Talk:Main Page/Archive index/149

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Trump explains his thinking in Art of the Deal

This author could be on to something: "Health Care Bill’s Failure: Just Part of the ‘Art of the Deal’." According Trump's famous dealmaking principles, the first step in a successful negotiation is to show the parties the "the downside" and convince them they need your help to succeed. The book refers to the next phase as “deliver the goods." PeterKa (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

Trump was Tweeting about "wiretapping" etc. etc. He really never committed himself to pushing a healthcare plan as strenuously as Obama/Hillary did. I think he knew the first round had a good chance of failing in terms of a lousy bill or having no passed bill. The ObamaCare lite bill had a 17% public approval rating. Why would Trump want to fully commit to promote such a losing plan? Ryan/Democrats have too much power in terms of this issue right now. Ryan now has less power and with ObamaCare imploding soon Democrats will have less credibility on healthcare. Conservative (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
Just keep repeating that to yourself. Eventually, you might convince somebody. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 09:18, 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.[1] 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)

Here is what Vox Dayt said and he predicted early on that Donald Trump would be the next president of the United States:

"I think the key thing here is that the... [Trump]... learns who his allies are. He should have been working with the conservative element in the House that voted against the act, not the Ryan-led mainstream element that was the core Republican opposition to him in the primaries.

This is going to be a little counterintuitive for a centrist negotiator like Trump, but he's just experienced the same thing that George W. Bush did whenever immigration reform was proposed. The core Republican power in the House is the conservatives, not the moderates. To get anything done, Trump has to work with them first.

Ultimately, this should be a good thing, because Trump always learns from his failures. That's why I don't put any stock in the "fatal blow to Trump's political capital" narrative that the opposition media will inevitably be pushing.[2]

I agree with this particular analysis of Vox Day.Conservative (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

RobS, I realize that I used some humor to express my views above. But setting aside the style I used, I did make some good and relevant points. Americans need to lead more healthy lives, if they want to substantially reduce the cost of healthcare. There are nations which lead healthier lives.
Second, I did not view our discussion as some kind of competition that I was trying to win. Just a dialogue. Please stop deleting my material. How Americans spend their time and treasure does affect their health and the cost of healthcare. And it is helpful to compare the United States to other countries as a benchmark. If a person/country just compares themselves with themselves, with no outside benchmark, it is a rather myopic view. America can and should learn from other countries success while doing some innovating of its own as well. Conservative (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
Just as a note, RobS messaged me and explained that his deletions of talk page conversations were a mistake and a result of using a bad piece of technology. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

OK.Conservative (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

GOP going at snail pace?

So Trump and the GOP will now start focusing on tax reform.[3] Why can they focus on only one issue at a time? After two months, they only considered one major issue. I do hope the GOP will keep Congress in 2018 (and I think they could very well keep it), but they should not act now and not assume they will win the next elections. From my non-DC perspective, it seems like they are accomplishing very little and moving very slowly. Not a good sign for Trump's agenda.

This article shows that public opinion of the failed bill was very negative when it was pulled. I wish it passed so they could repeal the ObamaCare mandate, but maybe it wasn't such a bad thing after all. Hopefully, they will actually find a good plan. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

The legislative agenda is dominated by the budget, typically spending priorities, and eventually the revenue or taxing side. It is all usually complete by May, they take a Summer recess in June, and the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1st. This year however, a once-every-fifty-years tax law overhaul is being proposed, which will be done while the GOP has control of Congress and Executive. Such a major overhaul can't be completed by October (portions, maybe). Likewise a once every 50 yr overhaul in immigration law, too. And the budget bill (spending bill) has two big unknowns, Obamacare and infrastructure/stimulus. This is certainly as big a legislative agenda I've ever seen, rivalling Obama 2009 or Reagan 1981. Probably about as big as Johnson 1965 when he tackled a foreign war, domestic poverty programs, and putting a man on the moon all at once. Like Obama's first year, it's doubtful they can complete this ambitious program in one year. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 23:59, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
The failure of repeal does make Trump's tax reform proposal more difficult because a big portion of it was masked inside the healthcare measure. Trump wants a 2.5 Trillion tax cut this year, 1 Trillion of that in Obamacare repeal. Now that the whole tax reform measure itself must be debated, it will attract stronger criticism and frighten off supporters, the way the healthcare measure did.
And if the tax reform measure goes down in smoke and flames the way the healthcare bill did, so does infrastructure, border wall, job stimulus etc. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 12:05, 26 March 2017 (EDT)
According to this Reuters article, the GOP was working on tax reform the same time as the ObamaCare replacement, in their respective committees. Maybe they're doing more than I know. I sure hope they will actually go back and repeal ObamaCare. I'm worried this will be another example of where conservatives spend all their times criticizing leftist "achievements" and then do nothing about it once in power. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2017 (EDT)
The failure of the repeal doubled the load on the committees working on tax reform.
The strategy now is let it implode (or explode or whatever). We' re looking at another govt. shutdown in 5 weeks. 'Saving' Obamacare is not on the agenda to raise the debt ceiling and avoid Obamacare collapsing.
The GOP has been steered off course now. Cause whatever number they agree on with a dept ceiling increase, all the budget items have to fit inside that number until after the 2018 Midterms ("kicking the can down the road"). Tax cut, border wall, infrastructure spending, healthcare, all those will be decided by the end of April until a lameduck session, Dec. 2018. It's only a matter of who gets what more than the other programs being discussed.
Bottomline, rather than a strategic, longterm vision this Majority had, they now are living day-to-day trying to keep the government open and untrusting of each other due to broken alliances. They have given up the initiative and agenda now to simple dire need and necessity to get reelected and not get blamed for failure. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 21:13, 26 March 2017 (EDT)
The Republicans passed ObamaCare repeal in 2015. Why is it hard now? Just repass the same bill. See this story. PeterKa (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2017 (EDT)
Now you're seeing how US politics works. It's easy to show unity when you know the vote is meaningless cause the president's going to veto it. But when the rubber hits the road and its time to fulfil 7 year old promises to work together, show leadership, and govern, the backstabbers can't see beyond the end of their nose. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 01:22, 27 March 2017 (EDT)
What these idiots did was focus on "Replace," rather than "Repeal," knowing full well the issue was going to be revisted later no matter what the outcome. On!y this time, the GOP establishment AND Trump are through dealing with them. They are going to be drained from the swamp, even if it means making Pelosi speaker again.
Reince Priebus, as RNC Chair, gave lots of money to them in their campaigns, based a personal pledge of loyalty to the Republican party and its leadership. These fools think the President of the United States, his Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, and their hand chosen successor as RNC National Chairman do not have some influence over who sits in the seats they now occupy? Go ahead, on you own, try and raise the funds necessary to defend against a primary challenger, or run a general election. WE own the donor list. There's not gonna be a next time.RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 15:23, 30 March 2017 (EDT)
Take Sarah Palin, for example. She tried threatening Ryan with a primary opponent. Can she really be that stupid to not know or understand Reince Preibus at that time was Ryan's handpicked Chairman of the RNC, the guy who doles out the cash, recruits and manages the poll watchers, and organizers the get-out-the-vote?
Pelosi was right. She called it "amatuer hour". And frankly, people who have dedicated their lives to politics and the Republican party are tired of the fools in the Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party, and pro-life movement who absolutely refuse to learn the simple basic rules of the game before you sit at the table. Nobody is interested in what you think, what your values or ideology is, as long as you refuse to extend the simple common courtesies of cooperation and honoring your word. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 00:17, 31 March 2017 (EDT)

Obstructing the legislstive agenda

What the Boll Weevil/Freedom Caucus/Tea Party movement did was obstruct and shorten the legislstive agenda. They did not stop Obamacare reform from happening, which some now are expressing regret, only delayed it by shortening the legislstive calendar. Both Houses of Congress passed a budget resolution in January assuming this bill would pass, but now two months legislstive work in both Houses has been lost, and nobody is going to reschedule a vote based upon the Freedom Caucauses' word they won't back out again, (the worthless, lying, pieces of trash they are...).

Losing two months now impacts and imperils tax reform, infrastructure, border wall and immigration reform, of which all these ambitious reforms now will "look hurried and rushed," an excuse many used to vote against Obamacare repeal, assuming they have time to bring all to a vote. (In insider lingo, "it's all about using the clock to bring people to agreement." Democrats are masters at it, Republicans get sidetracked in stupid meaningless debates. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 14:26, 30 March 2017 (EDT)

Priebus v Kasich

If Priebus is out, which is likely before October, John Kasich would be a good choice for chief-of-staff, if he's willing to engage. It means giving up Gov. of Ohio. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 21:28, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

Kasich is definitely in the running. Two separate press items out today alone about him (he knows the Washington, national, and media game. Make a press release on Sunday - it's sure to get coverage on a slow news day). First, he tells CNN Trump should work with Democrats, which of course is Trumps only choice right now. Second, he's not running for re-election in Ohio, but will remain active in national politics.
Being Priebus is so much a creature of the GOP, he probably has never met Pelosi, and all the Democrat members hate him cause Priebus as RNC chair is the guy behind recruiting and funding their opponents. For Trump's outreach to Pelosi which is needed right now, Kasich might be just the guy. They started serving together in Congress 30 years ago, and I'm sure in that time they have teamed up together on bills. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 01:34, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

RobSmith proven right again. Now that it's Sunday, Kasich of course is back in the news. And now that Priebus' job appears secure for the interim, as the President trash-talks Tea Partiers, Kasich has set eyes higher as an alternative (although I'm sure he'll remain available as CoS if called upon). RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 21:48, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

I would not want Kasich to replace Priebus. I don't trust him that he will take the country in a more conservative, right-wing direction. Based on what I've heard and read about him, he seems like someone who will inadvertently advance, or at least not impede, the far-left agenda towards socialism and an expansive government. We already tried that during the 1950s and 60s, and the result was the assurance that the New Deal would stay. I don't think one has to be a political moderate to be a pragmatist. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2017 (EDT)
A chief of staff, in addition to managing the president's schedule and access to the president, is basically similiar to a Whip in Congress - a head counter who lines up the votes. For this reason someone who not only is familiar with legislative processes, but knows personally the individuals involved, members, influencial committee chairmen. Who knows where the power centers are and what the price of their vote is. Kasich fits the bill perfect, having Executive Branch experience as Gov., and decades long Washington experience with members of both parties (he for example, authored the Balanced Budget bill which Pres. Clinton signed, a monumental bi-partisan achievement).
The appointment of Priebus was premised on the idea Ryan & Priebus could keep the GOP coalition together and Democrats would not be needed. But we're right back to where we were when the House Freedom Caucus murdered the last GOP highest constitutional officer in the land - Speaker Boehner. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 11:49, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

Since it looks like Priebus is staying now, and Trump has dumped the Tea Party, Priebus does have certain leverage with Democratic legislators. Priebus knows each House district, all 435, intimately, having recruited candidates and spent money in each. This is how Washington works now: in exchange for a Democrat's vote, or series of votes, on a crucial matter, Priebus can promise to (a) spend no RNC funds to oppose re-election; and (b) keep the RNC out of candidate recruitment. This is a tempting offer in costly, competative, swing districts. The Democrat can "buy" security or insurance. It's called 'a legislative deal'. IOW, a district the GOP could win the RNC abandons the field. A purely local candidate will emerge, of the caliber of Todd Akins, Sharon Angle, or Christine O'Donnell, who has to do their own fundraising. And the national party will instruct loyal donors in that district to contribute to the RNC for money to be used elsewhere, rather than the candidate directly, if that candidate turns out to be another Tea Party 'legitimate' raping idiot.

So this is what the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus has done. They are giving up their own seats, and insuring the re-election and survival of Democrats. As Bismark said, "legislating is like making sausage: if you don't like how it's done, don't watch." RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 23:21, 30 March 2017 (EDT)

This idea isn't going work. Trump needs support in Congress to accomplish anything. If he is not going to reach out to the Freedom Caucus, his other option is the Dems. I don't see that happening, although Schwarzenegger did it when he was California governor. Freedom Caucus seats are solidly Republican. See "Trump can’t stop the Freedom Caucus. He has GOP gerrymandering to blame." (This headline blames the GOP for gerrymandering, but that's just a partisan talking point. The purpose of gerrymandering is to protect incumbents. It works pretty much the same way regardless of which party does it.) Is there a Trump/Bannon wing of the Republican Party? Not that I have noticed. He is cozying up with the "Tuesday Group" now, but those are the same people we were calling "Never Trumpers" not so long ago. There was a guy who ran for U.S. Senate in Maine as a Trump Republican. Other than that, Trump is a one-man band. So the idea of running Trump Republicans in the primaries is dubious even at the conceptual level. PeterKa (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2017 (EDT)
It is not ousting them directly, it's withdrawing all funding and assistance from the national party and RCCC (Republican Congressional Campaign Committee). Whatever happens in a district then becomes purely a local affair. Then, among Democrats who need help to survive, they trade cooperation on tbe budget and a series of other votes, are rewarded with pork, and they feel less pressure in their own fundraising cause they are not running against the national Republican machine. Here again, whatever GOP candidate appears on the ballot, it's purely a local affair, and they recieve no help from the national party - no matter how good a candidate they are.
This system has been in place for years. Sen. Pete Domenici served 42 years and never had a serious challenger who could pull votes beyond a few blocks surrounding college campuses. No challenger ever got help from the DNC or DSCC. None em had name recognition, a potential serious Democratic officer holder or challenger knew of the arrangement, and did not wish to go against the national Democratic party's wishes, being an egotistical rogue and outsider, breaking national alliances, and creating enemies within his own party.
That's just one example. But members in both parties knew when he gave his word, it was good as gold. He voted probably 60-40 overall lifetime GOP-Dem. And these deals always got renewed after he won re-election. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 01:08, 31 March 2017 (EDT)

Galen's take

Rich Galen, long one of the best (his post mortem is required reading) as an insider has a very good tip how to discern one simple facet of fake news:

Republicans in the House and Senate call themselves the "Republican Conference." Democrats call themselves the "Democratic Caucus." If you hear someone on TV stray from that convention, stop listening to them.

RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 01:44, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

Boll Weevils & the Freedom Caucus

The Freedom Caucus is basically a rebirth of the Southern Boll Weevil coalition. The Boll Weevil coalition functioned for many decades in the House exercising a sort of House version of the filibuster (the House does not have a filibuster rule on delaying floor action as the Senate does, they exercise it by boycotting floor votes). House Boll Weevils for many decades killed attempts to outlaw segregation.

The evidence of its Southern roots lie in the fact 22 of its 38 members come from Southern states, counting Arizona and New Mexico as Southern states. Rural counties in Ohio & Pennsylvania can even be considered "Southern" (culturally they are much like West Virginia). And rural counties of Idaho or Wyoming certainly have nothing in common with the Midwest or New England.

So, these two events, the resignation of Boehner and election of Ryan, and rejection of Ryan & Trump's legislative agenda and leadership, should put to rest the liberal bullrot propaganda that the GOP are heirs of Southern racists and "Southern strategy" narrative etc. The Freedom Caucus is essentially a third party. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 12:27, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

Tomi Lahren redux

I remember there was a big deal, even moreso the case at Conservapedia, about Todd Akin's somewhat see-sawing remarks on abortion and the willingness of others to denounce him, and Conservapedia's naming names of those others to denounce them back.

This is what Ann Coulter said about the controversy in 2012, which didn't seem to draw notice at Conservapedia:

"No one can be blamed for the hurricane that took the news off the election, abruptly halting Romney's momentum, but Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock can be blamed on two very specific people: Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.
"The last two weeks of the campaign were consumed with discussions of women's "reproductive rights," not because of anything Romney did, but because these two idiots decided to come out against abortion in the case of rape and incest.
"After all the hard work intelligent pro-lifers have done in changing the public's mind about a subject the public would rather not think about at all, these purist grandstanders came along and announced insane positions with no practical purpose whatsoever, other than showing off.
"While pro-lifers in the trenches have been pushing the abortion positions where 90 percent of the country agrees with us -- such as bans on partial birth abortion, and parental and spousal notification laws -- Akin and Mourdock decided to leap straight to the other end of the spectrum and argue for abortion positions that less than 1 percent of the nation agrees with.
"In order to be pro-life badasses, they gave up two easy-win Republican Senate seats.
"No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist. Yes, it's every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape. But sentient human beings are capable of drawing gradations along a line.
"Just because I need iron to live doesn't mean I have to accept 100,000 milligrams, which will kill me. If we give the guy who passed bad checks a prison furlough, that doesn't mean we have to give one to Willie Horton. I like a tablespoon of sugar in my coffee, but not a pound.
"The overwhelming majority of people -- including me -- are going to say the law shouldn't force someone who has been raped to carry the child. On the other hand, abortion should be illegal in most other cases.
"Is that so hard for Republicans to say?"

As much as the holders of vaguely liberal positions on abortion, like those claiming to be "pro-choice", render up their political position with no explanation, so much do they deserve generalized—if not sweeping—rebuttals opposing these positions. But there may come a time when the holders of these positions cite specifics.

At that point in time you'll have to decide for yourself: Will being conservative depend on holding a Catholic definition of human life, or is there such a thing as a Protestant conservative? VargasMilan (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

So what's the point? Stupid people don't belong in the Senate? I agree. But that means almost 2/3 of them need to be replaced. And trading one stupid person for another is a net-zero, except for the damage that person may inflict on the overall perception of the party. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 15:23, 28 March 2017 (EDT)
I don't think the problem is necessarily their beliefs -- its rather how they worded their position. I could easily defend disallowing abortion in a case of rape or incest (it is not a tough issue for me) without embarrassing myself by making stupid comments like they did. By the way, I am an evangelical protestant -- someone who has many disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church -- but I have the same views on abortion as them. I don't think it's a Catholic vs. Protestant thing. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2017 (EDT)
Edit conflict: Like Tomi Lahren, Ann Coulter is in favor of abortion in the case of rape in a society where human conception can be detected as having occurred before the pain of sense or the heart (having a beat) has been developed. It's also a society where a drug is available and effective to end development of the conception within hours, if not sooner, after the conception's beginning. But Coulter is considered an arch-conservative, although some could call her pro-choice because of that opinion about the case of rape.
Is Lahren the same? To what degree does she think herself pro-choice? When she speaks against the pro-life position does she mean: pro-life as understood to be being applied to every single case?
On the other hand, she is a public figure where the resolution of those questions mean more than most people's. If someone is bothered by the unanswered questions, I can understand that. VargasMilan (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2017 (EDT)
FYI: Andy unpersoned Coulter as a RINO Backer back in 2012 after the Todd Akin imbroglio. JohnZ (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2017 (EDT)
I understand fully what Akins' point was: the exception for rape or incest allows unlimited access to abortion services without providing evidence a rape actually occured. This is PR. It's no different than Hillary saying she talks one line of crap in front of the voters, and another line in front of the donors. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 21:14, 28 March 2017 (EDT)
@JohnZ, reading from that list, the whole Republican party establishment are Republicans in name only. Who then, invented the pejoritive? RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 21:26, 28 March 2017 (EDT)
I heard Akin speak about it and didn't get that to be the point at all. Nor do I think he pursued the matter for the PR but risked a loss of PR to be frank with the constituency of his state in spite of the loss of PR that could have occurred. And it did occur; Media Matters had sent an agent to follow all of Akin's campaign appearances. They went on to mischaracterize those tentative remarks and speculations about abortion as proceeding from a wish by Akin to make all abortion illegal under cover of a pedantic, or worse, ignorant practical use of ideas (drawn from the mis-definition of commonly-used terminology) to make laws.
This is a complex sentence, but what I mean is I regard Akin's ideas, as far as he presented them, as seeming sound to me regardless what his final position was. But Akin's enemies, by aggrandizing a certain awkwardness of his—probably derived a great deal from a laudably respectful deference for the seriousness of the issue by Akin—used his respectfulness against him. To do this, they tried to portray his ideas as a result of the use of mis-defined terms when they weren't and further concluded the ideas to be a hazard to making relevant laws when the premises for such a judgment weren't true to begin with.
But I can't win. As I participate in discussing this issue more, more questions arise than solutions, and the more I seem to others to be preoccupied with it. As William Buckley said, "Neither suffering nor thirsting after truth and righteousness lets us off the hook as regards ordinary obligations, though; so I must beg your tolerance and forgiveness in the matter of further correspondence." VargasMilan (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
Akin was caught on tape making a pitch to voters he should be making to fellow legislstors after he got elected. His only value now is to educate future candidates is how not to be a conservative. Moderates now, and justifisbly so, have look closely at the danger of forging alliances with stupid and niave people. Akin is not a pro-life conservative. He's an idiot. And he had no business screwing up other peoples lives and commitment to the Republican party. Republicans need candidates who express rational, coherent views, and the appropriate forum to express those views. Furthermore, Republicans are not Muslims. We don't behead people who refuse to convert to our beliefs. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 07:34, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
I want to make clear that the policy of opposing abortion in the case of rape and incest is a rational position -- despite what leftists and many non-leftists think. As RobS pointed out, Akin worded his position in a very terrible way, to say the least. I don't think the GOP has to necessarily moderate their views in order to win elections -- the have to express those views in a rational way. If Akin stated his opposition to abortion in the case of rape in a better way (like by pointing out that an unborn human being is still a human being regardless of the circumstances it was created through, and emphasizing that rape is still terrible) he probably would not have lost. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
He should have got elected, introduced a bill laying out reasons for reform, debated it with colleagues, then defend it when he ran for re-election. That's not rocket science. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 11:20, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

Why we need a migrant ban

ISIS is training the "refugees" of tomorrow to cull helots like Spartans on agōgē: "ISIS 'cubs of the caliphate' hunt down prisoners before executing them at gunpoint in shocking new propaganda video" PeterKa (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2017 (EDT)

Muslims and Europe

Earlier, I gave a link by the demographic scholar Eric Kaufmann indicating that the percentage of Muslims in Britain would remain a relatively low percentage in the near/mid term.[4]

But it seems other scholars, one notable demography scholar at Oxford (David Coleman), are indicating a more Islamic future for the UK than Eric Kaufmann. [5][6][7][8][9]

And if you look at this link I provided above, there could be a large influx of Turkish into Britain. The Turkish are very much creationists due to the top advocate of Islamic creationism living in Turkey. If aggressive Islamic creationism enters in Europe, the difficulty of assimilating Muslims into a more secular ideology would be made even more difficult and it is already very difficult.Conservative (talk)

The BBC has reported on The Last Whites of the East End. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 00:28, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
One of the articles indicates: "Liberals and secularists tend to dismiss the importance of demographic and cultural issues."[10] If this is accurate, the secular left in Britain could realize too late that their ideology is doomed in Britain or at the very least underestimate the time that this will take to occur. Conservative (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
Vox Day is predicting an expulsion of Muslims from Europe which he calls Reconquista 2.0 [11]
Politics in Greece during their financial crisis got violent. It is hard to say what is going to happen in Europe.
A Christian religious revival will have to happen in Europe to solve the root cause of this situation. Low birth rates of native European populations.Conservative (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
Eventually, if 1500 years of history is any guide, Muslim,'s will feel of sufficient strength (usually around 40% of the population) to begin whacking heads much like you saw in Syria & Iraq that the Obama era is noted for. Trump sees this. Michael Flynn saw it Right now they've reached that level in certain big cities like London and Brussells. Governmrnt resettlement programs are moving them into smaller cities, villages snd the country side. The forced conversion is well under way. It id not some distant future event. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 02:36, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
How can anyone watch this, shrug their shoulders, and go on to try and convince you what a great leader Barack Obama was, or why Franklin Roosevelt was such a great leader. We're past the point of arguing or dissussing ideology. It is time to act. Those Obama-Hillary people who cite FDR as their model need to get on board - now. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 03:02, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
These boys got whacked, not because they were godless infidels or Christians, but because they weren't Muslim enough. MINOs - Muslim in Name Only. Time to wake up! RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 08:00, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

Islamic populations hitting various percentages of population and the consequences

Interesting article I found due to RobS' post on main page talk. Conservative (talk)

changing user name

I have tried to find out how to change my user name for Conservapedia, but have been unsuccessful. Can anyone help?

You are going to have to create a new account and username. We cannot change the username in our system. If I am mistaken, and we can change it, we don't know how to do it. So you are going to have to create a new account and username. Conservative (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

McCain fat shames Kim Jong-un

North Korea may have nukes, but we have the mighty weapon of British comedy: "FATTY FATTY BOOM-UN North Korea threatens WAR with the US after Senator John McCain called despot Kim Jong-un a ‘crazy fat kid’." The pictures of Kim are awesome. Monty Python once did a sketch called "The Funniest Joke in the World" about deploying humor against the Nazis. PeterKa (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

Tensions will only escalate. Trump & Mike Flynn wanted detente with Russia. Russophobes like McCain & the Deep State want continued high levels of funding for CIA, the Pentagon, and the military industrial complex. That's why they torpedoed Flynn after 24 days. That drives Putin into Kim Jong-un's arms, and ends Kim's isolation.
The Leftist-Progressive-Obama-Hillary-Deep Stater-mainstream media warmongers want a new Cold War.
Trump replaced Flynn with a Russophobe. But the IC still isn't happy with Trump's anti-NATO rhetoric (he handed Merkel an invoice for NATO services last week when she was in town). That's why they won't let go of the Trump-Russia fake news scam.
Leftist warmongers would rather risk nuclear Armageddon than a budget cut for the Deep State military industrial complex, now that the Obama/Hillary gang has taken control of it the past 8 years. And they are ready to destroy anyone with domestic spying who challenges them. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 19:05, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

A liberal is wanted for an online dialogue

A liberal is wanted to have a single online dialogue. Please let them know at if you are interested. Conservative (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

Here is their contact page: Conservative (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

Round One

Here is how the Game is played. Here is the DCCC's Hit List of GOP incumbents they think they can bump off by (a) candidate recruitment, and (b) funding. Typical cost of Congressional campaign is $3+ million (or 3m/730 days per session = $4109.59 daily avg fundraising). In competitive high income districts, 2 or 3 times higher. Look at NJ-11 Rodney Frelinghuysen, for example. CNN says he's a moderate ready to back out.

With all do respect to voters in his district to whom he must posture, when Paul Ryan, Reince Priebus, Ronna Romney, or Donald Trump call him on the phone and say, "Now," he better deliver. No arguing. No debate. No discussion. If he don't like the $4109.59 a day (probably 3 times as much in New Jersey) the RNC & RCCC pays him to keep his job, go out and get it yourself while your working as a Congressman at the same time.

So, the DCCC here is proposing to the RCCC, "If we don't spend $6 or $10 million dollars to defeat Frelinghuysen cause he has committed to Pelosi to defeat Trump's bill, we can use that money eleswhere on the Hit List where we can pick off more votes against the GOP agenda. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 16:13, 31 March 2017 (EDT)

Why I don't trust polls anymore

I used to believe in the polls. But after this, I'm not so sure: "Poll: Most Americans Don't Trust Polls." PeterKa (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2017 (EDT)