Talk:Main Page/Archive index/148

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


600 million views

Not to be a bean counter, but we now have 600 million page views. I don't know if anyone wants to update that on this page or not--I suppose it's not all that important, but it still might be worth mentioning. --David B (TALK) 21:47, 4 March 2017 (EST)

Thanks. I fixed it. Conservative (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2017 (EST)
Thank you! --David B (TALK) 22:52, 4 March 2017 (EST)

Question for Conservative

Why was Cornelius Van Till deleted yesterday? I have no interest in the article, but it seems odd that this article was deleted. Is there something I don't know? Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2017 (EST)

The previous article was created and then deleted because a quote which mentioned his name misspelled it. It is actually spelled Cornelius Van Til. It has one l at the end of his name and not two. Conservative (talk)
Thanks for reminding me of the change. I temporarily restored the article and salvaged some of the external links from the deleted article. Conservative (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2017 (EST)
You're welcome, and thank you for clarifying and saving the external links! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2017 (EST)
I checked the move log, and there was no page move. When you find a spelling error, it is important to move the page rather than to create a new page by copying over the content from the old page. Legally, we must maintain an accurate history of who contributed what to each page. The history gets moved when the article moves. Thanks. JDano (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2017 (EST)

There were two pages already. No pages were linking to the misspelled page so I deleted it.

I realize there are laws for everything under the sun. But I don't think I have to worry about the wiki police arresting me for the page I deleted. :) Conservative (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2017 (EST)

There is no Wiki police, but someone might sue for copyright infringement. If there is no article history, there is no evidence that the article isn't a copyright violation. PeterKa (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2017 (EST)
Admins are the only ones with deletion power and I have an excellent track record of citing my sources. My articles have lots of footnotes Conservative (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

Article about Obamas wiretapping on Trump

Yesterday just been known about (possible) wiretapping of then president-elect Donald Trump by the Obama Administration, [1], as he also tweeted, is it possible to create an article about this question? Regards, YortKeldher (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2017 (EST)

Yes. Start here Obama wiretaps.RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 15:30, 5 March 2017 (EST)

Americans want a special prosecutor, CNN poll shows

Sixty-five percent of Americans, including 43 percent of Republicans, want a special prosecutor to investigate Russia-Trump conspirogate, according to a CNN poll.[2] Even in the unlikely event that Trump turns out to be a Russian puppet, that is not logically a reason to prosecute anyone. As we saw in the Plame affair, DC juries are 100 percent Dem and are happy to convict any Republican, whether the charges make any sense or not. As I explained above, the lineup on the Senate Judiciary Committee is 11 Republicans and nine Dems. All it would take is for one Republican to flip and then we'd have ourselves a special prosecutor. There is already speculation concerning Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), a notorious Never Trumper. PeterKa (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2017 (EST)

CNN should ask the public if they would rather investigate Obama on suspicion of requesting Trump's computer be tapped before the election, requesting to read the transcripts personally, ordering that information be shared among the intelligence community and passing the transcripts to the intelligence community and Hillary Clinton.
That would seem like an easier investigation to perform, while in the inquiries about whether Trump colluded with the Russians in the election, Trump's opponents can't keep their stories straight, some of them completely exonerating him, others clinging to outlandish accusations.
If the American public knew this were going on and that Trump has already been investigated about the same subject for six months already, I'm sure they would choose a special prosecutor to pursue this second subject instead, seeing that the first potential investigation has already run out of gas. VargasMilan (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2017 (EST)
Look here, for example. The despicable CNN reported on Feb 24, "Priebus later reached out again to McCabe and to FBI Director James Comey asking for the FBI to at least talk to reporters on background: to dispute the stories. ....The White House did issue its own denial, with Priebus calling the (lying) New York Times story "complete garbage."..."The New York Times put out an article with no direct sources that said that the Trump campaign had constant contacts with Russian spies, basically, you know, some treasonous type of accusations. We have now all kinds of people looking into this. I can assure you and I have been approved to say this -- that the top levels of the intelligence community have assured me that that story is not only inaccurate, but it's grossly overstated and it was wrong. And there's nothing to it."
So why now are the "Knives Out For Priebus" according to anonymous White House sources reported by the fake news site Politico? Because he's doing his job effectively. Priebus is the next thing standing in the way of fake media and Obama holdovers' efforts to derail the President. It's a shame people like Sarah Palin, Alex Jones, and Andy Schlafly have been willing to supply the fuel to justify Trump's opponents attacks. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 10:48, 8 March 2017 (EST)
Which came first? The FBI asking the Justice Department to deny the story that Obama was involved in wiretapping Trump or Priebus asking the FBI to deny a report, yet again, that Trump's campaign had contact with Russian spies? If the Priebus request came second, the report Priebus was responding to was probably concocted and delivered by CNN as a fake news copycat accusation to diminish the blame of the misconduct Trump accused Obama of undertaking. So it would not be like Priebus was going out on a limb to refute this CNN story that just-so-happens to be convenient for Obama.
The same parties seeking to overturn Priebus' appointment either know this or will find this out with minimal investigation. The public support you describe enabling these members of Congress Peter mentions isn't particularly within the conservative mainstream; Sarah Palin recently admitted that she doesn't personally write a lot of what appears on her Twitter page, and Alex Jones, at least recently, denied that he was a conservative.
There might be other good reasons to oppose Priebus, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. VargasMilan (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2017 (EST)
(For who is McCabe see here. He's the FBI's political hack who burried Hillary's email scandal). Priebus asked the FBI to go public with its findings-that Trump wasn't involved in anything. And to go on background, i.e., give the New York Times a confidential, closed door briefing so as to minimize speculation and innuendo. And "the top levels of the intelligence community" would be the DNI Clapper, that the NYT was inaccurate. And Preibus had Trump's permission, or instructions, to talk with Comey, Clapper, and Fox News on record. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 21:31, 8 March 2017 (EST)

PMSNBC is in tearful meltdown mode

When you're taking flak, you're over the target. And the media's response to "Towergate" is literally hysterical: "MSNBC Host BREAKS DOWN in Tears, Makes Desperate Plea to Audience." We'll get a look at the Obama administration's FISA and criminal warrant applications before long. House Intelligence chairman Devin Nunes, as well as Judicial Watch, are already on the case.[3] My guess is that the applications are pretty damning. If they weren't, they would already have been leaked. What I want to know is this: Was Mika crying when she found out that Obama wiretapped Fox News reporter Jim Risen? PeterKa (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2017 (EST)

This was the NYT headline on January 20: "Wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aides; Examining Russian Ties; Business dealings of Campaign Advisers are investigated." After Trump tweeted essentially the same thing on Saturday, and NYT headline was "When one president smears another." The reporter who wrote the original story now claims he has no clue where Trump got his crazy ideas from. PeterKa (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2017 (EST)


Why is Conservapedia doing the Deep State coup plotters dirty work? First Flynn, then Sessions, now Priebus, and using Politico, no less.

If Priebus goes, so does the Congress as well. Then Trump is on his own.

I've never seen such mindless, self-destructive partisanship as the bullcrap about Priebus on MPR. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 17:03, 7 March 2017 (EST)

Reince Priebus has always been part of the Establishment. Trump supporters were disappointed when Priebus was made Chief of Staff. He is probably constantly doing the work of the Republican Senate, rather than what Trump was elected to do.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2017 (EST)
Priebus represents Trumps allies in Congress. As RNC Chair, virtually every sitting member of Congress owes Priebus a debt of gratitude. He would be impossible to replace. In rejecting him. Trump would be rejecting the Republican Congress. Furthermore, the very act of removing him would create mistrust between Republicans and Trump, and would violate the terms of the agreement the Republican Party and members of Congress made with Trump to help him get elected. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 17:24, 7 March 2017 (EST)
Rob, I have to disagree with you about the existence of any "agreement the Republican Party and members of Congress made with Trump to help him get elected." Trump won in spite of Republicans in Congress, and owes them nothing. The political obligations run in the opposite direction, with many members of Congress being elected due to Trump's coattails. Priebus was an opportunist who probably claimed more credit for the victory than he earned. In Wisconsin, where Priebus presumably has the most clout, Trump's victory was not due to larger turnout for Trump but due to Dems refusing to vote for Hillary.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2017 (EST)
An attack on Priebus is an attack on the Republican Congress. The loss of support from Congress ultimately will make Trump as effective as Obama, governing by Executive Order which can be undone in a moment. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 19:06, 7 March 2017 (EST)
Priebus's job is to advance Trump's campaign pledges, to keep Congress on Trump's side, to manage the staff effectively, and to minimize the distracting "scandals". Is Priebus accomplishing those goals? I don't see it. Someone else could be doing that job far better.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2017 (EST)
The entire House is up for election in two years. Trump's approval ratings have never been above 50%. In two years House members will be running away from Trump, afraid to be tagged with having voted with the President.
Ultimately, Congress gets its way. For the first time in years, a president has an opportunity to work with Congress. If the president rejects that opportunity, he'll end up signing bills they want, not what he wants. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 20:04, 7 March 2017 (EST)
"Always add 20 pts to Trump. Polls in 2 weeks B4 election had Trump w/ 6% chance of winning MI, 11% in PA & 33% in FL"—Ann Coulter, March 7, 2017. VargasMilan (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2017 (EST)
But that's not the point. In November 2018, 247 Republicans face re-election based upon how they vote now and the remainder of the term. There's ultimately one issue, Did they vote to support the President's program or not? When a President becomes unpopular, as Nixon, Baby Bush, and Obama did, no one wants to be seen supporting him. Remember how Democrats refused to be seen or photographed with Obama? So even when the president has a good idea, it is opposed in his own party. The best he can do to get Congressional support for anything is to keep his mouth shut and let Congress set the agenda.
This is what makes our system so different from the British; the head of government is not necessarily head of his own party when party members must face election alone without him. An outsider like Trump would never get elected Prime Minister cause MPs would never elect him to lead them. In American politics, parties are roughly a function of and controlled by the Congressional conferences. The President is almost independent of party (as the Queen of England is), which is what the Founders intended.
Andy, and no, Priebus influence is well beyond Wisconsin. As RNC Chair, he doles out the cash and resources to district and state races that need it. Republicans have a bigger agenda than Trump has - maintaining control of the House. If Priebus gets fired, say goodbye to Trumps agenda on tax reform and infrastructure. If Priebus can't sell these two controversial items to Congress, nobody can. At which point Trump will be judged by Republicans and Democrats alike as a failure. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 02:29, 8 March 2017 (EST)

Trump is a businessman and he was the star of The Apprentice. If Priebus becomes a liability, Trump will fire him. Conservative (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2017 (EST)

You mean if the Congress of the United States becomes a liability, ignore it. Priebus represents the Congress of the United States in the White House. It should be obvious from the blacklist above, Politico is a lying fake news site with one agenda, drive a wedge between Trump and the Republican party which controls Congress. And Andy has taken the bait from Politico hook, line, and sinker. Why? Because a political novice like Sarah Palin trash-talked Priebus last Summer? or Alex Jones (whose news organization had yet to be accredited to the White House) routinely trash-talks him?
Real world pragmatism trumps ideology every time. Why did Trump make Priebus his first choice? Because Priebus offered the best chance of navigating his programs through Congress. Go ahead, second guess Trump's judgement, or backstab the Republican agenda. You'll never hide or deny Conservapedia echoed the views of fake news sources which openly declared their aim to destroy Trump & the GOP. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 08:59, 8 March 2017 (EST)
Real world pragmatism trumps ideology every time. You must be new here. Oh, wait... JohnZ (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2017 (EST)
Trump's political ideology is a combination of nationalism/right-wing ideology/realpolitik . He is not particularly religious, but he does tip his hat to religion as evangelicals/religious conservatives are part of his coalition and he was raised in the United States which has a lot of Christian influence. In addition, Christianity has influenced right-wing ideology. I also think he has a certain amount of respect for Christianity.
It is also apparent that he has read some of Sun Tzu, but is not a student of Sun Tzu (He has quoted Sun Tzu on Twitter). He attacks weakness, believes in using stealth when appropriate, stirs up choleric/irritable opponents (He sometimes does this to create publicity) and employs speed (in the beginning he was a whirlwind of activity). On the other hand, Trump ignores the Sun Tzu maxim of "And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him." Trump allows too many of his opponents to drag him into low priority or non-priority battles that are best not fought. Conservative (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2017 (EST)
Yah but this discussion is about Preibus and not Trump. And why Conservapedia should be aiding Trump's opponents in destroying the Trump adminstration and derailing the GOP efforts. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 23:28, 8 March 2017 (EST)

The Democrats and his other opponents are managing the slow down the Trump administration but not stop it from accomplishing various important goals. Trump's worse enemy, like most people, is himself. Conservapedia is not going to tip the balance in terms of Trump being effective or ineffective. That is largely up to Trump.

The 9th circuit stopping his barring of visitors/immigrants from terrorist countries was partly due to the Trump administration not having careful language in terms of preventing various foreseeable legal objections from being employed. For example, the Trump administration shouldn't have had permanent residents involved in the ban. Alan Dershowitz said that the Trump administration should rewrite the executive order and resubmit it. This is exactly what the Trump administration wound up doing.

The Democrats, being a weak party, are using various "political gorilla tactics" to hinder Trump and to try to bring him down. I don't think it is going to work in terms of him being re-elected. I believe the national economy is going to be the deciding factor and also how the economy does the PA, MI and WI. Conservative (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2017 (EST)

This is what attacking Priebus at this time does (1) it supports those gorilla tactics which have destroyed Monica Crowley & Mike Flynn, snd have hamstrung Trump, Sessions, and others; and (2) it hinders passing those very tax reform & infrastructure bills that need passage early to effect the economy.
Once the priority bills are passed, the budget, tax reform, infrastructure stimulus, immigrstion reform, and healthcare reform, if you don't like Priebus performance there, than your free to bellyache about whatever you like. Your next best choice for Chief of Staff would be John Boehner who could round up enough votes for passage on those items. But the clock is ticking, and if there isn't movement on all five of these items by May, the whole scenario changes and its not likely anything will be accomplished by the Midterms.
If Trump fails to deliver on those five basic items in his first 100 days, he will be judged a failure by everyone, Republicans included. And too much time has been spent fighting this rearguard action against Obama holdovers, the media, and partisan snipers among his own base supporters. That, and factor in the time he must spend on ISIS, North Korea, and Yemen, there are only so many minutes in a day.
Ask yourself this: if Priebus pulls it off in 100 days, will you be supportive then? And if he's removed now, the onus shifts to the Congress's agenda, which you very well know is quite different from Trump's. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?`
Just like Joe Biden, it appears that Mike Pence will play a major role on legislative strategy.JDano (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2017 (EST)
We'll see come the Summer Recess, if there is success all the way around, or fingerpointing. Now, let's imagine a good portion of those 5 bills get passed, with a favorable likelihood the rest can be completed this year, and the Trump team is still intact, would you repent of your error of trash-talking winners and credit them with making Trump's 100 days successful? RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 10:06, 9 March 2017 (EST)

The TV is

The creepiest trope in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is almost reality, according to the WikiLeaks Vault 7 documents from the CIA: "A programme called Weeping Angel describes how to attack a Samsung F8000 TV set so that it appears to be off but can still be used for monitoring.... After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target TV in a ‘Fake Off’ mode, so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In ‘Fake Off’ mode the TV operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the internet to a covert CIA server."[4] Have you been attending the regular meetings of the Junior Anti-Sex League? PeterKa (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2017 (EST)

I'm not surprised, but it's interesting to see proof. Smartphones, computers, tablets, and other "smart" technology can often be used this way. Since TVs don't have moving parts, it shouldn't be all that difficult to do this, given enough time and funding. Anyone want to buy an old vacuum tube TV? --David B (TALK) 02:18, 8 March 2017 (EST)

Mark Levin

Since Levin blew the lid on Obama's wiretaps, we all need to start keeping a closer eye on him. Here is his latest rant on "RINOcare," as he calls Ryan's health care proposal: March 9, 2017. RINOcare....I wish I thought of the name. PeterKa (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2017 (EST)

Levin didn't blow the lid, Levin gave order and context to information in the public domain, so-called "open source" intelligence. Levin's resume as a former Deputy Attorney General experienced in handling classified FISA warrant applications gave him undeniable credibility.
You want the poop on Levin? the best you can come up with is a guilt by association smear. Here it is: Levin was Attorney General Ed Meese's Chief of Staff. Meese took a $300,000 bribe to keep the Clinton's and Mena Arkansas out of the Justice Department's investigation of Iran Contra. [5] RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 12:02, 10 March 2017 (EST)
To me, the big negative is his business model. He charges people to view his webcasts, and I am not going to pay. Also, people who survive on pay-per-view podcasts/webcasts have more incentive to use "click bait" stories. So, I tend to trust stories that are on advertising-supported media. JDano (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2017 (EST)
I listened to him quite a bit a few months back, but half the program was a commercial for his 89 year old father's book on Lincoln. I no doubt it's a good book, or that his dad needed the income and couldn't sell it elsewhere, but a two minute sales pitch should suffice, not 90 minutes in 3 hour broadcast over several weeks. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 12:33, 10 March 2017 (EST)

Marine Le Pen is NOT a Neo Nazi

Please note: ElijahT did not support his claim so the title of the post was changed. Conservative (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2017 (EST)

Lets not go no pretending here. Marine Le Pen and her National Front party are Neo Nazis. Unless you want Conservapedia to become appologists for Neo Nazis I would stop supporting them.--ElijahT (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2017 (EST)

Want France to return to its original state? How about they confront the truth about the French Revolution about how it was a horrible period of time, and restore its monarchy. Oh, and also have everyone completely obliterate the Pantheon and smash the Philosophes' and destroy their works. THAT would get France back on the right track without needing to bring in Neo Nazis. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2017 (EST)
Labeling her a Neo-Nazi is probably extreme, however, she shouldn't be called a conservative either. She supports big government policies that conservatives have repeatedly spoken out against. Progressingamerica (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2017 (EST)
EliJahT, I understand that some people on the right side of the political spectrum lie. With that being said, the left, which had a history of lying, has stepped up their lying to such a height where I now have to assume their lying until proven otherwise. It wasn't always this way. Walter Cronkite was a liberal, but he also spoke the truth sometimes. He was the "most trusted man in America". Now the left is a sewer and we have joke news from Buzzfeed/CNN, etc.
I did a quick check of your claim that Le Pen was a neo-nazi and here is what I found from Britain's Independent newspaper which is a major newspaper:
"Ms Le Pen has deliberately erased the tape of that history. She says that she would have supported Charles de Gaulle against the Nazis and the collaborationist Vichy regime in 1940. She says that her “de-demonised” FN is not a “far-right” party but a patriotic champion of ordinary people, of all races and religions, against the betrayals of the “elites”...
[She] is both a “nationalist” (anti-European, anti-immigrant) and de facto a “socialist” (trade barriers and subsidies for industry; a higher minimum age; and a reduction of the retirement age to 60). She is also, as a double divorcee, socially liberal. She supports abortion and some gay rights. Many of the ambitious young men who surround her are openly homosexual."[6]
She doesn't sound like a neo-nazi.
And being French, she is to the left of Trump in her politics. In the USA, many would call her a liberal. At the same time, Hitler was for big government and his party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party. European politics, including Hitler, has been on the leftist, big government side of the spectrum for some time.
It seems to me that the big issue in French politics is the Muslim immigrant issue. It doesn't seem like their is a rush to bring neo-nazism into French politics.
The main point I am making is that unless you provide evidence, merely throwing out a claim is not going to cut the mustard.Conservative (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2017 (EST)
We cannot infer a states ideology by what they call themselves, The Peoples DEMOCRATIC republic of Korea is a casing point. I ask you to do this? Look up the history of The National Front in Europe and France in particular. I am guessing you will change your mind. It is unfair to compare Trump to Le Pen, Trump is (in the literal no partisan sense) a democrat, IE he believes in democracy, that is the single most imortant thing about being a good politician. Le Pen is using the democratic system but she is not a democrat.--ElijahT (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2017 (EST)
@Conservative, we should probably be careful in distinguishing between "anti-immigrant" and "anti-illegal immigrant" or "pro-immigration reform" or "immigration reform advocate". As you know the commie/libs will exploit any innocent typo to prove you're a racist, or that nationalism = racism, etc. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 16:17, 10 March 2017 (EST)
My post did acknowledge the history of the National Front, hence the "erase" in my above post. And you offered no rebuttal. In short, you are the typical leftists and it is like talking to a brick wall. There is no genuine dialogue happening as you did not respond to my counterpoint. And you did not offer evidence that she is a neo-nazi. Conservative (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2017 (EST)
Marine Le Pen is NOT a neo-Nazi. This is just leftist claptrap. It seems that they will compare anyone they disagree with the Nazis. The fact that some of them are calling her a neo-Nazi just shows how far left the leftists themselves are.
Now, that said, I don't think she is really a conservative either. She definitely does not have a Christian foundation in her worldview. She supports abortion, and based on her comments, she does not have a high view of Scripture. However, regardless, she is not a neo-Nazi, and I think she is the best candidate in the presidential election. All the other major candidates are leftists who are even worse than her. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2017 (EST)
@1990'sguy, This is an interesting read, especially the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs. Putin & the boys may be backing-off LePen and favoring Fillon. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 16:42, 10 March 2017 (EST)
Interesting article, that Russia might prefer Fillon to Le Pen. If the EU listened more to its constitutents and gave more power to its member-nations, the European leaders wouldn't have to worry about who Russia is supporting in these elections. Fillon won't do anything about the EU, and I think it's possible he might pull a "David Cameron" on immigration if elected (which seems unlikely now). The establishment in Europe needs to be shaken up, and I think Le Pen is the best candidate for that right now. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2017 (EST)
She'll have to do it on her own without Putin's help, evidently. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 18:01, 10 March 2017 (EST)
So, "thoros", an opinion piece from The Guardian is your proof?[7] Le Pen is not her father. She has said many statements in support of Jews and has condemned anti-Semitism. She has also stated that Jews in France should stay in France because they are French. This is not anti-Semitism. Just more leftist claptrap on your part. Her father is a holocaust denier, but there is no evidence that she denies it. Also, incivility and name calling is not a good strategy to win a debate. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2017 (EST)
Heard Le Pen speak last nite for the first time. She seems to be a great public speaker, although I didn't understand a word of it. A very commanding and imposing presence. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 16:54, 11 March 2017 (EST)

A comment above said, "Trump is (in the literal no partisan sense) a democrat, IE he believes in democracy, that is the single most important thing about being a good politician." RESPONSE: The Founders and Trump believe in a republic, not democracy. Hillary would be president if the U.S. were a democracy.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2017 (EST)

That is true. A republic (or a mixed government) is the best form of government on Earth, and that's what the founding fathers supported. The U.S. and the West, have gone too far in the direction of democracy. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2017 (EST)
What we're seeing played out here is a replay of the US election. The mainstream media and establishment slandering LePen because she's a reformer. The same will happen with Frauk Petry (the "the Hate Preacher") as the German elections approach in September. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 16:02, 10 March 2017 (EST)

France has double the percentage of Muslim immigrants than Britain. And the French are less tolerant of ethnic/racial/cultural diversity than the British/Germans/Spanish. They even take steps to make sure their language is not Anglicized.[8] The backlash is building up and the Muslim population is growing. In addition, the young are more open to the right in France due to high youth unemployment. If Le Pen doesn't win this time, she has a good chance of winning in 2022.[9]. And if Le Pen wins, then the EU/Euro is dead and politics will shift more to the right in European politics in an even bigger way. Conservative (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2017 (EST)

@Conservative, France has had Muslim immigrants since 1837, are you speaking of double the immigrants in the current wave, or French Muslims by birth? RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 16:22, 10 March 2017 (EST)

The monarchy

Maybe Le Pen isn't a neo-Nazi, but my point still stands: The only way France can actually fix its country is by outright rejecting the French Revolution and French Enlightenment, going back to a French Monarchy. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2017 (EST)
Whut r u, on drugs? RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 16:51, 10 March 2017 (EST)
No, I'm not on drugs, I'm just saying that the French Revolution and the results of that have ultimately crippled France as a country. Or do I need to remind you that the French Revolution resulted in the September Massacres, the Reign of Terror, and an anti-religion policy that's still in effect to this day, not to mention far too many so-called "philosophers" that advocate that the Jacobins in 1793 "didn't kill enough people" and adhered to Communism, the direct descendant of the French Revolution. That's why I'm suggesting that they bring back the monarchy. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2017 (EST)
Now, I agree with you, Pokeria1, that the monarchy was better than what came after it, but the 17th and 18th Century monarchy was not very good either. The failures of the monarchy (overspending, selfishness, persecuting and driving out the industrious Huguenots, etc.) led to the Revolution. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2017 (EST)
Yeah, and Marie Antoinet and King Louis XVI tried to avert those elements when the Revolution happened, actually tried to get reform, and what thanks did they get? By being backstabbed. Besides, I'd argue that the French Enlightenment had far more blood on their hands than just the monarchy, especially when they tried to push anti-religion and tried to destroy Christianity far more than the monarchy tried to get rid of the Huguenouts. In fact, I'd argue that the French Philosophes, including Voltaire, would have advocated for murdering the Huguenouts just because they held any religion at all since they consider it "superstitious nonsense." Pokeria1 (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2017 (EST)
And I agree with you that the monarchy was better than the Revolution. But the monarchy was still bad for France. Louis XIV depleted his treasury due to the Palace of Versailles and his other spending wants and needs, for example. The nobility resisted any attempts by the Louis XVI to be taxed, and the weight of taxation lay solely on the Third Estate -- not good when the country is suffering from poor economic and farming conditions. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2017 (EST)

Prospects for Western Civilization

The French could turn things around if they recognized they made a mistake regarding the Huguenots,  :) See: Protestant cultural legacies. :) Conservative (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2017 (EST)

RobS, Islamac fundamentalists have more children and Islam is becoming more terrorism prone. The foreign Muslims are not assimilating and are being discriminated against by French. On top of this, unemployment is a problem so people are less receptive to immigration. The whole Muslim immigration thing is not working out. Conservative (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2017 (EST)
I agree with Conservative regarding France and the Huguenots. But more importantly, they need to follow Psalm 33:12. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2017 (EST)
According to "population experts", France is the last hope of survival for Western European Civilization. Hence the importance of this election.
Population experts maintain a fertility rate of 2.1 (or 21 births per 10 child bearing females) is necessary to insure the replacement and growth of a population. The EU average is 1.3, and some experts claim a decline below 1.6 is "irreversible". France's rate is the highest among EU members at 1.9, but still below the 2.1 rate necessary for survival of a population.
The current influx of Muslims average 2.4, but range as high as 3.5 and 6.0 from country of origin. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 17:31, 10 March 2017 (EST)

There is a growth of evangelical Christianity in the world which is good (Protestant cultural legacies) and third world countries are getting better economically.[10] So globally things are getting better.

But I am pessimistic about Western Civilization long term. Given the growth of evangelical Christianity in China, I think the 21st century will be an Asian Century. Jim Rogers, who founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros and made a lot of money (but Jim Rogers is far more conservative and leans toward the Austrian School of Economics and he is a nice man as well, unlike Soros), thinks the next century is going to be a Asian Century. Rogers said that you wanted to be the most successful in the 1800, you move to England. If you wanted to be very successful in the 1900s, you moved to America. If you want to be the most successful in the 21st century, you will move to Asia.

But I think you can be economically successful in most places. I know someone from an extremely poor country who studied hard and he improved his situation and probably lives well despite the poverty in his country now.

I could be wrong. The US is a dynamic country. But the USA is not being selective enough in its immigration policy as far as having a policy to bring in the best and brightest. And Devos faces an uphill battle in terms of improving the USA's school system given many people's attachment to public schools.

If Western Civilization does not turn around and stop their decline, it will have a big impact on the global economy. Conservative (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2017 (EST)

Just as the Seven Churches in Asia of the Book of Revelation were swallowed up by Islam, so to will all of Europe be devoured by 2050. NATO has no future. The US needs to open the floodgate for European refugees now in a second wave of mass-migration from Europe to North America for those wishing to escape enslavement. North America is now the seat of "the West". RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 22:20, 10 March 2017 (EST)
Hindus and Muslim get along in India. American and Irish Protestants/Catholics managed to tamp down animosity. The different religions get along in Singapore. I don't see secular French getting along with Muslims though long term as both camps have such opposite views and the French are less tolerant than the Germans (no headscarves rule, Muslim terrorism, etc). It is hard to say what will happen. Maybe I am wrong and they will find a way to get along. Maybe they will largely occupy different parts of France and/or have low levels of conflict. Maybe there will be a civil war. Maybe the native French will knuckle under. Maybe the Muslims will be driven out of France. Maybe the native French will flee France.
The Germans are much more practical in that they force the people to learn German.
But overall, I think the Muslim immigration is going to fail. When there are high levels of Muslim immigration, people feel less of a need to assimilate. There will be problems with terrorism, Muslims raping/attacking the native born women as a form of hostility and there could easily be immigrants who don't assimilate and are less productive. And at a time of aging populations, Europe cannot afford to have lots of people on the welfare rolls.
If the native French were to flee France in large numbers, which I doubt will happen, and were to come to America, they would probably want to change America so it would be more leftist. But fashion and food would would improve. :) Conservative (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2017 (EST)
Take a look at Germany. The government has brought in more than 2 million Muslims in the past three years to make up for a population decline. They think this will keep their economy aflout, at least in terms of its current level of GDP. It won't. But as a result of this policy, more young healthy Germans have fled the country, in addition to a declining birth rate and an aging population, giving an exponential gain to the Islamic takeover. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 23:46, 10 March 2017 (EST)

"France’s director-general of intelligence, Patrick Calvar, has been clear: “The confrontation is inevitable,” he said. There are an estimated 15,000 Salafists among France’s seven million Muslims, “whose radical-fundamentalist creed dominates many of the predominantly Muslim housing projects at the edges of cities such as Paris, Nice or Lyon. Their preachers call for a civil war, with all Muslims tasked to wipe out the infidels down the street.""[11]

Between a rising right-wing France and a growing Islamification of France of a fundamentalist character, I think the secular left will eventually come out on the short end of the stick. Conservative (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2017 (EST)

Secularism is treated as a state religion in France. It's called Laïcité. The principle was enshrined in law back in 1905 after the Dreyfus affair. Even Le Pen doesn't challenge it. It's the reason Charlie Hebdo, a left wing magazine, can poke fun at Mohammed. Polls show Macron beating Le Pen 60 percent to 40 percent. In the less likely event that Fillon wins the primary, he also beats Le Pen by a comfortable margin.[12] PeterKa (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2017 (EST)
No, secularism is not a "state religion" regardless of what France claims, or even a religion for that matter. Does it have a deity? Supernatural powers or entities? An afterlife? All three? If not, it does not qualify as a religion. Comic book superheroes have more of a chance at actually being a religion than secularism does, since they at least have supernatural or at least superhuman powers. Besides, I thought secularism was meant to indicate something OUTSIDE religion anyways. So far as polling, the polls indicated that Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump by a considerable margin, yet it if anything turned out to be the complete opposite, so I wouldn't rely too much on French polling if I were you. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2017 (EST)
Secularism can be a religion just like Atheism is a religion, particularly if its adherents hold to it with strong zeal and devotion. A religion doesn't necessarily need a supernatural focus or aspect. See the Merriam-Webster definition, particularly #4. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2017 (EST)
There is unfortunately no simple way to translate laïcité or even to explain what it means. It's a toned down version of the Cult of the Supreme Being, a form of deism that was a state religion during the French Revolution. The cult had temples, festivals, and so forth. Laïcité allows the French to be Catholic or whatever in private while maintaining a public attitude of respect for "Republican values." PeterKa (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2017 (EST)
@Conservative, earlier you referenced the French are less tolerant of ethnic/racial/cultural diversity than the British/Germans/Spanish, in theory yes, in practice of late, no. 'No Go Zones' originated in France, neighborhoods where migrants congregated to self-segregate and resist efforts at integration. The government, law enforcement, police, fire, rescue, social workers, and tourists refuse to go. It is also known as "the French Model" of migrant settlement, adopted by Sweden in Malmo. Rinkeby and elsewhere, prevalent in Brussels and London, too. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 14:09, 11 March 2017 (EST)
OK. Conservative (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2017 (EST)
I'm bemused, again, at the idea that London has no-go zones like RobSmith describes. I'm London born and bred, in my 50s, and I don't know of any. There are estates (you call them projects) where I might feel uncomfortable but there is no area I wouldn't visit, either for my Church work or for myself. Yes, some tourists wouldn't visit some areas - just like I will never again visit some areas of St Louis, Detroit, New Orleans and Philadelphia - but perhaps it's a question of what you're comfortable with. Ditto Paris. We visit friends in Paris once or twice a year and every time we go I spend an afternoon or two in the flea markets around Clignancourt and St Ouen. That area might worry mainstream tourists with no experience of a multicultural inner city but there's no shortage of police on the streets there.
There are no no-go areas in London to the authorities. I have friends in the Met and, although they might be cynical about some places, they laugh at the idea that any part of London is closed off to them.
Britain and Europe is a bit of a grey area for Conservapedia, possibly because it's a long way away and we have different ways of seeing things. Heaven knows there's a bug enough conceptual gap between Britain and the rest of Europe. But there is no excuse for such erroneous generalisations when you have the internet and users who know Britain from the inside. Rafael (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2017 (EDT)

I was too pessimistic about Europe. With God all things are possible and revivals are difficult to predict. 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."[13] See: Atheism vs. Christian revival and Christian apologetics Conservative (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2017 (EDT)

Amen. I agree 100%. In fact, revival is the only hope for Europe. Did you know the croissant was made to co-memorate Christendom's victory over Islam? RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 21:50, 12 March 2017 (EDT)

Obamagate and FISA

Nice try, son, but I think you'll find RobS knows far more about London than a mere local such as yourself, just like he knows far more about wiretapping than James Clapper. JohnZ (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2017 (EDT)
Clapper's reputation is in the crapper.
It is a silly game everyone here is playing to maintain secrecy. FISA allows wiretapping of persons, not locations. That's how Clapper can say under oath, 'Trump Tower was not wiretapped', or Kucinich can say 'My Congressional office was wiretapped', without giving out national security secrets. Trump, who is trying to get in control of this tool, says, 'My wires were tapped'. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 12:21, 12 March 2017 (EDT)
Sure. Trump's specific (and explosive) allegation, of course, is that Obama ordered a wiretap on him. If you want a clear measure of just how weapons-grade this [removed] is, you don't have to look any further than Spicer's press conference in the aftermath. He was happy to double-down on demonstrably false rubbish about inauguration crowds, but wouldn't touch this wiretap "story" with a ten foot pole. Anyway, I'll leave you with some (genuinely interesting) food for thought about fake news. JohnZ (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2017 (EDT)
Let's understand some basic facts: (1) the FISA warrant and application will never ever be made public. (2) Comey has admitted such documentation exists. (3) Right now it is in the hands of Lindsey Graham & Shawn Whitehorse. (4) I'm happy to go ahead with the narrative provided by Dick Morris.
The only surviving documentation we will ever see is in the Memoirs of Lindsey Graham. Loretta Lynch's and Obama's Memoirs can be dismissed as CYA fabrications. Just as you will never find written documentation of Hitler ordering the Final Solution or Nixon ordering the Watergate break-in, so too we will never see documentary evidence Obama granted authority to Loretta Lynch to obtain a FISA wiretap on Donald Trump -- UNLESS -- an NSA archivists can produce an email or audio tape of a phone conversation between Lynch & Obama someday 50 years from now. More likely, it was a personal meeting, like the meeting between Lynch & Bill Clinton in an airport hanger to minimize surveillance of electronic transmissions. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 15:08, 12 March 2017 (EDT)
I just wrote something on the wiretapping allegations here. They were reported earlier by the New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, and various other impeccably liberal news sources. But when Trump says the same thing, the media acts like he's crazy. Levin was chief of staff at the Reagan justice department. How many reporters have better credentials than that? To answer Trump's question, "Is it legal?" Yes, it is -- and the president doesn't need to use warrants or FISA. Check the link I gave if you don't believe it. PeterKa (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2017 (EDT)
Legal? technically yes. But this is exactly the same sort of anti-democratic action Obama, Hillary, the DNC, the liberal media, and conservatives accuse Putin of. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 16:12, 12 March 2017 (EDT)

@PeterKa, read your narrative, it looks pretty good. Let me give two suggestions to bolster a few points.

  • (1) Here is the Brennan memo issued January 6 to spread innuendo. This, coupled with the directive to disseminate and share NSA information collected on American citizens, with no regard to their privacy rights, is what lead to a spate of low level leaks about "Russian hacking" "Russian hacking" among low level government employees and junior reporters trying to make themselves important as Inauguration day approached.
  • (2) Graham & Whitehorse public demand from Comey for warrant applications and related information, and Comey's compliance with Congressional Oversight demands, pointedly refutes Clapper's denial of a FISA warrant. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 17:49, 12 March 2017 (EDT)
What's happening now is, everybody, and I mean everybody, the Trump team, the media, Congressional Republicans and Democrats, the IC (Intelligence Community), need cover. They ALL overplayed their hands, and they ALL need to recede into cover up. So a Congressional report has to be written by the Midterms, or released shortly after, giving EVERYBODY -- Obama, the CIA, Trump, Comey, and whoever else, appropriate cover. Everyone's objectives thus far have been met. A Putin-Trump alliance is on the backburner, the CIA, Intelligence Community, and Pentagon can proceed with longtime objectives President Obama vetoed (just review criticisms Panetta, Gates, and Hegel had of Obama). Once Trump compromises with the IC, they will get behind his leadership (and the remaining Obama shadow warriors are ousted). It's a draw. Now all that's needed is a bipartisan cover story.
So, if your a diehard Russophobic deadender, you're barking up the wrong tree. It's going nowhere. As time goes by, Donald Trump's ability to pull an Ace from up his sleeve (in FDR's day they called it a 'rabbit out of his hat') will only improve. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 01:41, 13 March 2017 (EDT)
Occam's razor suggests Trump was simply talking rubbish. I applaud your creativity and imagination, though. JohnZ (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2017 (EDT)
The PC party line can change so fast it's a wonder liberals don't get whiplash. Prior to Trump's tweet, there were multiple independent news reports concerning this investigation, as you can see from the narrative of this issue that I wrote. PeterKa (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2017 (EDT)
It's simply a pointed lie Trump provided no evidence. And Trump does not have to provide any evidence anyway. It's his journalist-critics claiming he provided no evidence are the same who provided the evidence. As Levin said, "Don't they read their own reporting?"
It's a non-issue. And a snivelling vindictive little schmuck like John McCain needs to be held to account.
It's a dead issue. Delay delay delay. No action til March 20. Delay. Negotiate. There are two issues here: Revealing more to the public about FISA, which even a sitting president doesn't want, or going into Russian connections which will, as Comey had already said, won't hurt Trump. But it will hurt Manafort, Podesta, Biden's son, and the Clinton Foundation. So Burr, Warner, Nunes, and Schiff have to negotiate a closed door deal over the remainder of the term to find out that nobody is at fault, and nobody needs to be prosecuted.
Meantime, the only usefulness to keep it alive is in fundraising letters. The watchword is Delay. Delay. Delay. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 21:28, 13 March 2017 (EDT)
I'll admit I'm uncertain whether: a) you're lost in one of your periodic bouts of conspiratorial musth; or b), believe you're fighting the good fight for your C-in-C by dissembling like your life depended on it.
Either way, you come unstuck in exactly the same way as Trump by conflating Obama (the man) with an ever-expanding sprawl of government agencies, lumped together under the heading of the "Obama administration".
I'll grant you it's effective polemic, especially when offered up for the benefit of an audience desperate for some distraction from the raging dumpster fire that Trump's made of the presidency to date.
Unfortunately, though, it's also very likely complete rubbish. Even Levin is trying to walk it back now: "I never said that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped." Note also the quote at the bottom of the linked article. He talks about Obama presumably being given a "heads-up" about the FISA warrant, rather than having ordered it himself. JohnZ (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2017 (EDT)
To put it short and succinctly, your latest anti-Trump rant just demonstrated in part why Trump was elected President in the first place. Northwest (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2017 (EDT)
@JohnZ, don't misunderstand me, please, but this is exactly why conservatives think liberals are pigheaded, boorish, and dense. No one ever said, not even Mark Levin, that Obama had Trump tower wire tapped. The New York Times said it.
Just as the CIA torture and Fast and Furious investigations were covered up, so too will Obamagate/Russagate be covered up. Why? Primarily two reasons, one institutional and one partisan. Partisan reasons: both sides have something to loose, so there ultimately will be a bipartisan cover up before end of the 116th Congress. Institutional reasons: these matters deal with FISA (which even the Trump White House has signed off on renewal before Trump tweeted about it, meaning the Trump White House has no intention of ever allowing information about FISA wiretaps becoming public), which is about as super-secret as you can get in the US. You can't blame a White House, the Office of the President, or US Justice Dept., for obtaining a single FISA warrant to encompass the traffic of 300 million Facebook users (basically equal to the population of the United States) when Congress gave them the authority. And 33,000 FISA warrants have been issued in 33 years, or a 1000 a year, or 20 a week, or 4 daily, 1 every 2 hours. This, in spite of the fact the 4th Amendment guarantees citizens the right to be secure in their person and effects.
For this reason, the very language of the law and FISA rulings and precedents are kept secret, so that lawyer's can't challenge it in open court. You have the right to meet your accusers in court, but not under FISA. Members of Congress supposedly have Congressional immunity, but not under FISA, evidentaly.
So there are very few lawyers familiar with precisely how the FISA law operates, but among them we know are Mark Levin, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton. It is well known Bill Clinton refuses to use emails, two reasons apparently, (1) no paper trail, (2) no NSA metadata collection under FISA either. Now, let me theorize momentarily: when Bill Clinton barnstormed the idea to sink Trump permanently, he couldn't call Loretta Lynch on the phone and say, "Hey, I got an idea. Get a FISA warrant on Trump to neutralize Hillary's FBI/email problem." But he could say, "Meet me in Phoenix at the airport. I have something to discuss with you personally." He should know how to get a FISA warrant passed a FISA court, he did it everyday for 8 years.
But Lynch screwed it up, it took two, and in some reports three attempts.
The paper materials will never be made public. Lindsey Graham demanded them a week ago. At best, maybe, the FBI might allow him 5 minutes to look at the documents in a secure location on their premises, but I doubt that may even happen. Look how much time has passed since he asked, and Comey panicked the next day going to Congress to speak to the leaders of both houses and the heads of intelligence committees. He has to assure them he'll do everything to satisfy Graham, which evidently will take weeks of negotiation. Ultimately Graham will make one of three statements: "I have examined the documents...." (unlikely), or "Dir. Comey has assured me ...." (fill in tbe blank), or "Dir. Comey has assured me there was no FISA warrant..." (but after Hoover, nobody's gonna buy this line).
We'll know this afternoon. If Comey wants to ignore Graham, it ultimately will lead to joint select committee to look into - not Trump and Russia, but FBI and IC itself. This means of course, dredging up a bunch of past sins like Hillary's emails, Podestagate, James Rosen & the AP, Sharyl Attkisson, and a bunch of other potentially illegal activities of the Obama administration. Before it's over, Obama will be sounding like Dick Cheney:"We had to it to protect the country from terrorism," and "We had to hack into the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee to protect John Brennan's involvement in torture because, after all, he's the guy that located bin Laden to help me get re-elected." RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 07:48, 15 March 2017 (EDT)
You've got to be kidding me. Trump said it, several times, on Twitter on March the _______ 4th.
Look, I'll even give you the next move. Take your pick from:
  1. Trump "misspoke".
  2. Trump's an idiot with the attention span of a gnat and didn't read the Breitbart article properly.
  3. Trump was having a bad day and just ran his mouth / keyboard fingers without thinking about the consequences, or, you know, the fact that he's president with responsibilities and stuff.
I'm obviously leaning towards a combination of 2 and 3, but it's your move, not mine, so please don't let me influence your decision. JohnZ (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2017 (EDT)
You're missing much the point here. If you're looking for scandal, you won't find it. If you're looking for law breaking, you won't find it. If you want to learn how the United States government, Executive Branch, agencies and Departments and two Houses of Congress operate, you have an excellent opportunity to observe here.
Start here: go to Obamagate_timeline#2013. Familiarize yourself with the AP investigation. A terrorist attack was thwarted by the FISA law. The story was leaked (like the Bowling Green massacre was). FISA warrants were obtained against 20 AP reporters to discover who the leaker(s) with knowledge of FISA inside the government were. This is how closely guarded anything connected to FISA is. It's not that 20 AP reporters did anything wrong to have their rights violated, they got caught up in an internal review investigation.
When Levin held up a copy of the NYT with the terms "Trump wiretap" in the frontpage headlines, Levin is asking the ODNI & DOJ, Will the leakers be investigated like in the AP case? Will tbe DOJ get a FISA warrant against the NYT for the same breach of security? RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 20:40, 15 March 2017 (EDT)
A bipartisan solution: Clinton allies back off slander, lies, and innuendo Trump involved with Russians. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 14:07, 16 March 2017 (EDT)

Trump's moves to take control of the CIA

Trump's authorization to the CIA to expedite drone strikes, that with Pence's statement Julian Assange should be locked up for life, and the firing of Flynn, are the first steps to repair the breach with the Intelligence Community. It is IC's turn to come around, and they can begin by telling McCain & Graham, "False Alarm!" "There's no 'There' there!" RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1`

The issuance of authority to CIA for drone strikes without the checkback provisions Obama had is a Win-Win for Trump and the CIA. It gives the CIA authority to do drone strikes on leadership of militias loyal to the Syrian regime while at the same time giving Trump deniability he ordered strikes against Putin and Assad allies.

This is presumably payback for Russian intervention in Syria. In late 2015, John Kerry arranged for Syrian peace talks with Assad and the Russians on one side, and the 'Syrian opposition' and US on the other. However the Russians whacked the 'Syrian opposition leader' the US groomed after talks were agreed on but before the US puppet could get to the table, leaving Assad & Putin in full control and making Kerry & Obama look like the idiots they are.RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1£

2 million more migrants

Turkey is about to unleash right now 2 million more Muslim migrants on Europe, on top of the nearly 7 million over the past three years. Additionally, the Rand Corp. plan for a post-ISIS Syria later this year to set off another wave. Europe is toast. North America stands alone as "the West". RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 05:30, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

I'd hate to think that this was true as far as Europe goes, which is why the conscious decision of many of the continent's governments to allow in Islamic invaders may well be to their long-term detriment when their people finally have enough and give them the boot from office, then elect new leaders who'll take decisive action against the invaders and, if the liberal media that supports said invaders lips off about it, tell them to take a hike because that same liberal media is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Northwest (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2017 (EDT)
I'm coming more and more to the belief every dollar and minute we spend on NATO is a waste that will bite us in the butt. Look at the facts: 82% of of the 2.5 million migrants to Germany alone in the past three years are male 14 to 34 years of age. That's 2 million. Germany's armed forces are 250,000, with a total of 450,000 counting reserves. Why did we ever bother fighting two World Wars, only to allow the German military to face Mecca and pray five times daily in a matter of a few months? RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 19:57, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

Techies with Iranian links handled IT for House Dems

Back in early February, five IT contractors were terminated for snooping on the House Dems. Now it turns out they all owed money to a pro-Iranian Iraqi politician: "You’ll Never Guess Who Was Really Mad At Wikileaks For Releasing the DNC Emails". The contractors were Pakistani Shia Muslims with ties to Iranian intelligence, bankruptcies, foreclosures, etc. It's hard to see how they could have passed even the most rudimentary security vetting. Yet they were paid $170K a year each to manage IT for several dozen House Democrats. Next time Pelosi accuses Trump of being a Russian agent, somebody needs to ask if she is an Iranian agent. PeterKa (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2017 (EST)

Two of them are under investigation for the DNC leaks to Wikileaks. One had access to Wasserman-Schultz ipad and password. [14] No Russian hackers here, an inside job as most have said all along. The question is, who's investigating this, the FBI or Capital Police? (There is a separation of powers issue here, the FBI is in the Executive Branch, the Capital Hill Police unless I'm mistaken work for the Legislative, and it's likely the two keep their distance from each other). RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 13:40, 11 March 2017 (EST)

Summary: There never was any Russian hacking. It was an inside job. These guys are the designated fall guys. Only after they alerted al Qaeda in Yemen the SEALS were coming and Ryan Owen was killed, were they fired. And it still took several weeks to get rid of them.

Now, it can be argued, the DNC was being patriotic in refusing the FBI access to it servers to put a stop to rumors of Russian hacking. This is because counter-intelligence's primary job is to map the network of an organization subversive to the US government, and not law enforcement. This means the FBI could have been on to the brothers since last July and were trying to learn their operational methods and contacts in al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood abroad. Only when their activities were undisputably linked to the death of Ryan Owen, were they stopped. Then a phased withdrawl of the counterintelligence surveillance led to the story being dripped out in fragments over the month of February.

So the DNC has cover here, they were cooperating with US counterintelligence, and the "Russian hacking" scam was only a cover and collateral damage to President-elect Trump, a student of the game who wants to be trusted to control it someday. Obama evidently mastered the game quite well over eight years, giving him deniability on much. But any Chicago city Councilman could have done equally well in dealing with the bureaucracy. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 12:57, 12 March 2017 (EDT)

The ringleader, Imran Awan, has worked for Wasserman Schultz since 2005. He got three brothers and a friend hired by the House Dems as ghost employees and together they collected $5 million. The sergeant-at-arms banned the Awans on February 2, but Wasserman Schultz continued to consult Imran. Meanwhile, the brothers were running a fraudulent car dealership. I guess we now know why the DNC didn't let the FBI examine its servers. I hope Sessions puts some Dem leaders in jail soon. It's obvious they currently have no fear of the law.[15] PeterKa (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2017 (EDT)
Yes, that's much of what happened. It conflicts with the Russian hacking narrative, but eventually Wasserman Schultz and the DNC will say the FBI asked them to keep them on the payroll and to not turn over their servers to buy time to investigate their al Qaeda contacts in Yemen. If Navy SEAL Ryan weren't dead, they'd still be there.
Meantime, the CIA bagged Flynn and derailed Trump's proposed detente with Putin, leaving the DC Intelligence Community establishment in control of US foreign policy - at least until Trump can learn the game from inside. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 15:58, 12 March 2017 (EDT)

Conservative victories in India

Indian PM Narendra Modi's party, the economically and national security conservative B.J.P. won a major victory in the elections today. I don't think any party has ever won victories as large as Modi has in Indian history. India is a primarily Hindu nation, so it does not have a Christian foundation (in most places--some states actually have 90% of the population as Christians). However, on economics and foreign policy, Indians are choosing the right path to take. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2017 (EST)

Another case of "racial gerrymandering"

Another batch of judges ruled that a state gerrymandered to weaken minorities by placing them into a single district. This is part of the leftist political correctness, and it is also very arbitrary as I think race is the only factor that legislatures cannot consider when gerrymandering. Minorities actually originally advocated for the type of gerrymandering that the courts are ruling against, as it would give them more of a voice. Now that they reversed their stance, as it appears to be giving them less political power. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2017 (EST)

A case for making some districts competative

On the subject of gerrymandering, the Freedom Caucus illustrate's one grave danger of making some seats non-competitative. These so-called "safe seats" in strong conservative gerrymandered districts, the competition only occurs in a primary, which produces the strongest, most bull-headed, hardnosed, stubborn candidate. The result is, these ideologues go against the national party leadership, determined by an election of what the national consensus is among Republicans, of what it means to be a Republican, or conservative. Theses ideologues are only beholden to a local constituency, and not the national party, or the country as a whole.
Lack of competition is not good in a democracy - this why I am a Republican, cause Democrats seek to silence and destroy opponents. And these Freedom Caucusesers, the product of a monolithic gerrymandered district, feel no sense of duty or obligation beyond getting re-elected. They try to absolve themselves of the harm they do to democracy in much the same way Democrats do. Their efforts are to destroy their enemies -- members of their own party who don't agree on every point. They are, and never will be more than an uncompromising minority.
State GOP legislators need to begin looking at this problem in a more sophisticated fashion. Some districts do need to be balanced and more competitive. It is the essence of democracy. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 15:44, 28 March 2017 (EDT)
I'm not sure that would do any good. The Democrats in the competitive districts seem quite left-wing. While I do think it would serve the Freedom Caucus good if they were more pragmatic, I don't think becoming more moderate is synonymous nor of much good. You can be very conservative (to the extent of the FC) and still be a pragmatist. Look at Otto von Bismarck for example. Also, the values of this nation when it was founded (Christian-based moral values, limited government, freedom for the states, republicanism over democracy, etc.) are nearly universally (if not outright) held by conservatives today, and if districts were more competitive, I would be worried that much fewer elected officials would actually advocate for those values. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2017 (EDT)
Even if a district is redrawn to say 53-55% GOP vs 47-45% Dem, moderates of both parties would emerge from primaries in the practical hope of winning. The focus should be on candidate selection in primaries, so long as whoever wins a general has appeal to both parties. A 60-40 stacked deck, like you saw in the California general election results for president in 2016, produces the worst candidates in both parties. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 17:51, 28 March 2017 (EDT)
I support a proportional representation system with 3-5 seats per district. Every district would be competitive. Japan uses a system like this. The two-party system disenfranchises all those who are not in synch in with one of the two parties. The Founding Fathers dreaded "factions," as they called them, but accidently picked a voting system that encourages them. A centerist or Perot-style party would reduce partisanship. As a fringe benefit, multimember districts are far more difficult to gerrymander. PeterKa (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2017 (EDT)
Your right, for all the talk of "the wisdom of the founders", our present two-party system the founders feared and tried to avoid. They left it to the second generation of American founders (c. 1824-1828) to create it. Quite simply, the typical American voter today knows nothing whatsoever of the dynamics of coalition building (other than identity politics, which has its flaws). They view the rest of the world's parliamentary systems as chaotic and messy, and are smug in their belief gridlock and squandering years away rather than address problems is superior. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 20:55, 28 March 2017 (EDT)
Not many would vote GOPe if the Bush/Kasich/Ryan/McCain wing had to run as a separate party. What would be their slogan? "More banking bailouts, filibusters, and ObamaCare Lite!" PeterKa (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
You tailor your message to the prevailing winds. For example, in 2008 Obama & Hillary were trying to outdo each as to which one was more qualified to snuggle up to the big warm and cuddly teddy bear, Vladimir Putin. Ultimately they both teamed up, and Obama got so good at it, he wanted to carry on the lovefest another four years. By 2016, the cute'n cuddly little plaything was unmasked as Satan himself, and anybody who can't see that is a blind ignorant fool and traitor. Of course the voters are too stupid to apply the candidates standards to the candidates own record. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 03:25, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
I don't think a parliamentary system is superior to our system, nor do I think that it is misguided to say that ours is better. As we're seeing in Europe today, there are so many political parties that building a governing coalition is extremely difficult, and then after they are formed they are very shaky and last for a short time (many times early elections have to be called). Look at the Northern Ireland elections or the Dutch elections, for example. They're still trying to create coalitions.
Also, many of these coalitions are created by the establishment parties who support the same pro-EU/immigration policies. They purposely shut out the right-wing parties so they can continue the policies that led to the growth of the right-wing parties in the first place.
While there may be gridlock in our nation, at least we have political stability, and at least the anti-establishment actually has a voice here. Leftists, globalists, and socialists in the U.S. love to say that Europe is such an awesome continent and that the U.S. must become like Europe, but Europe is in very bad shape in nearly every area -- much worse than the United States has ever been. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2017 (EDT)'re giving away our secret strategy... Gridlock really is conservative, it shuts down government and progressive expansion. Democrats today are fighting for gridlock - to retake the House in 2018.
My point on European parliaments, and the whole party system which is very different from the US. it gives more people a feeling of active engagement and being involved. Everyone's represented, even the Beer Drinkers Union, even if it's for shorter spans of time. But at its heart is a notion prople must compromise and agree eventually. Our system's weakness is, unless you agree with some hardline Right or Left goals and groups, you are excluded from the process. And moderates, who by nature are sensible and leveled-headed, justifisbly get angry and frustrated, which goes against their nature. Worse yet, they abandon the field to extremists of both parties. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 11:09, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

Trump must be a follower of this page

[16]. (Note to The Don: Did you get my latest communication? No, I can't come to DC before the debt ceiling vote. Will advise. More particulars to follow). RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 13:47, 30 March 2017 (EDT)

How the Blue Wall collapsed

Leading up to the 2016 election, the Dems boasted of their "electoral college lock" and "blue wall." If Trump somehow succeeded at the near impossible task of winning every swing state, the best he could hope for was a bare 270 votes in the Electoral College and victory by the narrowest possible margin. Did this lead anyone to call for reform of the Electoral College? Of course not! The system was rigged for the Dems, or so the smart set thought, and liberal pundits couldn't have been prouder. Trump actually got fewer voters in many of the Blue Wall states than Romney did, so victory wasn't due to Trump's personal appeal or to the brilliant strategy of his campaign team. The problem was that Team Hillary failed to bring out many people who had voted for Obama earlier due to a pathetic advertising strategy, according to a newly published academic study that focuses on Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan: "PROOF: Hillary Clinton Ran The MOST DEPLORABLE Presidential Campaign In Modern History" They ran few ads in these states and the ads they did run lacked specific "point of difference" policy information. In contrast, Trump ads focused on policy 70 percent of the time. PeterKa (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2017 (EST)

As you analyze this data and results, bare in mind where it leaves Democrats going into the 2020 Electoral contest. They must not even 150 electoral votes now, given the GOP sweep of states. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 00:23, 12 March 2017 (EST)
Despite the study I cite above, I'm not so sure that the 2016 result was really all about advertising. What made this election different than any previous election was the preposterous overconfidence of the liberal media. They were convinced that Hillary had a 99 percent chance of winning, or whatever. That presumably discouraged a lot of people from voting. One would expect such hubris to have its greatest impact on liberals in states proclaimed as "blue wall." As far as 2020 goes, it will depend on the economy. With the markets going up like a rocket, the smart money tells us to expect good news. Employment is a trailing indicator, so the recent jump in job creation tells us less. PeterKa (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2017 (EST)

I don't think the Blue Wall Collapsed. It was never a Wall in the first place. I could see it being a wall that collapsed if she actually built a wall and then it deteriorated over time. But she never really invested in those areas sufficiently in the first place.

It may have been called a wall out of arrogance or possibly as a bluff to discourage Trump from trying to gain WI/Michigan. Conservative (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2017 (EDT)

Young Earth creation

Two things:

  • Answers in Genesis will live stream the "second debate" between Ken Ham and Bill Nye tomorrow (Monday) at 8 pm E.T.[17] It will be one of the very few times you will actually see an evolutionist actually agree to discuss creation with someone who believes in a young earth.
  • The movie Is Genesis History? will be shown in Canadian theaters on March 14. This is a great film, probably one of the best films promoting and giving evidence for a young Earth, if not the best. It does give very strong evidence, provided by numerous scientists/scholars with PhDs, many of whom, BTW, graduated from secular universities (one of them, at least, even taught at a secular university for 26 years--Danny Faulkner). I should have promoted this film much earlier. The DVD and Blu-ray versions are on sale now. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2017 (EDT)

Preet Bharara, PC hero

You know you are a liberal martyr when the New York Times fawns over you like this: "Preet Bharara Shunned Politics. His End Was Tinged by Them." So what did Bharara do to rise to this exulted state? He prosecuted conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza.[18] In MSM-land, there is nothing more dangerous than a "minority" who strays off the PC plantation. It follows that there is nothing more awesome than another member of the same minority who slaps the offender back in line. PeterKa (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2017 (EDT)

The Times story includes this anecdote Bharara tells: Someone “made the mistake of asking me the question, ‘What again is your jurisdiction, exactly?’”‘What again is your jurisdiction, exactly?’ And I said, ‘Are you familiar with Earth?’” In short, we're supposed to think of him as the Mohammad Ali of prosecutors. PeterKa (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2017 (EDT)
This is what caught my eye about the prosecution and D'Souza's sentence to eight months in a halfway house:
"Yet there were patent mitigating circumstances, starting with the fact that few people actually get prosecuted at all for this offense. Even in the case of gargantuan violations, such as the Obama 2008 campaign’s own millions of dollars in illicit contributions, the Justice Department allows cases to be settled with an administrative fine. Furthermore, in the few cases that are pursued criminally, there is unvaryingly a corruption angle — the donor is dodging the limits in the expectation of a quid pro quo.
"In D’Souza’s case, there was nothing of the kind: He was trying to be supportive of a friend who had no chance to win."
Andrew C. McCarthy (December 19, 2015). "How Dinesh D'Souza became a victim of Obama's lawless administration", National Review. VargasMilan (talk), 06:04, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

Abuse of block power

Since there seems to have been a recent resurgence of block warring and threats of same ("Watch his step from here on out") by people who received block rights only a few days earlier, this is probably a good time for the users with newly granted block powers (there have been quite a few such promotions in the last few days) to review their charter, from Conservapedia:Guidelines#Assistants, which is an adjunct to the Conservapedia:Commandments:

The block function has been devolved to select users who have shown an ability to be trusted. Many of the current Administrators started as one of these Assistants and this status can be considered a way to evaluate users for promotion. As "emergency Sysops", the authority of these users is limited to warning users of policy violations and blocking for blatant vandalism and harassment requiring an immediate response. [emphasis in original]

To repeat: "blatant vandalism and harassment requiring an immediate response". These people are "assistants", and are being evaluated by the administrators for their trustworthiness.

SamHB (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2017 (EDT)

I know you're targeting me specifically by that veiled comment of yours (and itching to start yet another fight in the process - and if you had block power or were an admin yourself, you'd most certainly engage in what you accuse me of and abuse your power against any conservative on this site you don't agree with), so you need to be reminded yourself: You've been blocked in the past for causing trouble on this site for the sake of pushing your liberal POV here, and you could be again if you continue doing so. That's not up to me at this point, but to one of the admins. Northwest (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

Coopers Australia caves under the weight of homosexual agenda

This article says it all quite well:

In short, an Australian beer company planning to put bible verses on cans was threatened so severely they withdrew their support for the Australian Bible Society. DrTim (talk), 08:07, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

Another unfortunate example of the extreme pressure for companies to disassociate themselves with anything related to Christianity, while it is OK at the same time for them to support homosexual "marriage" and other similar forms of perversion. It is also unfortunate that this company caved into the pressure. I do not admire this company. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

Support for President Trump among Republicans is "sky-high"

According to this BBC article, 86% of Republicans approve of Donald Trump's performance. This number is the second highest for Republicans in the past 65 years, only behind George W. Bush (at the same time through his presidency). BBC is obviously a liberal MSM source, but at least they're a little more honest to admit that some decent people actually support Trump and, indirectly, that the whole "buyers remorse" thing is false. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

Obama is on yet another vacation

Sorry, Holder, but this does not look to me like a man "ready to roll" in his post-presidency: "Barack Obama spotted in Hawaii." The article was originally titled "Obamas spotted in Hawaii" and had to be retitled when the editor realized that Barack had gone by himself. It looks suspiciously like Barack is eager to get as far away as he possibly can from Michelle, Valerie Jarrett and the newly established post-presidency nerve center in DC. The Deep State yearns for your leadership, Mr. Obama! While every Trump and Kushner deal gets scrutinized, reporters never ask how the Obamas can afford a lifestyle of lavish and near continuous vacation. Even billionaires are satisfied with a modest cottage in Martha's Vinyard. The Obamas must have spent a fortune on the palace they have there. PeterKa (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

It looks like Obama isn't rolling anytime soon. He just landed in Tahiti -- again without his family. He will be staying on Marlon Brando's privately owned atoll for a month.[19] He just signed a $60 million book deal for his memoirs. That doesn't sound corrupt at all, does it? Hey libs! You loved him, but he never loved anyone but himself.
The Obama lying machine isn't taking a rest just because the former president is in Tahiti. Here is what Denis McDonough, Obama's former chief of staff, told CBS: "The president cannot order a wiretap, president does not order a wiretap, the president did not order a wiretap."[20] Oh, McDonough pull my other leg, please. Here's 50 U.S. Code § 1802(a)(1): "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year."[21] PeterKa (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2017 (EDT)
Did you read how Obama was in the Carribean, Sessions ordered the biggest cocaine bust in 18 years, and Obama high-tailed it out of there? RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 13:29, 16 March 2017 (EDT)

JohnZ: Future of atheism, new journal article relevant to prior discussion

JohnZ, the abstract for the 2017 journal article The Future of Secularism: a Biologically Informed Theory Supplemented with Cross-Cultural Evidence published in the journal Evolutionary Psychological Science indicates:

After reviewing the pertinent evidence and arguments, we examined some aspects of the secularization hypothesis from what is termed a biologically informed perspective. Based on large samples of college students in Malaysia and the USA, religiosity, religious affiliation, and parental fertility were measured using self-reports. Three religiosity indicators were factor analyzed, resulting in an index for religiosity. Results reveal that average parental fertility varied considerably according to religious groups, with Muslims being the most religious and the most fertile and Jews and Buddhists being the least. Within most religious groupings, religiosity was positively associated with parental fertility. While cross-sectional in nature, when our results are combined with evidence that both religiosity and fertility are substantially heritable traits, findings are consistent with view that earlier trends toward secularization... are currently being counter-balanced by genetic and reproductive forces. ... secularism is likely to undergo a decline throughout the remainder of the twenty-first century, including Europe and other industrial societies (see: Ellis, Hoskin, Dutton and Nyborg journal article on fertility and secularism in the United States and in developed countries).

Et tu, evolutionists? :) Conservative (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

Et tu, indeed :) I notice you snipped the bit where they talk about the inverse association between intelligence and religiosity. Joking aside, I'm still not convinced these trends will be advantageous for your particular brand of conservative Christianity, for the reasons which we discussed at some length above. JohnZ (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2017 (EDT)
The Apostle Paul wrote: "For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble.." (I Corinthians 1:26). Christianity has traditionally helped the poor (poverty can suppress IQ scores), provided redemption and a more productive lifestyle to people who hit rock bottom, etc. (Hedonism can adversely affect IQ scores via heavy drinking, etc). And it has actively evangelized in developed countries which typically have lower IQs.
On the other hand, the Protestant work ethic has created a tremendous amount of wealth and there is a positive correlation between wealth/IQs. See: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
I grossly oversimplified things, but there are a number of ways that religiosity can increase brain power (Prayer enlarges/strengthens portion of brain, etc. etc.). See: Atheism and intelligence and Atheism and the brain. Conservative (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

Asked question on why I can't make new pages

For some reason, I can't see any button to allow me to create any new pages. Is this a glitch/bug? --KommissarReb (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2017 (EDT)

Sometimes people have javascript blockers that prevent them from doing things on websites. Just a guess. Probably a wrong guess, but other than human error, it is hard for me to diagnose the problem. If it happens again, maybe someone can talk you through the problem. Also, a screenshot might help. Conservative (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
Here's what my interface looks like. When you create a new page that doesn't require you to edit a redlink, where do you go? Is this in the rules/commandments or instructions somewhere, and I'm missing the small print? or could I be having a javascript blocking issue like you said? I am using Microsoft Edge on Windows 10. --KommissarReb (talk) 1:22, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
I just promoted your account to SkipCaptcha. Perhaps that will help.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Here is what you do: 1) Using the searchbox, do a search for an article and see if we have an article already. For example, "dog whistle". 2) In the middle of your screen you see see the message: "Create the page "Dog whistle" on this wiki! See also the search results found." 3) Click the red link. 4) Then start filling the webpage with content. Conservative (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Alternative, on an existing article page create a read link. For example, go to the Conservapedia dog page and create a dog whistle link. Conservative (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
If it is technical issue, try using Chrome/Opera to edit the website. Conservative (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
Thanks to Andy and Conservative for the help. I must have forgotten that I could create pages by trying to search for them. As silly as I feel right now for forgetting that, I'm just happy that I can add the entries that I've been meaning to add. I'll be sure to add them when I can. I'll make a list on my user page of all the pages I intend to create if anyone's curious. Feel free to discuss them with me on my talk page. --KommissarReb (talk) 3:19, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Hawaiian judge stays Travel Ban II

Judge Jeanine on the Hawaiian court that put the kibosh on Travel Ban II: "I think all the refugees should go to Hawaii."[22]

Here's a good joke:

Q: Why hasn't Hawaii accepted any Muslim refugees?
A: Too many refugees would cramp Obama's style when he's surfing!

The case now heads back to the Ninth Circuit appeals court. There are currently two vacancies on this court.[23] The second one opened up just a couple of weeks ago. I'm thinking that two Trump-appointed constitutionalist judges could do a lot to turn things around. PeterKa (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Here is a legal analysis: "Hawaii Judge's Flawed Aloha Akhbar Logic". People resident outside the U.S. do not have rights under the First Amendment. In fact, the immigration law itself has long required religious tests to determine refugee status. There is no mention of Muslims or Islam in the Executive Order -- nor are any other religious terms used. The basis for overturning the order is Trump's campaign rhetoric. The judge's logic is, "He's a bigot, so whatever he does is a product of bad faith and invalid." This is law based on peering into the soul of the president. Trump consulted various legal experts in the process of writing the order, and he followed their advice. That's generally considered a pretty strong argument in favor of good faith. PeterKa (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
It's quite clear now that these judges are blocking this order because it does not fit with their political views and their leftist, utopian, "one-world" ideology. I could see some rational reason for temporarily blocking the first order (even though I fully supported it and thought the judges were wrong), but there is zero reason to do it this time, other than because it contradicts the leftist vision for the world. Unfortunately, I don't see how Trump can get two constitutionalist judges into the Ninth Circuit Court before it hears the case. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
The Travel Ban I dissenters have weighed in, and they make some good points: "Five Ninth Circuit Judges Issue Rare Dissent Rebuking The Panel In Immigration Ruling." The majority opinion simply ignored the various precedents and statutes that should have been controlling. On the subject of Trump's motives, the dissenters have this to say: “so long as there is one facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the President’s actions, our inquiry is at an end.” PeterKa (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Ukraine in the GOP platform

Not many people read U.S. political party platforms, or care what's in them. It's hard to see anyone in the Kremlin fretting over one. Yet a misleading WaPo story titled "Trump campaign guts GOP's anti-Russia stance on Ukraine" was able to spawn a massive amount of conspiracythink. See "Byron York: How pundits got key part of Trump-Russia story all wrong" Here is what the final draft of the platform says about Ukraine:
We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning.
PeterKa (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
This plank essentially keeps Assad in power in Syria. The sanctions forbid direct military cooperation and aid between the US & Russia. While there are ways to circumvent that provision to destroy ISIS, there is no way to remove Assad without direct confrontation with Russia.
The main issue of NATO enlargement - allowing Ukraine to join NATO - is absent. In this sense, Putin won, cause its been dropped from the plank. The rest of the language can be tweeked later. It can be seen overall as pro-Russian, meeting his demands to limit NATO enlargement in the Caspian region and leaving Russia as a major player, with a major presence in the post-ISIS post-Syrian Civil war Middle East, while giving idiots like John McCain cover for their tuff talk. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 15:17, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
Putin and Trump already worked out a deal January 29 while Flynn was National Security Advisor. The next day Eastern Ukraine started recognizing Western Ukraine driver licenses and vehicle registrations at checkpoints as valid, a subtle way to expand the power and legitimacy of the pro-Russian government and infiltrate the vehicles and personal back to the West. In exchange Putin's pledged to tone down the violence, while Trump basically gives no support to the Kiev government. And forget Merkel or the EU stepping in to fill in the gap; the Kiev regime is rogue and nationalistic by EU standards. Merkel & Putin are on the same page against sanctions, just as they are about lifting sanctions on Iran. All the rest is fake news from the CIA mouthorgan, the Washington Post, that defies common sense and reality. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 15:39, 19 March 2017 (EDT)

Time to say "You're fired" to Comey

We've known since he cleared Hillary in July that Comey is an incompetent and a liar. ("No reasonable prosecutor", etc) If I understand his latest testimony correctly, he is still actively investigating Trump-Russia links.[24] These are accusations with no purpose beyond delegitimizing Trump's presidency. It would be like investigating Obama's birth certificate, or whether Bush conspired to take down the Twin Towers.

If it was up to me, I'd fire Comey for this statement alone: “No individual in the United States can direct electronic surveillance of anyone. It has to go through an application process, ask a judge, and the judge can then make the order."[25] That's questioning the authority of the president, authority that has been clearly granted to him by Congress under FISA. PeterKa (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

For those getting lost, Peter is referring to this clear congressional grant he mentioned a few headings up:
"Here's 50 U.S. Code § 1802(a)(1): 'Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year.'"
VargasMilan (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
I think it is time for Trump to say, "For every new law in America that is created, two laws must be rescinded." When the FBI director, federal judges and liberal Supreme Court justices are clearly confused by the myriad of laws in the U.S., things need to be simplified.Conservative (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

Snippets are fun, aren't they? Here's a little bit more from 50 U.S. Code § 1802:

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and...

I eagerly await the mental gymnastics required to explain how the above could possibly be used to sanction a wiretap on Trump. JohnZ (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

  • @JohnZ: I guess I misread FISA. (I was misled by Napolitano here, but that's no excuse). Nonetheless, the president is authorized to order electronic surveillance of Trump Tower, or anything else, under Executive Order 12333.[26] So my point with respect to Comey stands. This order is based on the president's inherent powers as chief executive, as well as on the National Security Act of 1947. (Not on FISA, as I had wrongly assumed). PeterKa (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
A FISA wiretap is on a person, not a location or device. See, you're falling for the spin that the government, media, and even Trump himself now is putting out to mislead the public and preserve the secrecy of the true nature of the program. The president is the only constitutional office with authority under his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the United States to order a wiretap without a warrant, order troops into combat, launch a nuke, or hit a US citizen with a drone strike without a Miranda warning, due process, presumption of innocence, or trial by jury. These laws simply define the process by which he exercises those duties. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 02:31, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

The process

To order covert activity, a President must first produce a Finding. For example, a president can say, "I find the the government of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas a threat to national security. Under my authority to preserve, protect, and defend the United States, I hereby order its destruction by any means necessary." Or he can say, "I find such-and-such US citizen to be a threat to national security. Under my authority to preserve, protect, and defend the United States I hereby order his immediate execution." The kicker is, there is no requirement for it to be a written Finding. Although probably most are, there is an instance on record of Adm. Poindexter telling Congress he recieved an oral Finding from President Reagan. Good policy to insure secrecy would be for the Finding to be given to a lone individual, usually the National Security Advisor.

Once the Finding is produced, then a NSDD (National Security Decision Directive) is written by the staff laying out an operational plan to be dispatched throughout the agencies or Departments who will be called upon to execute the Decision Directive. This piece of paper is authorization from the President to order a covert action.

There isn't to my knowledge anyway to circumvent the paper trail, which gives legal protection to those carrying out the covert activity. The only way to circumvent the paper trail would be to have suicide bombers on the staff of the White House, Justice Department, or other agencies, willing to perjure themselves and serve long prison sentences. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 03:20, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

As Nixon explained to Frost, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal."[27] It was a mistake for Trump to focus on whether or not Obama did something illegal. Comparing the Obama administration's surveillance of the Trump campaign to that of Watergate is both valid and explosive. PeterKa (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
I would dispute that it was a mistake. It's one of the most brilliant moves of his career. He checkmated liars and critics. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 20:30, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
Any lawyer would tell you, don't ask a question in public unless you know the answer. It was a rookie mistake. Lots of people knew about the investigation of the Trump campaign -- think of all the leaks. If Obama knew about it and didn't object, that's not really any different than ordering it. All the same, the media and the Dems will never admit Trump was right. Comey's insolent testimony was a major hit on Trump. Here's what I would do: Ask GCHQ to do surveillance on Comey. Have it leak to the Washington Times. If Comey asks about it, say "I can't order warrantless surveillance. I'm only a president, you know." Let's find out if these rumors are true. PeterKa (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
Read this one. It might give you a clue what Trump is up against. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 02:40, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

Process (cont). Now, everybody stay with me please. I'm going to lay out portions of a scenario without any conclusion. Merely food for thought.

A presidential finding is required to authorize covert activity. Covert activity carries over from one president to the next, for example the Bay of Pigs from Ike to JFK, or arming Jundallah Iran from Baby Bush to Obama. JFK was briefed and al!owed it to go forward, Obama terminated Jundallah by Executive Order.

However the type of covert activity directed against Trump is much more compartmentalized and small scale. Obama also took steps in his final two weeks to disseminate an intelligence product from an earlier covert operation. If Comey, for example, is tasked by a presidential finding to carry out an action, he cannot stop on his own without an order from the president. And it is possible for a covert action to be so highly compartmentalized, a new president and administration might not know about it for some time till after they have been in office.

As I said, no conclusion. Let's look at the text of U.S Code 50 Sev. 3903 (a)

(1) Each finding shall be in writing, unless immediate action by the United States is required and time does not permit the preparation of a written finding, in which case a written record of the President’s decision shall be contemporaneously made and shall be reduced to a written finding as soon as possible but in no event more than 48 hours after the decision is made.

This is what Adm. Poindexter testified to, that President Reagan gave him oral instructions, that he wrote it down 48 hrs. later, and destroyed it before Congressional investigators could see it. No law was broken here. (There may have been some conflicting testimony between Poindexter and North, one saying he showed him the paper, the other saying it didn't matter, but the point is moot). So let's imagine Comey got an oral Finding from the president about the sametime Obama signed the authorization to disseminate information (between Jan. 3-12). Then, to bypass ordinary reporting to Congress under"extraordinary circumstances" we come to

Sec (c)(2): If the President determines that it is essential to limit access to the finding to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States, the finding may be reported to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the congressional intelligence committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and such other member or members of the congressional leadership as may be included by the President.

The gang of eight, as you see here. "such other members as may be included" And who can leak, without compromising a national security directive from the president. And we know about the other booby traps laid for Trump. But Trump's not a lawyer nor a politician. He has to learn all these things on his own. As I said, no conclusions, readers might as well start learning about the law and national security, cause this mess might remain front and center for awhile. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 02:11, 23 March 2017 (EDT)

Significance of hearing

The 2016 allegations, and events of January & February (the offing of Flynn & Sessions) is water under the bridge. The story now is Trump's efforts to get in control of these agencies, principally the NSA & CIA. Trump has already made concessions and compromises (dropped his softening toward Russia, allowing the CIA drone strikes without checkback approval from Washington). Trump needs to be in control of these agencies as is, so that he can do to his political enemies what Obama did - and likewise get away with it.
So to any extent FISA leaks remain a concern, it is a reform issue, not a matter of prosecutions. This brings Snowden back into the picture. But the Trump camp has already compromised, referring to wire taps on Trump Tower, not any specific person. This is the government line to maintain secrecy. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 23:02, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
The other significant event that occurred today is, Trump tweeted from his @POTUS account naming Obama by name, speaking as President, unlike the March 4 tweets from the @RealDONALDTRUMP account, which was a private citizen from home regurgitating the garbage he saw on the nightly news. This serves notice, Trump has gained confidence and ready to play hardball with anybody silly enough to challenge him. This is immensely significant. The @POTUS account is not his personal account for ramblings. It belongs to the White House and the nation. He is now speaking as President, the Trustee of the nation. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 23:43, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
  • Another reason to fire Comey: The Trump-Russia investigation began in July 2016 and was not reported to the congressional Gang of Eight until this month. Such investigations are normally reported to Congress quarterly. It's hard to see how the reason could be anything other than partisan politics.[28] PeterKa (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
Comey did okay. He violated no laws. He testifies in open hearing once every thirty days. Now, if under oath a member of congress asked him, "Are you investigating such-and-such, and he said no, later to be proven false - yes, he'd be in a world of trouble. If he answered to the same question, "I can't comment on current activities", it would almost be virtually responding in the affirmative. But no one asked him.
So you're seeing in real time the cover story unfolding. Headlines, based on leaks back in January, were that there were two separate investigations, an ongoing one of Russia, and a separate one of the notorious, traitorous, and corrupt Trump organization. They even lobbied the Electoral College to prevent this travesty from occurring​ and stop this Russian agent and Putin stooge from entering the White House. Now, as you yourself referred to it, the Trump-Russia investigation has been merged back into a single investigation. This covers the government's tracks about FISA ("Foreign" Intelligence) laws being directed at American citizens. In all probability, a FISA warrant was issued against Trump, Flynn, and others, but they can never admit it. So the cover story is becoming what is outlined in Item 2 below. And Trump is using his knowledge of the facts to coerce and blackmail the Intelligence Community into line, and tell Obama to just shut his trap, and watch his step.
It is said Trump is vindictive. Let's hope so. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 04:45, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

Do we know whether Trump is personally operating the @POTUS account or is it some press aide? We should address the difference between @POTUS and @RealDONALDTRUMP in an article. JDano (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

The responses yesterday were flawless and could have been written by someone with a brilliant legal mind (of the caliber of Mark Levin or Trey Gowdy, but obviously not them. My guess would be Rudy Giuliani, a trusted and close confidant and former Justice Dept. prosecutor who has been hidden out of the limelight since November immersing himself in the intricacies of the FISA law and the facts of this and other ongoing cases. He put John Gotti away. He's the perfect pick to go after Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch who appear to be the prime rogue conspirators in this outrageous abuse of government office and powers). RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 11:57, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

Obama defenders & Trump critics thread

So to whoever wishes to defend Barack Obama and hence impugn Trump, the good news is you have been given a choice of one of two lines of defense to argue:

  1. There was a FISA wiretap put on Mike Flynn and other people in the Trump organization. Or alternatively,
  2. There was no FISA wiretap, the Trump people were not directly under electronic surveillance, and Flynn's name, unfortunately, got leaked to the media by high-level personnel in the Obama machine, which may include Obama himself as a suspect in a breach of national security during surveillance and an investigation of Russian officials in the US.

That's it. No other choice. Russian hacking is officially fake news put out by the mainstream media. You do have one further alternative defense: the US asked UK intelligence to surveil the Trump organization under a reciprocal intelligence sharing agreement. Of course the UK already denied it, and I doubt MI5 in London would respond to a Congressional subpoena. In that case, you can argue Snowden was right, and Obama was wrong to persecute and victimize the helpless refugee now living under the protective wing of Vladimir Putin.

These are the choices and the corner you have backed yourselves into. And only an ignorant, irrational person would deny it. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 01:02, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

There is an important difference between Barack Obama giving a direct order as President, and someone working in the federal bureaucracy doing something without high-level orders. For example, in Watergate, President Nixon had authorized the illegal break-in and spying on the Democratic National Committee. I believe that Congress was correct in impeaching Nixon, and that Nixon correctly resigned. If Obama ordered a wiretap on Trump Tower to advance the Democratic campaign (as alleged by Trump and Spicer), I would support removing Obama's pension and secret service protection. Based on Monday's hearing, I do not believe Trump or Spicer about Obama's role. If they have any evidence, they should present it. JDano (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
You sure Nixon ordered it? Because I think one of his staffers indicated that Nixon didn't even know the break-in occurred until AFTER the fact, and was pretty furious and demanding to know who ordered for it.
As far as the FISA wiretap, yeah, I'd suspect Obama did in fact order for the wiretap. Wouldn't surprise me at all, considering all the other parts of the constitution he violated. I still wouldn't say Snowden was a victim, since I heard he had been selling secrets to China, and he had gone to places like China and Venezuela while it was socialist, and he also had ties to WikiLeaks whose founder was an avid Marxist-Leninist. Besides, if he really wanted to clean up Washington and expose corruption, he should have done it like the guys who made The Clinton Chronicles did. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
In the Nixon case, it can be argued Nixon authorized it by granting blank-check authority but had no prior direct knowledge. Also significant in Watergate is no paper trail (it was the extraordinary fluke of tape recordings of oral instructions that condemned everybody). The FISA law is a Watergate-reform intended to prevent the White House from using an outside rogue agency to plug leaks. FISA courts are intended to (a) protect American citizens from civil rights abuses, and (b) prevent leaks from Congress in its role as an Overseer under the advise and consent clause.
The whole concept of "national security" (National Security Act, National Security Agency, National Security Adviser, National Security Council, National Security staff, National Security Decision Directive, national security considerations, national security concerns, etc etc) is a legal construct based on the President's Executive Branch constitutional duty to "preserve, protect, and defend."
FISA courts also are intended to limit rogue elements, like G. Gordon Liddy, which occasionally come into play. At the time of Iran-Contra, there were efforts by some outside the government to paint Ollie North as such an overzealous rogue, but the administration, supported by the paper trail, proved otherwise. No laws were broken, it was just a wrongheaded policy.
Giving the President cover and deniability dates back to the murder of Thomas Becket; he can always argue "I gave no such specific instruction". RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 12:52, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

A note on leaks

A single leak can compromise and terminate an investigation that has been ongoing for a decade or more. This is why it is such a serious offense. And remember, there is a difference between law enforcement and counterintelligence. Law enforcement's objective is to bring prosecutions and render convictions; counterintelligence objective is to neutralize threats and conspiracies that may be originate beyond the reach of law enforcement. The FBI and its Director, usually thought of as the nation's chief law enforcers, has this twin task.

If public charges are brought against a suspect, it may compromise an ongoing counterintelligence investigation to determine the methods and identities of persons involved in a conspiracy. Therefore, counterintelligence's objective is not to secure convictions.

We could go into the Daniel Ellsberg and Pentagon Papers case, but that leak is a different matter that bore ultimately on the erosion of public opinion and support for, and loss of the Vietnam war. In the case of Elizabeth Bentley, an FBI field investigator leaked classified information to a US Attorney seeking prosecutions. Her name (in violation of the agreement and immunity she was granted by the FBI) was leaked to Congressional committees and the media. The 80 plus names of KGB agents she identified fled the country or went underground, and the FBI had to terminate a ten year counterintelligence investigation, (FBI internal memorandum when an investigation is compromised because of leaks). This gave rise to McCarthyism, where large segments of the public felt the FBI was doing nothing to protect citizens from the Russian nuclear threat (which exploded a test bomb in following months) obtained by Russian intelligence with the assistance of American citizens. All this could have been avoided had Justice Department prosecutors been less zealous in playing a public relations game trying to impress people they could win convictions in espionage cases.

Hence the need for government secrecy, and why leakers need to be pursued and punished. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 16:44, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

Trump loses $1 billion

Forbes has estimated Trump's net worth as $3.5 billion, down from $4.5 billion last year.[29] This is said to be his net worth as of Feb. 17. Nothing to do with politics, says the magazine. Manhattan real estate prices have fallen, and so has the estimated value of Trump Tower and the eight other buildings he owns. Fortune has made an alternative net worth estimate of $4 billion.
The Trump kids are chips off the old block. There's a Trump Tower opening up in Manila.[30] PeterKa (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

Key conservative: GOP doesn't have votes on healthcare repeal

They sound like a bunch of suicide bombers, according to that link. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 07:48, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

Muslims! A key driver a right-wing victories. Mathematically and statistically proved!

Muslims! A key driver a right-wing victories. Mathematically and statistically proved![31]

If liberals allow Muslims to enter into countries, it will insure right-wing backlash and political victories for years to come.

In addition, Muslim are against feminism, homosexuality and evolutionism.

Question: Will liberal governments throw Muslims under the bus and bring in Evangelical Christians and conservative Catholic immigrants who also have more children than the irreligious (see: Atheism and fertility rates and Desecularization). Or will they double-down?

Answer: Liberals always double down! History repeats itself over and over and over. Pride cometh before the fall once again. Conservative (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

So what is the liberals argument here? the more gays thrown off buildings, and the faster it becomes the law of land, the better to combat right-wing populism? Liberals need help clarifying their message. We should help. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 11:46, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
Eric Kaufmann is a liberal/moderate who moved from Canada to the UK because he wanted more academic freedom and free speech. Canadians are generally pro-immigration.
He is arguing that if people knew that Muslim birth rates were lower than they think, then they would not be so resistant to immigration.
Anyways, given: an ascendant alt-right that is against immigration and is internet savvy; the right-wing media being ascendant, Europe's sluggish economy; high youth unemployment; immigrants competing for jobs; culture clash and Europeans being less tolerant of culture clash than Canadians; Islamic terrorism and ISIS being squeezed and lashing out at the West, I don't think Muslim immigration is going to work long term.
Kaufmann generally underestimates the role the internet plays in these matters. I think the internet had a big role in getting Trump elected. And the alt-right is really picking up steam when it comes to internet presence and publishing. And they are building platforms and gaining access to internet social media platforms that are not controlled by the left/liberals. For example, Mike Cernovich who pushed the "sick Hillary" meme is now shadow banned at Twitter, but his friend and/or ally Vox Day has dropped Twitter and is getting significant traffic from the free speech alternative GAB. Personally, I have not been very active at social media and have never been at GAB. I just heard there are more racists at GAB. But when you allow free speech you are going to unfortunately have KKK/Neo-Nazi marches, etc. etc. At the same time, you are also going to have uplifting/positive demonstrations of free speech. Free speech has costs/benefits. I just read this about GAB, "The Alt-Right and tens of thousands of conservatives have largely abandoned Twitter for Gab in a mass exodus; another 30,000 joined yesterday."[32]
And the alt-right is generally more harsh/vicious than Christian conservatives.[33] Like if the left doxes people, tries to get them fired at their job, etc. some members of alt-right, such as Vox Day will counter that by doing the same.[34][35]
There are members of the left who are now having second thoughts about attacking Christians given the alternative of Muslims and/or non-Christian members of the alt-right. [36] The leftist agnostic Richard Dawkins declared "Christianity may actually be our best defense against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world."[37][38] Conservative (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
Two points:
  • User1990sguy posted this this morning, it really belongs on MPR. Europe has been overrun by almost 7 million migrant Muslims, 80% male 14-34 years of age, in the past three years. This is more than twice the number of troops put ashore at Normandy in 1944. Strong indications are there will be a second and third wave, of which that link may be the opening. Turkey and Syria have at least 2 million more ready and wanting to immigrate.
  • Read this item from the Glen Beck page the other nite. It says in translation, "Conservapedia is fast becoming a benchmark in the ultra-conservative sphere in the United States and today has more than 100,000 records and 581 million page views since its creation." "records" is the idiom that should be translated "user accounts". You and I both know 99%+ are trolls seeking to discredit and destroy the site. So I'm apprehensive about anything I read or hear, or come into contact with on any site known for political discussions and views, knowing how organized trolls operate, and how the can influence perceptions about any site, worldwide. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 14:50, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

I don't believe that 99% of the web visitors are trolls. A very large percentage of our web visitors are liberals, but they are not trolls. Most people go to a website, read the material, and do not comment on a website. Also, one web visitor found an error in one of my articles and pointed it out which I fixed. Useful feedback is always welcome.

Also, in 2010, Ms. Magazine quoted one of my articles which mentioned that Richard Dawkins had significantly more male web visitors than female editors.[39] About a year later, Dawkins become embroiled in the Elevatorgate controversy (a feminist/Muslim related controversy), which caused him to suffer a huge loss of public influence (See: Richard Dawkins' loss of influence).

The Chicago Tribune also fairly represented one my articles (It quoted my evolution article). Conservative (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

I made a mistake; "records" is actually all pages, so that's not a concern. But CP is on a user generated blacklist, claiming to be the largest of its kind. This may be difficult to overcome going forward. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 15:54, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
The left is imploding in USA and Europe. And nationalism, populism and the right is surging. The opposition doesn't seem hard to overcome at this point.
Andy had to replace Conservapedia's original logo of a scroll due to a hidden message on the logo. He replaced it with a US flag type design. Given the surge of nationalism happening today, the USA flog design may be boosting Conservapedia's US readership. Conservative (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
Leftist ideology is imploding, yes. But that leaves leftist voters a hollowed out shell. The real danger is an implosion on the right, if they prove themselves incapable of consensus building and governing. On implosion on the right would be more catastrophic, because there are more of them. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 19:50, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

I really shouldn't have said that leftism is imploding. Bernie Sanders is very popular. A more accurate statement would be the liberal elitism is losing power due to leftist/right-wing populism and the erosion of trust in the media. Conservative (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2017 (EDT)

It's the beginning of that implosion of the Right the Resistance movement has lusted for. This is only the start now, of Congressional Republicans up for re-election next year jumping ship and distancing themselves from an unpopular and ineffective president. Trump's entire legislative program, budget, infrastructure, border wall, immigration reform, tax cuts, or even the ability to write an Executive Order that will stick, are all imperiled now. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 15:43, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

Meet the new boss: James Comey

The winner with zero electoral college votes: "Comey Is Now the Most Powerful Person in Washington" You get to the top by interfering in elections and by lying to Congress, not by being popular, you know: "Poll: By 2 to 1 margin, registered voters reject Comey." PeterKa (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

The Trump tweets that sparked this episode have been vindicated. See "Nunes: Trump transition members were under surveillance during Obama administration" and "House Intel chairman: Trump's personal communications may have been collected." The leaks on Trump's alleged Russian connections implied the existence of Watergate-like surveillance of the Trump campaign. This was Levin's brainstorm, now confirmed. In the meantime, the media has had over two weeks to brand Trump a liar. It won't be easy to recover. The lesson: Being right is not enough. You need to be a team player. When Trump twitters things that shock Capitol Hill, not to mention his own staff, he ends up in the lurch. That's why leaks and trial balloons were invented. PeterKa (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
For those of us who remember, this whole episode, going as far back as the IRS scandal, the harassment of reporters, and turning Snowden into a modern day Ellsberg, has that Watergate stench about it, only this time bigger by several magnitudes. And the atmosphere the media has created, day by day, is so remeniscient of a nightmare many of us would prefer not to relive. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 19:33, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
At the hearing, Comey couldn't answer very basic questions about Russia: "Why the Comey Hearing Was Frightening to a Russian." It's clear he knows nothing about the country and cares less. This is 100 percent about partisan politics -- and about the money he and his brother earn off their links to the Clinton Foundation.[40] PeterKa (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
Of course, that's classified. U.S Code 50 Sec. 3903,
(f) Prohibition on covert actions intended to influence United States political processes, etc.
No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.
He can't speak on the loophole that allows him to tap Trump, but he can point to this section for deniability. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 22:34, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
If they can't fire Comey, I hope Sessions appoints a special prosecutor to investigate him. Don't we all want to know the real reason he cleared Hillary (twice!)? There are better grounds to appoint a special prosecutor now than Comey had when he appointed a special prosecutor in the Plame case. PeterKa (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
Kucinich, another victim of Obama spying, called for Comey"s recusal. [41] Not sure that's a good idea cause that would only drag the investigation out another six months as a new chief investigator familiarizes himself with the case. The scandal grows by leaps and bounds daily. One thing for sure John Brennen deserves some sort of 21st century legal equivalent, with modern civilized notions of mercy, of being drawn and quartered for his crimes against the United States and its people. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 22:43, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

Considering a name change

I recently read a rule somewhere that discourages usernames not based on people's real names, and that if a name is said to be unsuitable admins can change them. I was wondering if one of the admins could change my username from KommissarReb to Kenda or something (related to my real name and not my internet alias). I don't mind explaining my reasons why, but I'd be more comfortable explaining my reason for a name change in a private. My email address is for anyone who can help. Thanks. --KommissarReb (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2017 (EDT)

Create a new account. I don't think the Wikimedia software can do a name change. Conservative (talk)

Theresa May and denialism

UK Prime Minister stated that the recent terrorist attack in Westminster was not Islamic, despite the contrary clearly being the case. I hoped she would avoid the PC, but that apparently isn't the case. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2017 (EDT)

So here's a 52 year old Muslim, born in the UK, no known contacts with the international or domestic suspected radicals, one day decides to answer the call of the fatwa issued by the Islamic State's chief scholar, Abu Mohammad al-Adnani of September 21, 2014,
"If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him,"
and decides to act on his utter contempt for the country of his birth, its people, law, institutions, and traditions. Similiar events have occured in Ottawa, Nice, Cincinatti, and Berlin, all the while our intelligence experts and media have been telling us (a) there's no connection between the attacker and internatial terrorism; (b) the attack had nothing to do with Islam; (c) second generation Muslim's have been fully integrated into Western secularized societies and there is no reason to believe or fear the migrants today will not be integrated and secularized as well.
Does that about sum it up? RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 17:14, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
Unfortunately, I think you are pretty much correct. The establishment is unwilling to consider these refugees a national security threat, and they deny any real (or at least legitimate) connections to Islam when in fact, Islam is the primary motivation for their terrorism. These attacks are in line with the history of Islam, particularly the early part, but the establishment still believes that it is a peaceful religion at heart. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
To put it in a nutshell - Trump is right (regarding what Islam is and why he issued his EOs against travel to seven Islamic countries known for producing terrorists), May is wrong. Northwest (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2017 (EDT)

There has been more Republican dissident attacks in the UK in recent years than Islamic attacks PeterJohnD (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

Can you name the number of the Republican dissident attacks, as well as dates and sources? Karajou (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
Yes, and two more question: are these random attacks on civilians, and is the objective of the dissident Republicans to destroy the British government and legal system, and the enslavement of the people of the British Isles? RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 09:28, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

Tomi Lahren

Okay, do conservatives expect everyone who calls themself conservative to be to the political right of Ann Coulter on the issue of abortion? VargasMilan (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2017 (EDT)

Of course many people who call themselves "conservative" don't have real pro-life views, but the right to life is an important position. It's good when CP holds these people accountable when they voice support for legalized murder. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
I'm going to call the question moot. Lahren dropped the comment that she has "moderate, conservative and libertarian views" and that she is an "independent thinker". She is either trying to broaden her "cult of personality" by calling herself independent, or she has really and truly not settled down into one political position.
So I am not going to engage in a discussion of her views on abortion. Even if it would be interesting (although no longer relevant), I wouldn't want give liberals the opportunity to read the talk page and steal our ideas. VargasMilan (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
She still works for Glen Beck and TheBlaze, doesn't she? It's all part of Beck's editorial shift and cosmetic makeover. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 19:46, 25 March 2017 (EDT)


I don't see where Gorsuch should be criticized for any of his answers. Saying abortion is the law of land isn't saying it is "settled law", like "settled science". It's not voicing support for it. Segregation too, was the law of the land til the Supreme Court reversed itself. Or that he would "walk out of the room if the president asked him" is a separation of powers issue that has nothing to do with the facts of any particular case. Practically the whole court "walked out of the room" when Obama tried to influence and shame them over the Citizens United ruling in his State of the Union. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 22:10, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
Gorsuch must have an opinion of some kind on abortion. He wisely chooses not to reveal it to avoid getting borked. In fact, he has spent a lifetime carefully not revealing whatever position he might have. McConnell thinks he can get Gorsuch confirmed by enforcing Rule 19.[42] He'll start the legislative day when the nomination is brought to the floor and end it when Gorsuch is confirmed. Each filibustering Democratic will talk twice for as long as he can talk continuously. If it doesn't work, I don't think there is a more confirmable nominee waiting in the wings. Perhaps the court will just get smaller and smaller as justices die or retire. PeterKa (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
Edit conflict: And yet Ann Coulter was named as a "Conservative of the Decade" by Conservapedia. I think many pro-abortion leaders to be vile; on the other hand there is a world of difference between Alabama laws and California laws.
Which brings me to my point: Coulter reminded us there are differences in degree of fault and a broad range of opinions concerning abortion. You can hide behind abstractions (like using the phrase "legalized murder"), but if you do, you are just imitating Gorsuch by speaking in riddles.
This isn't the 1970s, where a woman can't tell if she has a baby until a month, these days she can, and it's the only world Tomi Lahren has ever known. Likewise the only world she knows (since she's been a teen) has been the spread of enormous breaches of personal data by large institutions, including the government, seemingly every other week, and the elevation of the perpetrators of those breaches to folk hero status while their former colleagues left behind continue making passes at totalitarianism. Tomi Lahren singles out the government; perhaps it's not adhesion to an opinion that motivates Lahren, but that she fears the government in ways we couldn't understand—with officers of the government willing to kill, they could be willing to perpetrate a rape. VargasMilan (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2017 (EDT)
VargasMilan, the term "legalized murder" is not an abstraction. It's actually quite clear, and it avoids the political correctness of the "abortion". As the unborn babies who are aborted are human beings, they are being murdered -- and the type of murder is legal in our country, unfortunately. The issue of privacy from the government is important, but in advocating for less intrusion, Lahren shows us that she does not realize or recognize the preciousness of the life of the human being. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
I thought Gorsuch' discussion how he can't exercise a basic constitutional right to attend a state party caucus - a right people like Loretta Lynch or Jesse Jackson never cease mentioning people died for - was brilliant. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 23:46, 23 March 2017 (EDT)

The issues of Tomi Lahren and Neil Gorsuch got accidentally combined into a single thread, but they do have something in common: both are are pro-choice supporters who falsely pretend to be conservative, and who recently made self-serving statements beyond credibility.

Tomi Lahren claimed to be pro-choice because she is a libertarian. But she is (was) on television primarily as a Trump supporter, and Trump is not libertarian. More likely Tomi Lahren is pro-choice due to feminism, or peer pressure, or to cater to the liberal media, and there is nothing libertarian about any of that. Regardless, she shouldn't be pretending to be a conservative for a conservative audience when she's pro-choice.

Neil Gorsuch suffers from a similar defect. His claim that he "would have walked out of the room" if Trump had asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade is insulting to anyone who expects a witness under oath to testify truthfully. He obviously wouldn't have walked out on the president as he considered nominating him. The statement was a scripted insult to Trump and to all pro-lifers, and there is nothing wrong with a president asking a candidate to oppose or overturn a bad ruling. Abraham Lincoln did nothing less. Gorsuch is pro-choice and he should just admit it rather than hiding his views with false statements.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

He's not running for election here, nor seeking to set off a fundraising war between Senators of either position and their opponents. His approval is assured, and that artful dodge did it as much as anything, cause no elected candidate wants to address this issue. Ultimately, a 10th Amendment case will come along and Roe v Wade will be overturned, IMO. The federal government simply cannot keep denying the people of the states their rights to govern themselves. And Democrats hold power in a total of seven states. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 02:35, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
Gorsuch is running for a seat of power that lasts for 35 years. He didn't merely refuse to provide direct answers to basic questions; he also implausibly declared under oath that he "would have walked out the door" if the president had asked him during an interview to overturn Roe v. Wade. Is a more direct breach of Trump's pro-life pledge imaginable?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
Sandra Day O'Conner gave virtually the same answer. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 12:03, 24 March 2017 (EDT) Ok, you may have a point; this is an interesting read (last 4 paragraphs). RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 12:14, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

It is highly unlikely that a bonafide conservative/traditionalist/Christian would be a member of Gorsuch's church.

Occam's razor applies. Gorsuch is probably a liberal. At the very least, he will probably drift leftwards as time goes by if he becomes a Supreme Court judge.

When the rubber meets the road, he will cave like he already has by being a member of that church.

The lesson of John Roberts is clear. Do not trust a cuckservative compromiser. Conservative (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

To Andy: As I said above, I think the question about Lahren is moot since she described her clusters of thinking as "independent". But as an aside, I doubt she is a feminist. She comes from a military family—I think she has three relatives in or close to her immediate family—so she doesn't seem the type to rely on joining other women to use grievance and identity politics to provide for a living for themselves or vent anger. VargasMilan (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

GOP defeat in the House

After today's defeat in the House, anything with Donald Trump's name attached in either House is in trouble. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 16:22, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
I'm not so sure about that. This doesn't have so much to do with Trump, but rather the fact that D.C. Republicans apparently lack the ability to work, plan, and govern together. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
Now that the GOP coalition has gone down in smoke and flames, Trump may as well turn to his old friend Shumer if he wants to salvage anything. The two can get a lot done for New York working together. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 17:59, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
You can bet this will change now. It's Trump's only prayer. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 18:42, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
Shumer said passing Obamacare was a mistake. Here's his chance to fix it. Trump, Shumer with his Democrats, and a smattering of Republicans will forge a bipartisan consensus. Those conservatives who opposed it today will be left out in the cold. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 18:51, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

The founding fathers designed a system where lasting large scale change is difficult to achieve without the consensus of the governed.

Obama is beginning to find that out. And when ObamaCare starts imploding and Republicans finally take action, the lesson will sink in further. Conservative (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

When it implodes - and it will - Republicans will be blamed for mismanagement. The consensus as of today is that it's working fine. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 18:05, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

Does Neil Gorsuch's Liberal Church Matter?

Does Neil Gorsuch's Liberal Church Matter?[43]

It's definitely not a good sign. I didn't realize how liberal it was until today. I think Andy was right to very publicly oppose him. Conservative (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

Darn it, now I REALLY regret voting for Trump. One of the reasons I voted for Trump is because of the promise that he'll actually END Roe v. Wade. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
Which other candidate was more serious about reversing the decision than Trump? --1990'sguy (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
Well, Ben Carson, for one, but regarding the actual election itself rather than the primaries, definitely Trump was serious about it compared to either Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson (both of whom made very clear they intended to continue with Roe v. Wade and abortion). Pokeria1 (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
The link User Conservative supplies has many good points, however if Gorsuch did belong to the nearby Anglican church, there would be a twin line of attack against him, one that he's pro-life, and secondly that he is some soft of theocratic monster wanting to blurr the line of between church and state. The link further de-legitimizes any opposition against him, and his church background and beliefs remarkably parallel Donald Trump. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 09:45, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
My hope is that (in the eyes of the American public) this nomination will be such a no-brainer that the Senate will be able to go nuclear, and then they will have an easier time confirming court nominees (including, and particularly, the lower courts). I still think that Trump, as with his other policies, can do a lot of good in that area. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

Gorsuch's liberal church Part 2.[44]

The more I know about Gorsuch, the less I like. Conservative (talk)

Abortion is only one issue among a raft of priorities. To make it a litmus test in evaluating candidates and judges I certainly agree. To trash-talk people who don't rate it as high a priority as pro-lifers or pro-choicers do is a mistake both sides have made for 45 years.
To build a national consensus begins with the people, not with elected leaders and judges who only represent us. Muslim hordes overruning the planet with higher fertility rates ought to be enough to cause a spiritual awakening, unless God is asleep and doesn't care anymore. Abortion only hastens the day what few grandchildren we do have will involuntarily be praying to Mecca 5 times daily. Let's work with the tools of education God has given us, without backbiting each other or engaging in race hatred and prejudice.
Retaking the earth from evil is the Christian's purpose (Ps.8), and sowing discord and division has its own abhorent rewards. The Christian needs to be focused on what God has resurrected him to life to do. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 13:32, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

Request for Conservative

Would you please take a look at a discussion posted yesterday by another editor at Conservapedia:Community Portal concerning a recent block you did? I sent you an email about it, so please tell me if it did not go through. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

I responded. Conservative (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

Bannon nukes RINO-care

Various news outlets are reporting that Bannon is the big winner from the collapse of RINO-care, Ryan the big loser: "Report: Steve Bannon Says American Health Care Act ‘Written by the Insurance Industry’." This was the Democrats chance to divided and conquer by allying with Ryan. Don't they realize they are the minority now? It seems they still haven't adjusted. PeterKa (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

The Republican party is the big loser and the Democrats are the big winners. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 18:24, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
Check this: "RUMORS: If RyanCare fails, Trey Gowdy may replace Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House" PeterKa (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
We have a better, more important job for Gowdy. And if Ryan goes down, half the White House goes too, beginning with Priebus. Do you honestly think Trump can afford that at this time, right now? RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 18:55, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning. Not laughing, not laughing at all. Not even a little bit. No, sir. No sniggers here. Stony faced. Stern. Composed. Concerned. Much love, y'all. JohnZ (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
So you're judging an entire presidency based on the first 60 days? I recommend waiting until 2020. Besides, I think this has more to do with the fault of Ryan and the House (Ryan was never fully on board with Trump anyway). Also, please be more comprehensible when posting here. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
Democrats ought to be loving Trump at this point. And if they don't, that's a big mistake, After all, he destroyed the Republican party and saved Obamacare now, didn't he? RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 22:56, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
The Dems are asking for a "deal" on Gorsuch. That can only mean one thing: They don't have the votes for a filibuster. Gorsuch was awesome in the hearings and now they are routed. Keystone just got approved by Tillerson's State Department. (Nebraska, here we come!) Ryan is on his way out. Gowdy is on his way in. Gowdy will give us a much better health care bill if he becomes speaker. The market has been zooming up and up since the election. There's a lot of news to smile about. PeterKa (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
A deal on Gorsuch means Democratic Senators who vote for him get to nominate Federal Judges and US Attorneys in their states. There's an upside and a downside on this. Trump needs to ask for more: namely, that Shumer can deliver a healthcare reform bill that will pass both the Senate and the House. Who knows, maybe Shumer's chief of staff can take Priebus' place, too. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 23:46, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
The liberal media have been pro-Gorsuch because he's pro-choice. I don't see real Dems seeking a deal to confirm Gorsuch. They have enough votes to block with a filibuster, and their base demands it.
Reince Priebus is the real loser in the health care debacle, isn't he? After all, he was made chief of staff to ensure failures like this wouldn't occur.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
Gorsuch will sail. And every Democrat who votes for him Trump and McConnell will have to beg and bribe with pork to get anything done. The big question now is, how many votes can Shumer convince Pelosi to muster in the House (means bribing with pork, too) to stop Obamacare from imploding after the Freedom Caucus committed hari-kari today? The sad thing is, these Democrats, who are in the minority, are going to eat a bunch of Republicans pork for lunch from here on out. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 02:36, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

Sen. Rand Paul, a member of AAPS (a group which which Andy represents) on health care bill: "We never ran on a replacement of Obamacare Lite".[45]

AAPS was against ObamaCare lite.[46]

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz patched things up and Trump poses in a picture with Cruz's children.[47] Ted Cruz CRUSHES Paul Ryan's Lies About Repealing Obamacare.[48]

Conservatives/AAPS (And Andy by extension) won! Andy never endorsed ObamaCare lite.

The conservative Freedom Caucus torpedoed ObamaCare lite.

As time goes on, and as ObamaCare implodes, conservatives will have more leverage. Conservative (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

You guys must be on drugs if you think this is some kind of victory. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 02:26, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
ObamaCare was a partisan bill, stifled the free market and had unintended consequences. As such, it was destined to fail.
ObamaCare lite was a quick fix. Quick fixes and shortcuts generally fail. In terms of keeping down premiums, it would have failed.
But perhaps keeping down premiums is unachievable. You have aging baby boomers and many of them have chronic health conditions because they didn't take care of their health as well as they could have. Plus, many Americans are overweight. Economics 101 says when there is increased demand, all other factors remaining equal, prices rise. Conservative (talk)
The Christian Chuck Norris, who is a member of the Silent Generation and a critic of atheism, endorses the Total Gym exercise system. Norris does not need ObamaCare or ObamaCare lite due to the fact that disease is afraid of him. Norris endorsed Donald Trump. See: Millennials, irreligion and obesity
So leaving Obamacare in place is a victory? that ticks off the clock is one day closer to the Midterms. All 435 of these guys in the House are running for re-election. Trump is a loser. His approval ratings have never shadowed anywhere near 50%. Even if there's a good bill for anything with Trump's name on it, his name on it is reason enough to oppose it. This is the real world of hardball politics, not a beauty contest, a game show, or a reality TV series. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 03:29, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
The logical next step is a straightforward repeal of Obamacare. Whatever problems that creates can be dealt with as they arise. I like the idea of medical savings accounts. Some sector of the health care industry needs to be free market. Under the current system, no knows what the price of many items should be. PeterKa (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
They already repealed the individual mandate, the fines, all that did was increase government spending. And what do the Republicans get for it? They delivered Obamacare Full Flavor free of cost to everyone. Geez, even the Democrats couldn't do that. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 09:51, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
RobS, sometimes the lesser of two evils is the most that is achievable. I would love for the United States to be as healthy as Japan, Switzerland and Singapore, but its not going to happen anytime soon. The USA is ranked #31 in life expectancy. There are too many irreligious, millennial fatties! See: Millennials, irreligion and obesity.
If Americans really want to get serious about cutting health care costs, they will get fitter and eat healthier food. You can't rank #31 is life expectancy as a nation plus have a lot of people with chronic diseases and have the best medical outcomes.
The system is corrupt. Why is sugar and corn syrup subsidized by the government in a nation with an obesity problem? Common sense no longer has much sway in Washington, D,C. Conservative (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
Who cares? The Republicans lost. The Democrats are taking over, and there's a Muslim horde on their footsteps. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 09:42, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
A proposal similar to Obamacare failed under Clinton. Obamacare was signed into law on March 23, 2010. So even though the road had been prepared and tested, it still took Obama well over a year to get his proposal passed. To have a comprehensive health care reform package pass on Day 64 and on the first try would have been a remarkable achievement. PeterKa (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
Big difference. Hillarycare was single payer. Obamacare was designed to fail with the strategy that when it does, Americans will be used to the idea of "free healthcare" and accept single payer. Lindsey Graham, the Freedom Caucus, and editors here say let it fail. Trump signed an EO forbidding collection of the Obamacare tax, that, along with Medicare subsidies, means millions right now have "free healthcare". When it does fail, Republicans will be blamed for cutting off their free healthcare. This was a well thought out legislative boobytrap designed by Pelosi & Shumer between 2009-10, complete with its "phase-ins" around Midterm and Presidential election cycles. Their gameplan has always been single payer, and GOP inability to address the problem walks right into the trap.
Trumps pledge to repeal and replace, in his first foray into politics, is now seen as a lie, by Republicans, Democrats, and everyone in between. And there is no way to undo the damage he done to himself, and the GOP, going forward. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 15:48, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

I propose that the Democrats surrender. Then less money would be spent on political battles/races and more on healthcare plus there would be more social harmony (less class/racial fomenting of disharmony)

In addition, if the Democrats surrendered, committed their lives to Jesus and spent more time on fitness, then they would be more like the much healthier Chuck Norris. In addition, cancer rates among women would be less because they have less abortions (see: Abortion and breast cancer).

Given their performance in the last presidential race, all the power they lost in more local races during the Obama years and their lack of depth when it comes to a political bench, the Democrats might as well surrender. It's high time they kowtowed before Donald J. Trump and Betty Devos. Conservative (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

I thought that Trump would face an economic downturn due to the business cycle and the fact that a very high percentage of presidents who follow two term presidents face an economic downturn.[49] Perhaps the sins of the previous administration get dumped on the next president.
But the stock market is soaring and if Trump improves the tax code, it could be a big boost to the American economy. His energy policy will boost the economy as well. If the economy is good in 2020, then Trump will be reelected. I just hope that federal spending and the federal deficit does not get out of control during the Trump years which could potentially cause economic trouble in the next 4 years. Conservative (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
Dream on. The Freedom Caucus undercut a principal rule in coalition building and good governance - trust. Go talk to Nancy Pelosi, maybe she has need of your votes. Nobody's listening anymore. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 10:31, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
Politics is about relative strength. The Democrats are at their lowest ebb in decades. And favorability ratings of U.S. presidents roller coaster up and down. 2014 is long ways away when it comes to US politics.
I expect a lot of gridlock in coming years as far as politics. And a lot of dissension.
I am not in favor of identity politics as it can be divisive. The Democrats have been playing racial identity politics. Now the alt-right is kicking in on the right-wing side of politics and they are playing the nationalism card and some in the alt-right are playing the white identity politics card. If the USA becomes less religious, then the notion of Christians of differing races being one in Christ affects the culture less. There would be less commonality. Within the atheist movement there is a lot of strife due to the battle of the sexes (feminism, etc.) and racial strife as well. Politics would be more harsh and divisive in the USA if the USA were to become less religious.
In Singapore, I heard the politicians hammer out negotiations/concessions for the various ethnic/religious groups with the goal of working in harmony. This seems like a better model that the less harmonious us vs. them and the SJW victim vs. oppressor narrative coursing through politics in the West. Conservative (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
A victory is never greater than at the moment it is achieved, and only diminishes thereafter, as Clausewitz said. It's almost 5 months now - one quarter of the way to the next Midterm battle - and Trump's victory was hardly convincing of a national consensus. Too much time has already been squandered and wasted which can never be recovered. And Congress has a different priority than the Prrsident (here is where our British friends don't quite understand American politics) - getting themselves re-elected, while President has the luxury of concerning himself with governing, if he at all is capable of doing.
The gridlock you fear is real. It is intraparty gridlock we just witnessed. Identity politics is dead. But intraparty gridlock and an inability to govern among the majority is a surefire way to resuscitate a discredited idea among the opposition. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 17:06, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
Trump just made a strong statement: "Obamacare will explode. Shumer and Pelosi own it." So now another media war has begun. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 19:57, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

The 3 leading powers in the world: Russia (lot of alcoholism) and China/America (obesity) could be doing a lot better on the health front. These 3 nations have had a lot of ideological struggles withing them (Atheism vs. Christianity and culture war in America since the 1960s).

On the other hand, the three most healthy nations of Japan, Switzerland and Singapore have had a lot of harmony within them and relatively low defense spending compared to the three major powers of USA/China/Russia. Conservative (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

Both Russia and China have had high degrees of atheism in fairly recent years and these countries have life expectancy rankings of 126th and 71st respectively compared to the rest of the world (see: Atheism and health). Conservative (talk)

RobS, JFK started out with the Bay of Pigs disaster, but he was still able to push his agenda later. Plus, Trump faces a weak opposition.

As far as identity politics, although I do not like identity politics, it seems as if identity politics is ramping up. The alt-right has a faction of white identity politics proponents. And the alt-right is quickly building its internet presence. And with whites heading towards being a minority in the USA and Europe being even more resistant to immigrants of a different ethnicity than the native population, it seems as if white identity politics is increasing (the left may regret pushing identity politics so much as it may come back to bite them). Hillary Clinton expected to get a lot of white woman votes, but Trump won this demographic.

History is reversing itself. Before whites were immigrants to foreign countries and they engaged in colonization. Now white areas are receiving influxes of other ethnicities. Unfortunately, human history is riddled with ethnic conflict. There are places with ethnicities/religions living side by side in relative peace like Singapore/India/Hawaii/Ireland (it took awhile). Given the fallen nature of man though, they appear to be the exception. And Western culture is more "in your face" and less harmonious than Eastern culture (there is a theory that rice based agriculture requires more cooperation than wheat based cultures).

Maybe the Western cultures with their low birth rates will see a religious revival and up their birthrates. Maybe they will learn to live with people from other races/religions. But Islam is getting more militant due to the fundamentalist having more kids. And the anti-immigrant marches in Europe and the bitter 2016 presidential campaign is pointing to identity politics increasing and causing even more bitterness. And I think bringing more Muslims into the USA/Europe is a bad idea and France is a good lesson in what the USA should avoid. Once the Muslims hit a certain percentage in the population, they naturally want more say on how things are done and so more and more culture clash (Sharia law, etc. etc). If Muslims do continue to grow in Europe and violent conflict does not drive them out of Europe, the left may live to regret pouring Muslims into their countries as Muslims tend to be anti-evolution, anti-feminism and anti-homosexuality.

The different ethnicities/religions in the USA have got to work together to avoid bitter conflict and create more harmony. If they don't, perhaps the United States could break up. It has happened to other great powers. It could happen to the USA. Conservative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

After all is said and done, I see more culture clash and identity politics hitting the USA/Europe and not less. I may not like it, but that seems to be the trend.
I have life experiences that has brought me into contact with people of different cultures/etnicities and it was very positive experience. It broadens your horizons and makes you less myopic. I also have a lot of experience being in rural areas where people do not have much exposure to people from other cultures. Rural people are extremely friendly, but judging from the number of Jocko statues I have see on front porches, many rural people aren't the most sensitive people when it comes to the issue of racism. But there isn't much racial conflict in rural areas because the whites and Mexican farm workers get along with each other. And the Mexican farm workers spend very little time in the rural towns so the potential for ethnic conflict is small.
Trump got a lot of votes from rural people and there seems to be an increasing rural/urban divide in American politics. After the election, the white liberal elites rediscovered flyover country.Conservative (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
Here's an excerpt from a short book published in 1958. I first read it about 25 years ago. (It's author, incidentally, pioneered the phrase "Great Society", which he refers to in passing here, and was borrowed by the administrstion of Lyndon Johnson).
This concentric attack of the modern West upon the Islamic world has inaugurated the present encounter between the two civilizations. It will be seen that this is part of a still larger and more ambitious movement, in which the Western civilization is aiming at nothing less than the incorporation of all mankind in a single great society, and the control of everything in the earth, air, and sea which mankind can turn to account by means of modern Western technique. What the West is doing now to Islam, it is doing simultaneously to the other surviving civilizations -the Orthodox Christian, the Hindu, and the Far Eastern world-and to the surviving primitive societies, which are now at bay even in their last strongholds in tropical Africa.

Thus the contemporary encounter between Islam and the West is not only more active and intimate than any phase of their contact in the past; it is also distinctive in being an incident in an attempt by Western man to ‘Westernize’ the world-an enterprise which will possibly rank as the most momentous, and almost certainly as the most interesting, feature in the history even of a generation that has lived through two world wars.

Thus Islam is once more facing the West with her back to the wall; but this time the odds are more heavily against her than they were even at the most critical moment of the Crusades, for the modern West is superior to her not only in arms but also in the technique of economic life, on which military science ultimately depends, and above all in spiritual culture-the inward force which alone creates and sustains the outward manifestations of what is called civilization.

Whenever one civilized society finds itself in this dangerous situation vis-à-vis another, there are two alternative ways open to it of responding to the challenge; and we can see obvious examples of both these types of response in the reaction of Islam to Western pressure today. It is legitimate as well as convenient to apply to the present situation certain terms which were coined when a similar situation once arose in the encounter between the ancient civilizations of Greece and Syria. Under the impact of Hellenism during the centuries immediately before and after the beginning of the Christian era, the Jews (and, we might add, the Iranians and the Egyptians) split into two parties. Some became ‘Zealots’ and others ‘Herodians.’

The ‘Zealot’ is the man who takes refuge from the unknown in the familiar; and when he joins battle with a stranger who practises superior tactics and employs formidable newfangled weapons, and finds himself getting the worst of the encounter, he responds by practising his own traditional art of war with abnormally scrupulous exactitude. ‘Zealotism,’ in fact, may be described as archaism evoked by foreign pressure; and its most conspicuous representatives in the contemporary Islamic world are ‘puritans’ like the North African Sanusis and the Central Arabian Wahhabis.

The first point to notice about these Islamic ‘Zealots’ is that their strongholds lie in sterile and sparsely populated regions which are remote from the main international thoroughfares of the modern world and which have been un- attractive to Western enterprise until the recent dawn of the oil age...

...Psychologically, therefore, ‘Pan-Islamism’ should appeal par excellence to Islamic ‘Zealots’ in the Wahhabi or Sanusi vein; but this psychological predisposition is balked by a technical difficulty; for in a society that is dispersed abroad, as Islam is, from Morocco to the Philippines and from the Volga to the Zambesi, the tactics of solidarity are as difficult to execute as they are easy to imagine.

The herd-instinct emerges spontaneously; but it can hardly be translated into effective action without taking advantage of the elaborate system of mechanical communications which modem Western ingenuity has conjured up: steamships, railways, telegraphs, telephones, aeroplanes, motor-cars, newspapers, and the rest. Now the use of these instruments is beyond the compass of the Islamic ‘Zealot’s’ ability; and the Islamic ‘Herodian,’ who has succeeded in making himself more or less master of them, ex hypothesi desires to employ them, not in captaining a ‘Holy War’ against the West, but in reorganizing his own life on a

Western pattern....
That day has arrived. The Wahabbi Zealots have mastered Western technology for their own uses (the 'Herodians' would be like the Saudi sheiks or Gulf State princes). RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 21:50, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
Thanks RobS. That was interesting material. Conservative (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2017 (EDT)
The whole Chapter, Islam and the West, from the book Civilization on Trial is extraordinarily interesting, considering it was published in 1958. We have now reached that faraway point in the future he keeps referring to based on an in depth historical examination and analysis of his present day situation. I love the guys method, and time and again have drawn on him for understanding of contemporary events, and a roadmap where it's all headed.
For example, check out the alliteration using the letter 'd' in this phrase from an historical parallel that remarkably explained the Iraqi insurgency of 2007-08: " that the disaster, so long dreaded and so long averted by the Power behind the limes (border wall), has at last duly descended upon the doomed civilization's devoted head...". That, is poetic and truly masterwork of historical writing. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 12:24, 26 March 2017 (EDT)