the government much more that defense. Obama was putting us at risk by weakening or military, so I'm glad to see Trump building it up again. He should be cutting the other fund sinkholes, but it will be hard for him to do so. If you cut anything other than military, the liberals scream, and start shutting down the most inconvenient (and inexpensive) services like school sports to make everyone scramble to give them more money. --David B (TALK) 12:10, 28 February 2017 (EST)
Trump ran on a massive infrastructure stimulus. It's how he won the working class Rust Belt. I don't see why he should be criticized now by establishment critics like User:Conservative. He was sent there to drain the swamp. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 13:37, 28 February 2017 (EST)
The national debt decreased by $12 billion since Trump took office.[49] Trump may be much more fiscally responsible than people think. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2017 (EST)
$12 Billion decrease is about 1.2% of a $9 Trillion debt ceiling increase. Trump would have to reduce the debt $12 billion per day for two years (365 x 2 x 12b = $8.76 Trillion) until the Midterms to neutralize the increase. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 18:31, 28 February 2017 (EST)
The national debt increased $200 billion in Obama's first month. It doubled during his two terms from $10 to $20 trillion. If the debt decreases $12 billion right when Trump first takes office, right after the biggest spender in U.S. history, it is a very good sign. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2017 (EST)
The point that needs contrast in the US National debt article is, GW Bush was a wartime president throughout his 8 years, Obama only 3 years. Yet the proportion of the debt overwhelming is Obama's. In any nations history, wars cause an explosion of debt which curtails in periods of relative peace. Obama undoubtedly abused the goodwill of the American taxpayer to further a socialist agenda, i.e., destroy the American system. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 00:41, 1 March 2017 (EST)

Strategic doctrine[edit]

David B, when was the last time a nuclear power suffered a major military invasion? America has a debt to GNP ratio of 104.17 which is higher than most countries as can be seen HERE. It needs to cut back now and not procrastinate until there is trouble. People need to work longer. Many previous generations worked until they could no longer work. Conservative (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2017 (EST)

DavidB, I told myself that I was not going to get involved in any more online political discussions. I am going to keep this promise for the foreseeable future. My guess is that most political discussions don't change people's opinions much anyways and I do need to attend to other matters. Conservative (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2017 (EST)
It hasn't happened, but just imagine what would have happened if we had lost the cold war. The USSR would have almost certainly expanded by force. Socialism and communism can only survive by taking money from people who earn it and giving it to those who don't. Once the supply of untaken money in the country in depleted, it must take money from other areas, or collapse. In this case, it (mostly) collapsed because it didn't dare get into a full-blown fencing match with us. Had our military been weaker, we probably would have lost. Thankfully, it was strong, and God was on our side (or rather, we were sufficiently on His side). We can't sit around waiting for something bad to happen, to decide we should start investing in the military. By then it's too late.
Anyway, you're right. I generally try to refrain from debating as well--I should know better than to jump in. Cheers! --David B (TALK) 16:54, 28 February 2017 (EST)
1990sguy and DavidB4, maybe you guys are both right.
Consider this article: US election: Could Trump really cut the US $19tn debt in eight years by selling off government assets which includes natural resources like land, timber and offshore oil?
Trump can be a creative and bold thinker. G.W. Bush and Obama should have both sold off some government property to lower the debt. I hope the Trump administration carries out Trump's plan to sell government assets. Conservative (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2017 (EST)

After all is said and done, the economy and politics is very hard to predict in the United States. For example, i just read this article: How Opponents Sank A GOP Bill To Sell Off Federal Land — And What They Learned.

Maybe Trump's solution of selling the national debt will be more politically feasible once the consequences of the federal debt becomes more costly. Conservative (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2017 (EST)

Interesting. The sale of government property would make sense--put it back into the private sector where it can be put to good use, while reducing costs. The government isn't even allowed to own property, not that anyone pays any attention to that. Well, I guess we'll see how it goes. --David B (TALK) 20:57, 28 February 2017 (EST)
There is only one way to "lower the national debt", or more properly, reduce the growth of the national debt. And that is to repeal the Social Security Withholding Tax.
The national debt is not like a mortgage payment or credit card balance that can is repaid by the labor of the debtor. It is a debt owed to workers driven by the worker's labor. The more a worker earns and pays, the more is added to the national debt.
Selling off resources would be a onetime, minor reduction in the growth of the debt. But everyday babies are born who one day become workers, whom the government will siphon their paychecks for a debt to be repaid in the future. Hopefully, the government may think, they'll die from some pestilence before being forced to repay them. And destroying families through drugs, abortion, divorce and other social ills saves paying survivors benefits.
The good news is, getting the idiot young people to pay now, willing, buys old folk's votes for Democrats. But things are changing now. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 01:00, 1 March 2017 (EST)
As far as my criticism of Trump's spending on defense/infrastructure, I was told that I almost sounded like a liberal and I was also called an establishment critic. Considering the fact that I voted for Donald Trump, I find these charges odd. It is definitely a mistake to turn Trump into some kind of demigod who is immune from criticism. That is not healthy in a free society. It is in places like North Korea where the leader of a country cannot be criticized. Donald Trump himself said he is fine with the press criticizing him when he makes mistakes and that he merely objects to when they are being dishonest.
Second, Trump is a political right leaning politician which is good. And so far his cabinet is the most right leaning cabinet the U.S. has had in a long time. As far as his presidency, he has inherited a mess. And he faces tremendous opposition from the liberal media and also faces a weak Democratic Party that may become the "party of no" and reflexively oppose much of what he does for the next 4 years. He also faces liberals in the judiciary such as the 9th Federal Circuit.
In addition, he faces a baby boom and older generation who does not want to reform social security even though some changes are needed due to people living longer.
On top of this, there is a 20 trillion dollar federal debt which is a huge amount.
America also faces a crumbling infrastructure which is really not an opportunity to stimulate the economy but merely an expense. For example, if the roof of your house needed to be repaired, you would not be overjoyed that you have a chance to stimulate your personal economy, but rather see it as a necessary expense you have to engage in.
Furthermore, our allies in Europe face a lot of problems of their own right now (economic problems, Muslim immigrant problems, etc. etc.).
And if that were not enough, he faces an impatient public that wants results quickly.
The Bible says to pray for your leaders. Today, when I thought of: the many problems that the US faces; the sacrifice Trump made by temporarily leaving his position of head of the Trump organization; and all the opposition Trump faces to make some positive changes, I told myself that I should pray for Donald Trump. Conservative (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2017 (EST)
That's all good spin but it ignores two facts: (1) Republicans already voted to up the national debt to $29 trillion, which means his budget proposals are going to happen, details need to be worked out; and (2) his main opposition has always been within the Republican party, particularly from conservatives. Democratic opposition is week and meaningless. They can only whimper and howl and only affect outcomes in the face of a divided GOP. And Trump has divided the GOP. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 11:13, 1 March 2017 (EST)
Conservative, I wasn't trying to attack you, nor do I think you are a liberal. I was attempting to say that it a friendly, conversational way. I have debated the topic of national debt with a number of liberals, and many of them soon come around to the claim that national defense costs too much, and should be significantly cut. The Obama-phones are vital, but we have no need for a missile defense system, of course. My point is that yes it is expensive, but it is one of the main reasons for the existence of government ("provide for the common defense"). Is that expensive? Of course, but it not why we are broke. This is why I added that chart to the national debt page--to show how the US was spending its money (in 2011...I need newer data).
I also agree that it's not a good thing that infrastructure needs work. When the economy is a disaster, the US seems to think that the solution if for the government to provide jobs for infrastructure and other public projects. That is not a solution.
RobS, I would dispute the claim that Trump's main opposition comes from the right. The GOP has been throwing him under the bus at almost every street corner, but the democrats are driving the buses and using every other tactic they can to take him down as well. His own side should be supporting him, but the democrats are still fighting tooth-and-nail.--David B (TALK) 11:33, 1 March 2017 (EST)
P.S. Thanks for fixing my typo there, Conservative. --David B (TALK) 14:31, 1 March 2017 (EST)
We don't need missile defense? Missile defense is cornerstone of US strategic doctrine. Missile defense ended MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction. Missile defense has another name - Assured Survival. Without Missile Defense, we would return to some form of MAD, and in today's world you have unstable regimes and lunatics with nukes - North Korea, Pakistan, Iran.
What's more, you can't unlearn the technology. If we didn't have it, competitors would soon be copying it and continuing to develop the technology from where we left off. In the end, we'd be forced to jumpstart our program.
When discussing nuclear strategic doctrine, cost is a consideration, but it shouldn't be treated like other budget items. And it is a shared responsibility of voters, elected officials, and the experts to educate themselves and discuss these matters. But it shouldn't be looked at as a trade off for more food stamps or social program subsidies in the budget debate. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 01:07, 2 March 2017 (EST)
RobS, I think DavidB4 was being sarcastic when he mentioned the missile defense system. I think all of us can agree (hopefully) that missile defense is vital to the security of the U.S. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2017 (EST)
Oh yes. Thank you. In my haste the incorrect conclusion may be inferred I was criticizing DavidB4 on Missile Defense, whereas he gave a very pointed illustration of confused liberal reasoning and arguments. My thanks to DavidB4, and apologies for the confusion my statement created. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 15:17, 2 March 2017 (EST)

I thought about my previous comments. I am really not in a position to assess the military readiness of the USA military. However, it does seem like we are pouring good money after bad in Afghanistan given its history of bogging down the British/Russians, its mountainous terrain and our weak partner there.

You also had Obama pushing leftism in the military which probably damaged the military.

And I am glad Trump said that various NATO members need to contribute more as do are Asian allies. Given the US Federal debt level and other problems, I don't think the USA can afford to shoulder as much as it did in the past. Conservative (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2017 (EST)

Here's the plain truth about Afghanistan: Afghanistan has one export, heroin. It's a $65 billion business globally. If the US does not control it, you have two other choices, possibly three: the KGB, the Taliban, or possibly Chinese intelligence service might get interested.
Now, when the Taliban controlled the Afghan heroin trade, they used revenues for terrorist camps and to knock down the World Trade Center. When the KGB controlled it in the 1980s, it helped keep the Soviet bloc going for a few years. The Chinese have only been involved in the distribution end, but know how use it effectively. It was the Chinese that flooded South Vietnam with cheap dope to get American servicemen hooked. We not only lost the war, America's been wrestling with a drug problem ever since.
So those are your choices. The CIA can't give up the global heroin trade to anybody else. The United States must keep control of it (unless of course, you trust Russia). RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 06:44, 2 March 2017 (EST)

RobS, A few points:

1. The turning away of the Russians from atheism seems to have made them stronger militarily. Their military technology is getting much stronger.

2. Overall, at least in the midterm, they face bleak prospects as they face an aging population and an imploding population.

Here is my evidence:

It seems like the Russians will beat anti-missile defenses by 2018. And there electronic warfare systems seem powerful.

But ultimately, they will face bleak prospects due to low fertility:

Your thoughts? Conservative (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2017 (EST)

Uh oh... based on the name of their ultimate ICBM, it sounds like the Russians exchanged atheism for Satanism. I guess Armageddon is upon us... Pokeria1 (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2017 (EST)
Russia and the US have a parody bogeyman relationship. The Cold War split was a bi-polar world. The rise of China and collapse of the Soviet system created a tri-polar world. Yeltsin originally wanted to join NATO. NATO was created originally for one purpose only, to contain Soviet expansionism. When Russia was denied admission to NATO, with a wink-and-a-nod the fiction of US-Russian strategic competition had to be maintained so as to not frighten an emerging China. This created a tri-polar world. The West and Russia did not wish China to view NATO's continued existence in the post-Cold War era as a threat to China, and/or a return to a bi-polar strategic arms race.
Hence, of all the nuclear Powers, Russia and the US have a near monopoly with 94% of all nuclear weapons. Again with a wink-and-nod, Russia and the United States will maintain that edge in both sheer numbers of weapons and technological advancement so as to not ever let China catch up despite China's overwhelming manpower superiority and its eventual economic domination.
This collusion between the US & Russia is evidenced by the fact Reagan, who started Missile Defense (formerly known as Star Wars), offered to share the technology with Russia. (See #3 in the list). And Russia's ability to modernize its military has been by revenues generated from its partnership with Exxon (the Russian federal budget depends more on mineral resource extraction than corporate or individual income taxes), a deal negotiated by Rex Tillerson with Putin between 1995-98. Indeed, Putin owes his rise and success in Russian politics to the deal he made with Tillerson.
As to the demographics, yes, the Russian Federation has a declining birthrate like Germany, and a resident Muslim population with higher birthrates. Russia's big fear for 2 or 3 decades now is jihadis coming in from outside, from Afghanistan or Syria for instance, and stirring up the native Muslim population, who became largely secularized in the Soviet era. (See paragraph on the brewing jihadi hotspot of Chechnya and Zarqawi, founder of the Islamic State). For this reason it seeks an alliance with Germany and the West (meaning NATO and the US). RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 13:11, 2 March 2017 (EST)
A word on Russian jamming of NATO equipment in Syria. Any weapon or counter weapon always looks good on the drawing board, but is never proven effective until its combat tested. The Syrian war provided opportunities for both NATO and Russia to combat test, in real live fire combat situations, technologies and equipment that have been updated since the last go-round of NATO vs Russian equipment (how many decades has that been?). Since the US has a monopoly as the only country capable of setting up and maintaining a No Fly Zone, the obvious efforts are to defeat it and defend against efforts to defeat it.
Another bonus for Russia is to test out its modernized conventional strategic doctrine - a reliance on Special Forces copied from the US & NATO, rather than its out dated mass formations used in Afghanistan in the '80s and during WWII. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 15:42, 2 March 2017 (EST)

The Russia-Trump conspiracy theory[edit]

The Nation, yes The Nation, has a thorough debunking of the various Russia-Trump conspiracy theories: "Kremlin-Baiting President Trump (Without Facts) Must Stop" Highlights: The NSA is only  “moderately confident” in the JAR hacking report. The Russians are not the only ones with access to the "Agent X" source code, so we can't say for sure that the hackers were Russian intelligence. If the Russians did hack the DNC, that's pretty routine stuff. Whether or not WikiLeaks got Podesta's email from the Russians is a separate question the report doesn't address. Trump's supposedly "lavish" praise of Putin is tame compared the things FDR said about Stalin or Clinton about Yeltsin. PeterKa (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2017 (EST)

It's just Russophobic hate and paranoia. McCarthyism and guilt by association smears. And that's how it should be responded to. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 00:32, 1 March 2017 (EST)
Clinton had Vince Foster and Mena airport, Bush had the 9/11 Truthers, and Obama had the birthers. This iteration of the delegitimizing conspiracy theory is probably the silliest one yet. Liberal conspiracy mongers were active at CPAC: "An Actual False-Flag Operation at CPAC." PeterKa (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2017 (EST)
This issue here isn't them, its us. It's not KGB interference, it's the politicization of the FBI & CIA. Trump needs to confront Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post directly with the Justice Dept & the IRS. And in doing so, put the CIA in its place. And the FBI needs a good overhaul, too. Congress needs to establish something like an independent, non-partisan, two year task force or commission with a bunch of retired Inspector Generals and federal judges to look at that agency top to bottom and make recommendations. We need, essentially, something as ambitious as the 9/11 Commission to make recommendations for reform and restructing of our entire federal law enforcement system. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?`
Last year, Sessions talked at the Heritage Foundation to group of over fifty ambassadors, one of whom was the Russian ambassador. Now he has to recuse himself from anything to do with Russia. It's sounds like the Valerie Plame affair all over again.[50] When they implement voter ID, the Dems lose 5.5 points in the popular vote.[51] A crackdown on voter fraud is the nuclear bomb, the end of the Democratic Party. PeterKa (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2017 (EST)
This is all bull. Hadd anyone yet named a crime that was committed? RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?`

Why was the Atheistic Japan and Child Pornography article deleted?[edit]


I need to know (since Conservative's Talk Page doesn't actually allow for edits), why was the Atheistic Japan and Child Pornography article deleted? The deletion log never gave a reason for the deletion. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2017 (EST)

It was moved to Japan and child pornography because it can be argued tha the Shinto religion is is theistic. There are a lot of non-religious people in Japan, but non-religious is not synonymous with atheism although there can be overlap. Conservative (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2017 (EST)

Shintos in WW2[edit]

WW2 Japan was not an atheist state but a Shinto state. The Emperor was revered as divine because he was supposed to be a descendant of the Sun Goddess, (Amaterasu) The Kojiki and Nihon Shoki of Japanese mythology make the emperor's status as a divine descendant of Amaterasu clear (Son of Heaven). As the son of heaven, the emperor's power was absolute unlike emperors in China under the mandate of heaven. During WW2 the state strongly controlled Shinto teachings as pushed such narrative in order to support nationalism through Shinto religion. -- IluvAviation

The above editor is referring to the "Nanking massacre" section in Atheism and Mass Murder. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2017 (EST)
It was removed from the article. Conservative (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2017 (EST)

Jarrett moves in with the Obamas[edit]

Holder claims that Barack is now "ready to roll" as leader of the opposition. But after seeing the pictures of Barack on vacation, I have my doubts that he is in fact all that eager to get back into the politics. The Obamas and Valerie Jarrett will be one happy household, according to "Barack Obama's close confidante Valerie Jarrett has moved into his new DC home." Living together with your wife and female secretary sounds like the plot of a romcom. OK, my theory is that Michelle and Jarrett are lovers and that Barack is hoping that they will leave him alone so he can spend more time with ESPN and "body man" Reggie Love. PeterKa (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2017 (EST)

I've heard Barack & Michelle's marital problems surfaced like two days out of the White House, too. As soon as Barack was out of the limelight and the two flew to Palm Springs. She left the next day and left him there. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 01:32, 2 March 2017 (EST)

Jarrett's in with the Obama's cause they knew Obama's police state tactics was about to explode and she's there to help with the spin. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 05:41, 5 March 2017 (EST)

Has Andy gone "Hollywood"?[edit]

President Trump's television ratings are high? You betcha! People are tuning in to see what the next cockamamie spew-age His Highness expels! 03:02, 2 March 2017 (EST) CastorPollox (talk)

Obama Administration and the Russia "controversy"[edit]

Is appears that the Obama Administration "raced to spread and preserve information about possible communications between associates of then-candidate Donald Trump and Russians."[52] This probably shouldn't be a surprise, however, considering how the Washington establishment and the leftist mainstream media is trying to do all in its power to destroy Trump. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2017 (EST)

There doesn't seem to be any actual news on this front. The New York Times or whoever made a decision to pull the plug on the positive feedback that Trump was getting for his speech and refocus on Russia conspiracy mongering. Senator Claire McCaskill, one of Sessions' accusers, also meet with the Russian ambassador and then incorrectly claimed she hadn't: "Claire McCaskill Claims She’d Never Meet With Russian Ambassador, But Tweets Prove She Has." He's just not all that memorable, I guess. PeterKa (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2017 (EST)
The investigations are exploring any connections between Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 Presidential election and members of the Trump Campaign. The first step in an investigation is to explore connections or contacts between the Russians and people active in the campaign. So, the first question is what contact did you have and the second is what was discussed. Sessions made the correct decision to recuse himself from the investigation. Trump supporters do not help the cause by either criticizing the existence of an investigation or arguing that "everyone meets with Russians." If one looks and the statement of US House and Senate members, their tact is to welcome the investigation and insist that it be conducted in a fair and bipartisan manner. Thanks, JDano (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2017 (EST)
"Recuse" is a misuse of the language here. A lawyer recuses himself from a case or from a "matter" that might lead to a legal case. I interpret Sessions' statement to mean that he won't get involved in issues that he shouldn't get involved in. PeterKa (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2017 (EST)
This is all bull. If anyone needs to be prosecuted, it's the Obama people for civil rights violations and misuse of the NSA. And the CIA has no business being involved in domestic politics.
It's obvious what happened. Russian hackers hacked the DNC & Podesta, and offered to share the info with Trump's people on an ongoing basis. They probably had them hacked in late 2015 when they made the offer. However, there's nothing illegal in this under US law. If Hillary, Podesta, and the Democrats are so stupid and reckless with sensitive information, they deserve to be hacked and loose the election. And they ought to be sued by their employers for negligence and carelessness. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?`
A question that is more essential might be: Why do liberals need conservatives to share in discussing their fantasies that are so obviously based on wishful thinking? VargasMilan (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2017 (EST)
Great minds think alike, and even I am starting to think like President Trump. His answer: "The Democrats are overplaying their hand. They lost the election, and now they have lost their grip on reality." VargasMilan (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2017 (EST)
@JDano and @VargasMilan, there could not be a better example of liberal hypocrisy. Liberals elevated Edward Snowden to celebrity hero status for exposing how the NSA could use domestic spying on American citizens to attack political opponents and manipulate domestic politics. This is exactly what has happened, and is happening here. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 22:48, 3 March 2017 (EST)

This has nothing to do with Snowden, Clinton or the NSA. The point is that it is improper or illegal for the Russians to interfere with USA elections or to hack into any USA computer. There is no need to defend the Russian conduct or adopt a defensive posture. Conservatives want the investigations to be fair and non-partisan. Defending Russian hacking makes it a partisan issue, which is the intended trap. We can be pro-Democracy and pro-Trump without being pro-Russian-hacking. JDano (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2017 (EST)

Hillary and the DNC remind me of a little kid who didn't lock up his bicycle and got it stolen. They didn't act like adults and the Russian hacking and hacking in general was so easily predicted. Trump got the GOP to tighten up their security.
Trump is right that Hillary has been consistently outsmarted by Putin. I am so glad she wasn't elected.
Given that the media was so biased against Trump and the level of leftist indoctrination in public schools, I don't think Trump would have won the elections without the hacking which I believe was done by the Russians.
I don't see any conclusive evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians. And unless the Democrats provide it, they will merely slow Trump down, but by no means stop him as he appears to be a very determined individual.
One thing I can tell you is that Putin is laughing now on how he outfoxed Hillary.
At this time, the Democrats are desperate to slow down Trump's first 100 days in office. But American politics is different now. I don't see American presidents having a honeymoon period for some time given the closeness of elections as far as the popular vote and given the polarization of American politics. Conservative (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2017 (EST)
@JDano, you just don't get it. There nothing illegal about the KGB breaking into private webservers from from foreign soil. There's nothing illegal about the KGB sharing the information it garnered. There's nothing illegal about the Trump campaign's contacts or accepting something of value from a foreign entity.
There is something illegal about the CIA aquisition of the Washington Post. There something illegal about the CIA's interference in domestic politics with the Washington Post. The US government spying on American citizens like Mike Flynn is illegal. Leaking the information of American citizens private conversations is illegal. And using US spy agencies to harass domestic political opponents is illegal. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 10:39, 4 March 2017 (EST)
And Trump's fighting back. He too was the illegal target of wiretaps and misuse of intelligence agencies for domestic spying.RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 15:40, 4 March 2017 (EST)
Here is today's New York Times headline: "Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones." Obama spewed out plenty of nonsense when he was president, but I don't recall a headline as disrespectful as this. If Trump just found out he was bugged, the NYT has known about it for some time. Here's what they printed on January 20: "But The Times knew several critical facts: the F.B.I. had a sophisticated investigation underway on Trump’s organization, possibly including FISA warrants. (Some news outlets now report that the F.B.I. did indeed have such warrants, an indication of probable cause.)."[53] "FISA warrant" is legalese for wiretapping, folks. Check the story out before it goes the way of Salon`s pro-pedophile articles.
Sticking it to the hypocritical press like this is red meat for the conservative movement. It sure beats feuding with Schwarzenegger at the National Prayer Breakfast. PeterKa (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2017 (EST)
I should add that "FISA" implies the wiretap was done for national security reasons. We can't the assume that the FBI had probable cause to suspect the Trump campaign of a crime. PeterKa (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2017 (EST)

We're getting a clearer picture. Roger Stone got the hacked DNC/Podesta emails from the SVR (Russia's external intelligence agency) and funneled them to Julian Assange. Nothing illegal in this. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 00:54, 5 March 2017 (EST)

The difference between a Congressional investigation and an FBI investigation is that Congress can and should consider what changes in laws are needed, while the FBI applies the existing laws to the facts. JDano (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2017 (EST)
The scandal ix not in Trump campaign and Russian contacts, it is in the US intelligence and countetintelligence communitity's abuses, including the CIA's purchase of WaPo. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 06:14, 5 March 2017 (EST)
The decision as to whether or not to appoint a special prosecutor is up to Dana Boente, a career DOJ lawyer who is not strongly partisan. Seven days before the end of his term, Obama issued an order to exclude Boente and put Channing Phillips, a protege of Holder, in this position. Fortunately, Sessions was wise to this scam. Schumer has already called on Boente to appoint a special prosecutor. This is an attempted replay of 2003, when Schumer convinced Comey to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the Plame affair. See "Did the Obama Administration Try Stacking the Deck Against Trump at the Justice Department?." Hopefully, the senate will vote to confirm Rod Rosenstein as Sessons' deputy ASAP so that this precarious situation doesn't last any longer than necessary. PeterKa (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2017 (EST)
Special prosecutor for what? You've been brainwashed. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 08:54, 5 March 2017 (EST)
Regardless of the merits, Sessions recusal combined with the upcoming Rosenstein confirmation hearings means it's an issue. If they follow the Watergate precedent, Boente and Rosenstein will defer to the Senate Judiciary Committee.[54] It's eleven Republicans and nine Democrats with Grassley as chairman. Both Cruz and Sasse are members. PeterKa (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2017 (EST)
You need a %$&# crime for a prosecutor. What's the crime? You're starting to sound like a Democrat. You are droning on about nothing. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 15:25, 5 March 2017 (EST)

Secret U.S. war on North Korea exposed -- Thanks NYT![edit]

There was series of high-profile North Korean rocket misfires last spring. It now appears that these "accidents" were the result of U.S. sabotage: "Trump Inherits a Secret Cyberwar Against North Korean Missiles." Here is the pull quote: "Last fall, Mr. Kim was widely reported to have ordered an investigation into whether the United States was sabotaging North Korea’s launches, and over the past week he has executed senior security officials." Perhaps it's all disinformation designed to the keep Kim paranoid. Either way, it's a clever scheme.
South Korea announced the purchase of a Thaad anti-missile system from the U.S. last August. It will be in place by the end of this year. China has replied with "unofficial" sanctions on South Korea.[55] Trump needs to remind Beijing that national boycotts are banned under GATT. PeterKa (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2017 (EST)

This basically is putting a missile defense system on board a ship that interferes and deflects the missile's telemetry, causing it to veer off course (the Aegis system). This was more less known at the time, as North Korea only stages these live test firings for international propaganda value. When the headline read. 'North Korean test failure', it was no accident. The US was serving notice it had the ability to neutralize the threat. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 10:53, 4 March 2017 (EST)