Talk:Main Page/Archive index/150

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ObamaCare replacement failure may have been a good thing

Of course, we can only know for certain after the dust settles, but the AHCA failure may not have been a bad thing. The AHCA had very low approval ratings (probably because of the MSM and its slanted reporting), and the bill's passage may have led to a 2018 election defeat (of course, we'll have to wait until 2018 to see how it plays out regardless). Also, Trump is still working on replacing ObamaCare, as he made clear in recent tweets.[2][3] He also met with Rand Paul today to discuss a better alternative to the AHCA. The GOP establishment should have done this all along. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

It shortened the legislative calender and now only less can be done this year. Worse yet, only a fool would accept those fools promises for a vote on anything before it's brought to the floor, forcing Trump. Ryan, McConnell and Priebus into the hands of Pelosi and Schumer, two professional experienced legislators, we've dealt with before, knowing they actually are capable of keeping a commitment on an important vote. Only the cost will be much higher - both to the US Treasury and the RNC. Those other buttheads aren't worth the time of day talking to, they're not for long in that world. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 21:58, 2 April 2017 (EDT)
Gingrich outlines why the GOP failed to design a bill that would pass: Newt Gingrich outlines why GOP health care bill failed.
The gimcry to try to pass the poorly designed bill doomed it to failure. Conservative (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2017 (EDT)
Trump has quite a grudge against the Freedom Caucus now: "Trump will deal with Dems on healthcare 'if we don’t get what we want'." It's a good thing the Dems hate him so much. That's the only thing that stands in the way of single payer at this point. I can't help thinking that Trump's rage would be more productively directed at Comey. PeterKa (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2017 (EDT)
If Trump is meeting with Rand Paul, one of the strongest critics of the AHCA, that is a good sign. It at least means Trump has not left conservatives. Also, if the Democrats attempt to filibuster Gorsuch, it could drive Trump further away from them. They already hate Trump -- I don't now how much they are willing to work together on. @RobS, I think you're too negative at the moment. I was angry that the AHCA failed, but Trump's statements (and those of others such as Pence and Ryan) and his meeting with Rand Paul are good signs on the future of the repeal of ObamaCare. Yes, we have to wait and see what really happens, but there is reason to not few the AHCA failure as a completely bad thing. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2017 (EDT)
Trump & Ryan got a lot of power and can dole out a lot of pork. Hating people or ideology has nothing to do with hard-headed politics, except the crap they feed to the cameras for the folks back home.
The next (big) vote is debt ceiling, which will determine principally two things: (1) how much will be spent on heathcare between now and the midterms, under whatever law, and (2) how much pork to be dealt out to which legislators who commit (minus those idiots who just showed the world their word is worthless) on certain other upcoming measures (like infrastructure, border wall, immigration). Tax reform is probably dead for this year, and it was those conservative idiots who killed it. Let me explain.
Half the tax reform was rolled into the healthcare bill. It was voted down. The number of days remaining to, start from scratch, do major overhauls of healthcare and the tax code aren't enough. Since Pelosi has been brought into the process, the debt ceiling will have to be raised higher, cause that is her price to payoff members of her caucus on both healthcare and pork.
Pelosi can promise, that when a certain measure comes up on such-and-such date, she will deliver the 28-38 votes needed for passage. It's all being paid for in the debt ceiling vote. And we can't run massive deficits to pay for healthcare, pork, and a tax cut. Those idiots excluded themselves from any deal making completely with their dishonesty pledging to vote and failing to deliver. They may as well go home. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 05:15, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

Given his base, Trump could never promote a bipartisan bill. So he is waiting for ObamaCare to implode via skyrocketing premiums and insurers dropping out of the exchanges. And the Republicans had put a high priority on passing healthcare legislation for about 7 years. So Trump didn't do the tax code first. The Democrats will never agree to a decent or even fairly decent healthcare bill until ObamaCare fails. Conservative (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

The discussions going on right now between Pelosi and her members, and Ryan and his (minus the Tea Party), are identical. First the Gang of Four agree on a number, say 9 Trillion dollars (the debt ceiling increase). Then they subtract 86% mandatory entitlement non-discretionary spending = $1.26 Trillion. That has to be divided up (435 + 100) = 535 - 32 (Tea Partiers who excluded themselves from the process) = 503 ways. $1.26 trillion/503 members = $2.5 billion per member (of course certain adjustment are made). Under this formula, legislstors who are honest and good, who keep their word, get rewarded an extra $145 million dollars per district (it would have been $2.35 billion per head had the so-called "conservatives" cooperated; being negligent, stubborn, and dishonest is not conservative). The liars go home with nothing, and tell their voters how hard they fought for them, challenging the president, challenging Paul Ryan, who must be bad because their both in bed with Nancy Pelosi. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 06:00, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
The boxer Rocky Marciano often got pummeled by opponents at first, but then he later came on strong as his opponents faded in strength. ObamaCare is going to fade in strength, then Trump will come in and give a knockout blow to ObamaCare. Donald J. Trump is going to help repeal and replace ObamaCare with something fantastic! Conservative (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
You're using a metaphor for media coverage, not for the substance of negotiation and legislation. And what you're describing was supposed to happen a week ago. Now Pelosi gets to salvage big portions of Obamacare cause the Tea Party has rejected the mandate of a democratic election. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 15:54, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

Trump was never excited about the GOP/Ryan's plan. His son in law was vacationing during all/most of the time the bill was being pushed. Before the whole fiasco, Trump said we could just let ObamaCare implode. Trump always knew had a sold plan B which is letting ObamaCare implode.

The GOP has been divided for some time now. And not one Democrat voted for Ryan's bill which is to be expected given Obama's attachment to ObamaCare and that it was passed without a single GOP vote. Trump knew all this. And Trump is not terribly upset about Ryan's bill failing to be passed. Conservative (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

The game the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus plays - going against leadership - can work when your in the minority. It doesn't work so well when you're part of a governing coalition ("in the majority"). Each member is beholden to their party leader for many things, like a bound delegate at a convention. Rogue members or delegates are punished. The Tea Party, for instance, demonstrated to the world their utter untrustworthiness. Having been ostracized by Ryan, who are they going to turn to? Pelosi? Pelosi's first words to them will be, "You can't be trusted."
Why are rogue elements effective in a minority party? Pelosi needs a number of rogue elements right now, the size of the Tea Party willing to give the appearance of going against her leadership, in order to work with the President ("trading votes"). Unlike the Republicans, the Democratic rogue elements will not be punished with loss of a Committee assignment or funding for an election. They are doing Pelosi's bidding - producing a bi-partisan bill, salvaging some form of Obamacare, a scuttling the GOP's ambitious agenda. And they have nothing to loose.
From here on out it doesn't matter what the Tea Party's position on anything is, or how they vote. Nothing is dependent on thier ideas, input, or votes. They have been cut out. It's up to them, should the need or opportunity arise, to come begging for forgiveness to Rience Preibus, Donald Trump, and Paul Ryan (in that order) if they want a shot at being part of the next Congress. (Addendum: Call it the GOP's Northern Tier strategy: the traditional Northern tier of New England RINOs and Midwest heartlanders are purging the GOP of Southern strategy racists). RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 16:51, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
Addendum II: and the excuse, "it was a bad bill", doesn't work either. After seven years of debate and discussion, if a member doesn't know the alternatives, or understand the legislstive process, he doesn't belong there. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 17:39, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
So, does Trump's meeting with Rand Paul yesterday, as I pointed out, mean anything to you? Paul was probably the most vocal critic of the AHCA. This doesn't sound like Trump is now shunning the Tea Party. He is talking with some of them. Let me also point out the Trump's budget director Mick Mulvaney is a Tea Partier. Also, the Dems hate Trump so much that they probably will not vote for any bill with Trump's or Ryan's name on it. Are there any "rogue" Dems out there right now anyway (besides those two or three Red-State Senators)? The likelihood of the Dems or Pelosi working with Trump seems quite low.
I do disagree with you calling Tea Party racist. You're borrowing the far-left fiction that conservatives and southerners are inherently racist. I explained some of it on The South, but in short, there are many, many other reasons for the shift to the GOP, which had little-to-nothing to do with race, and more to do with issues like abortion, states rights (not the same or similar to racism), and the fact that the Democrats became extremely left-wing. The shift to the GOP really took place long after race ceased being a political issue and only ended around 2010-2014. Also, Justin Amash is an Arab from Michigan.
Regardless of your "Addendum II", I just found out that gun-rights groups also opposed the bill.[4] If the GOP agrees on another bill (which could still happen), it will likely be better than the first one. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
There are two issues here, and let's address them in priority. (1) The budget, the level of overall spending determined in debt ceiling vote next. Regardless of under what law healthcare is administered (Obamacare or an alternative), the cost will be determined next. Any proposal deemed "to expensive," exceeds the predetermined limits under the debt ceiling increase. This is what Trump & Rand Paul are discussing now. And Rand Paul is identified more with Libertarians, although there is some crossover with Tea Partiers. From a PR perspective, yes, Trump & Rand Paul are probably discussing how to wean public perceptions away from the Tea Party and to a libertarian POV. Libertarians have never been considered obstructionist. (And it's probably more Rand Paul giving advice to Trump, a New York city RINO, on Libertarianism and national conservative perspectives. Trump is a novice in this area). (2) Rand Paul is in the Senate, and had little connection with the problem children in the House. Recall how Ted Cruz rallied the House Tea Partiers to shut down the government, and was roundly criticized by his fellow Senators, later Donald Trump in the primaries. Rand Paul did not rise to defend him.
So look at these two incidents and how they played out, and the personalities and coalitions that emerged to defeat the Freedom Caucus: (1) the murder of John Boehner as Speaker. (2) Reopening the government after the Tea Party shutdown. Pelosi played a big role in both. And Cruz has since distanced himself from the Freedom Caucus. You don't see Cruz rallying them to shutdown the government in three weeks on the debt ceiling vote to "drain the swamp". All this now was foreseeable with Trumps attacks on "Lyin Ted". He was building links to the congressional coalition that defeated the Tea Party then. Rand Paul is part of that coalition. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 19:03, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
I just saw this Politico article. Not only did Trump meet with Rand Paul, but he is meeting with the Freedom Caucus right now. The claim that Trump is done with them is a lie. This ain't over yet. :)
Now, concerning Rand Paul and the Tea Party, Paul is a member of the Tea Party. He even wrote a book in 2011 titled The Tea Party Goes to Washington. Libertarianism is a major strand (to say the least) of the Tea Party, and more accurately, the Tea Party is a libertarian-conservative movement. Justin Amash is probably the most libertarian congressman right now (the ideological successor of Ron Paul in the House), and he was probably the most vocal critic of the AHCA in the House. He also hasn't shied away from strongly criticizing Trump.[5][6] Also, Rand Paul was key to the defeat of the AHCA. Remember that video he posted of himself trying to get into the private meetings Ryan and the establishment were holding?
The bottom line: Rand Paul, the Tea Party, and libertarianism are one. And Trump's not finished with them -- not even close. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
It's all the debt ceiling debate. However a member votes on debt ceiling, they are locked into another vote later on healtcare, either the GOP version or keep Obamacare. At least that's how the it's supposed to work. Nobody trusts the Freedom Caucuses on anything anymore. So Pelosi is waiting in the wings to avoid a government shutdown. They are not discussing the particulars of any bill, they are explaining the rules to these ignorant dufusses, that they have already destroyed tax reform, infrastructure, and jobs, and if they keep up the shenanigans, they will awake with a horses head in their bed. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 00:56, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
What I read in the Politico article I shared above is very promising. If Trump and the moderates can convince them to join along, which could happen, then not only will we have a much better healthcare plan, but now the way will be cleared for tax reform. Maybe you're right that the Freedom Caucus is not trusted anymore (I don't want to get into that), but they apparently still have a lot of influence, and Trump still wants to work with them. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
Update: The Freedom Caucus is continuing to meet with the administration, and they say they are "intrigued" with an offer the administration made, according to this article. We'll see what happens, but more proof that Trump is not done with them yet. Besides, when nearly every Dem literally hates everything about Trump, it is quite hard for him to work with them. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
Another update: More progress appears to be being made right now. And the Freedom Caucus is still not excluded. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
The Gorsuch block means Democrats rejected the deal on federal judges. However we won't know til we see the final tally. Whatever 5he result, Democrats who vote for Gorsuch should not be confused as voting on rigid ideological pro-choice lines; rather, and we need a list of names as well, they should be seen as Democratic Senators willing to deal with Trump on healthcare and tax reform.
The filibuster vote is more an internal Senate thing with precedents, more of a Shummer v McConnell contest. The final tally will be a Shummer v Trump contest. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 21:16, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
Here's a source link on good inside scuttlebutt. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 21:42, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
Okay, Rob, who were these racist segregationists who abandoned their loyalty to the Democratic Party and voted for Nixon in 1968?
Five of the southern states, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississipi, Alabama and Georgia voted for George Wallace; Wallace isn't Nixon. Texas voted for Hubert Humphrey; Humphrey isn't Nixon. Yet all the rest of the southern states (except South Carolina), states containing segregationists and all, had already voted Republican in the 1928 presidential election: Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Missouri.
So only South Carolina could have been said to be affected by any "Southern Strategy", which only carries eight electoral votes. Had this state remained Democrat or gone for George Wallace, Nixon would have won the electoral college against Humphrey and Wallace either 293-199-46 or 293-191-54.
Of all the segregationists in the Senate, which ones remained liberal Democrats until leaving office? Can you name even one who switched parties?
If you can't, how can you claim the GOP needed purging of "Southern Strategy racists"? What can you show us that would prove that it was not, rather, only the Democratic Party that needed purging?
And if you can't do that either, maybe you could write a history book helping out the Democrats called Hoover's Southern Strategy. VargasMilan (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
Sorry, I can't quite follow some of your statements. Please remember, we are discussing two things here, and we need to be clear on which. One is the make up of a caucus, and secondly the demographics​ of an electorate.
Now if you can re-phrase the question and be specific to era (for example, the 1928 election was a rejection of a Roman Catholic, Al Smith, by klan elements in the Democratic party.
And please do not confuse references to a Southern Strategy which didn't happen until Nixon's second term. No, there is no continum from Goldwater '64, Civil Rights Act of '65, and Nixon '68. It did not hsppen the way DNC talking points claim. Even by '74 the GOP was washed out in Midterms. And the Southern racists return home to vote for Carter in '76. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 03:13, 7 April 2017 (EDT)


Ryan is not as good as Newt Gingrich in terms of his ideology and ability. And his failure to endorse Trump the nominee was idiotic. As a result of this idiocy, he doesn't have a very strong alliance with Trump. Consequently, Ryan was at the mercy of Trump in terms of Trump wanting to rush the bill process which caused the bill to be withdrawn.

Ryan also didn't have all his ducks in a row in terms of having a passable bill that the American people liked. And his 3 part process with buckets 1,2,3 of the process for the various provisions of the ultimate bill being passed was not doable in terms of having public support due to public distrust of Washington. The public saw only bucket number 1 and he should have foreseen this.

From an economics point of view, the bill was a disaster and would not have kept premiums down as it had too many mandates in terms of coverage. The bill should have allowed the private sector to offer a wide variety of plans depending on people's various needs. Conservative (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2017 (EDT)

(1) Ryan could not have a stronger alliance witness of the fact Ryan gave his Chief of staff to be Trump's Chief of staff; (2) Trump didn't set the legislative agenda, as he knows nothing about it. Ryan and Priebus did. (3) Ryan's been working on an alternative, or rather a series of alternative bills requiring a series of votes, because​ that's what it is, since 2009. This is a monumental task for one man; Democrats had whole committees in both Houses working on it. Ryan and a handful of legislators in both Houses have been working on alternatives for years. Don't blame Ryan, blame the idiot Republicans and voters who send people to Washington with no interest, or are unqualified, to do the hard work. And end up having to trust others telling them its a good bill. In fact, this is the only reason Ryan was elected Speaker: he not only was the only one who understood some of the problems, he was the only one willing to spend time addressing it. Getting elected Speaker only made him divide his time and made that job more difficult. You seem to carry the mistaken notion Republicans are as equally efficient legislstors and team players as Democrats. But they're not.
Priebus should quit, and send up a Freedom Caucuser or one of their staff to be White House Chief of staff. They'd be lucky to get 32 votes on any bill the remainder of the term. That's how despised they are in both parties. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 19:10, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
The reason the Democrats had so many people working on ObamaCare is that it was a typical, overly complicated "Rube Godlberg machine" type of legislation with many unintended consequences. That is what you wind up with when you don't have a more free market type of solution to healthcare. Free market type of legislation would have been simpler in design.
Maybe Ryan was in a no win situation. Perhaps the moderates never would have approved of a bill that was satisfactory to the Freedom Caucus and the moderates. If so, ObamaCare is going to have to implode and then perhaps moderates will be more reasonable.
The reason the Freedom Caucus is despised by many is because they want less government and not more. The establishment types want Washington to have a lot of power and the for citizens to have little power (except for the ones who can donate large amounts to their campaigns).
If you take power away from Washington, you are going to be hated. Thank God Trump and the Freedom Caucus are both hated by the RINOS, Democrats and mainstream press. I do realize that the Freedom Caucus is more conservative than Trump in some ways. I think Trump should work with the Freedom Caucus and other conservatives more because the RINOS and Dems are probably never going to like Trump except when he spends a lot of money (like he proposed large spending on infrastructure). Conservative (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
The term, leg-is-la-tor means author of laws. Of 535 members of Congress there are very very very few leg-is-la-tors. Most laws, probably 99% of them, are written by staff attorneys and committee councels. The minute few who are actually involved in crafting the language of a bill stand out, Schumer, Ryan, Henry Waxman, Edward Markey, Moynihan, Biden and a few others. Pelosi is not a leg-is-lat-or, she's a ringleader, an organizer, a manager. Most members spend their time talking, not writing law. They vote on it, only after someone else, the bills author, explains it to them. They never even look at the language.
One of the contributing leg-is-la-tors to Obamacare wasn't even a member of Congress or staff, Jonathon Gruber.
So anytime you hear any member of Congress speak on any bill, ask yourself, 'Is this a 'legislator' or a pitchman reselling a pitch he was sold by a staff member, a committee councel, a lobbyist, a colleague, or leadership. Focus on listening to a bill's author, or contributing author. And believe me, no member would make a claim of 'a bill I wrote' to the cameras or at a townhall meeting if it weren' true. That's plagerism. And a boast of 'a bill I sponsored' means staffers wrote it. McConnell often speaks of 'a bill that originated', means he might have wrote or dictated something, but other members, committee, and staff did the details. The Freedom Caucus are the laziest bunch; they do nothing but complain to whoever will listen, and not only contribute nothing to authorship, all they do is oppose all legislation, thinking that is conservative. Find me one Freedom Caucuser who ever said, "I wrote a bill that passed Congress", meaning he authored a law everyone agreeed on. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 19:58, 7 April 2017 (EDT)

My beef with ObamaCare and RyanCare is that too many people in Congress don't understand the basics of economics. That is the fundamental reason why both those healthcare systems were fundamentally flawed. The Freedom Caucus does understand the basics of economics and that is why they opposed RyanCare with all its mandates which would have raised healthcare prices so they were difficult to pay for. It's idiotic. Why is it so hard to understand that if you put extra features in a healthcare policy that people don't want and will not use, they are going to be spending more unnecessarily? Conservative (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

It is no longer true that Obamacare was passed on a straight party line vote. Conservatives crossed over and voted to save it. Why? Because they are too obstinate to participate in our legislstive process and learn about incrementalism. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 05:13, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
As far as incrementalism, Republicans ran on making things much better. They did not run promising to make things a little less worse. In addition, with the trillions of federal debt and the current state of American health, incrementalism is a luxury America cannot afford.
The legislators have a moral obligation to do their best and not merely settle for poorly thought out garbage legislation. If you are running a restaurant, you don't serve garbage food. Why should Americans have greater tolerance for substandard performance from their leaders than from restaurant owners? Leaders are supposed to set good examples. Conservative (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
A 'bills author' is a strategic visionary who seeks an end goal thru a series of incremental steps. Civil rights legislation for example incrementally took 100 years. Obamacare's end goal is. was, and remains single payer. Rather than listen to the author's intent of their strategic vision, Schumer on the one side for single payer, Ryan on the other for a free market, you and the Freedom Caucus elected to listen to lobbyists who goal is to disrupt an incremental process. Hoping presumably for a better time to pass their agenda, whatever it may be, assuming they actually have a strategic agenda and a vision other than single payer or a free market. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 05:43, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
The homosexual agenda and gay marriage again is an example of the success of incrementalism because conservatives refuse to understand the legislstive process and participate in it. When I recently attempted to show Andy the strategic vision to stack the Supreme Court with conservatives thru a series of incremental steps begining with (1) filibustering Obama's nominee for a year, (2) nominating a moderate who was filibustered, (3) nuking the filibuster rule, (4) appointing conservatives to replace Ginsburg and Kennedy who only need 50 votes to pass, (5) overturn Roe v Wade and gay marriage, Andy didn't want to hear. He'd rather sit and trash-talk Republican strategic visionaries 18 months before Midterm elections with an unpopular president leading the party.RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 06:00, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
Picking a moderate in step 2 makes no sense. Why not pick a conservative who can win a majority after going nuclear? After the GOP refused giving a up or down vote on the previous Supreme Court nominee and Trump won with the help of Wikileaks and Comey's 11th hour investigation before the election, the Democrats were very likely going to filibuster any candidate they thought would probably be pro-life. Andy was right about the GOP picking someone who has a greater certainty of being pro-life than Gorsuch. Conservative (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
The answer to your question is right here. And this 4-6 minute video is well worth listening to. Morris credentials are established as a strategist who provided strategic vision to elected officials and presidents. His information is current. And trust me, it's not often Shumer makes mistakes, which is what got my attention. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 06:39, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

Morris can be brilliant. On the other hand, he is known for making a number of wrong predictions.[7] I think Gorsuch has at least a 60% to 70% chance of overturning Roe vs. Wade if the opportunity arises. If I am correct, it is the 30 to 40% that is the problem. So Morris may be entirely right. On the other hand, Andy may be right.Conservative (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

My mainpoint is, and I know its frustrating, we need to understand incrementalism and how to use it. Obamacare is an incremental bill, and it can only be rolled back incrementally.
James Dobson explained the whole incremental homosexual agenda in 1996 or '98 saying the end goal was gay marriage. Gay marriage in 1996? No one believed him. It's not 20 years later, and here we are.
I blame Rush Limbaugh in part; he's explained it well to his audience with a negative twist-that it's something to be fought. No. It's something to be used. Undoing Roe v Wade can only be done incrementally. Keep your eyes on the prize.
Here again is where the Tea Party messed up: by adopting an attitude all incremental legislation must be opposed - the all or nothing approach - they rescued Obamacare for the day Pelosi and the Democrats can finally achieve single payer. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 15:20, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

Results on Religion from the 2016 General Social Survey

Hey guys, long time reader (but not an editor) of Conservapedia here. I thought some of you might be interested in the results on religion in the US from the recently released General Social Survey 2016. The GSS is conducted every two years and is considered to be a top tier survey. Most of what it says about religion was fairly positive (from a Christian perspective) but there was some negatives. The data release was only partial, but you can look at trend data here... Basically, belief in life after death and church attendance grew across all demographic groups. Not by huge margins but with all the news about how religion is supposedly collapsing in America, I found that interesting. The frequency of prayer also rose modestly and belief in the Bible was stable (a one point increase in those saying the Bible is a book of fables.) Something else I thought was interesting was the religious affiliation question. I think last year a couple of media outlets was saying that the percentage of Americans with no religion was like up to 25%, but the GSS found that number to be lower at 22% (a one point increase from 2014.) Funny thing is that most of the disaffiliation from this survey came from the oldest demographic (65+ year olds.) The percentage of those saying they did not believe in God also rose by one point and agnosticism grew by 2 points as I recall. Belief changed the most among the youngest cohort. Personally, I think the United States is simultaneously getting more and less religious...the cultural stigma of saying you don't go to church or don't believe is eroding but there is still a very strong core of religious followers in the United States that are more passionate about their faith. AnchorDown (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

That's very interesting. Thanks for posting your analysis of the survey.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
I read the data to say, the older generation of baby boomers and ex-godless hippies are finally getting religion (impacting the numbers cause there's so many of them) while the younger generation of brain washed youths and victims of public education are toeing the line of their victimizers. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 18:23, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
Thanks Anchordown.
I appreciate you sharing the information you did. There are a lot of changes (and expected changes} in the United States and the world as far as: demographics that point to the United States being more religious in the long term and not less (see: Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will see a significant decline).
For example, these factors point to the United States being more religious in the future in terms of the long term: growing Hispanic population; religious people have more children; economics (namely economic instability. In times of economic instability people turn to faith and family); educational system changes (Betty Devos and Americans wanting more school choice; homeschooling growing; signs of a higher educational bubble such as surging student loan defaults and growing online education which will effect anti-religious leftist academia), liberal news media losing influence; in the United States and throughout the world the state is losing power and populism is surging which will make it hard for anti-religious ideologies to be foisted on the public; etc. etc.
Historically, mankind has been religious. While atheism has been around since ancient times, it was not the dominant view by any means. Atheism hit its peak in the world in 1970 and it appears to have just been an anomaly and intellectual fad (see: Desecularization).

Hispanic-American atheism recently saw a dip.[8] This is probably due to the growth of Hispanic-American evangelicalism. And of course, due to the fact that American atheism lacks machismo. The Jewish-American atheist Eddie Tabash testified to the lack of machismo of American atheism. Tabash said, "In every generation there has been a promising beginning of a true vanguard movement that will finally achieve widespread public acceptance for nonbelief. Yet, in each generation there has been an ultimately disappointing failure to actually register the naturalistic alternative to supernatural claims in the public consciousness...".[9] The atheist Thunderf00t concurs and said in 2016, "I'm not sure there is anything in this movement worth saving. Hitchens is dead. Dawkins simply doesn't have the energy for this sort of thing anymore. Harris went his own way. And Dennett just kind of blended into the background. So what do you think when the largest gathering of the nonreligious in history pulls in... I don't know. Maybe 2,000 people. Is there anything worth saving?"[10]

The Brookings Institution is predicting a long term decline of white Americans in terms of the USA's population.[11] Of course, this is devastating to the prospects of American atheism. See: Western atheism and race.

In addition, Asian atheism is undergoing a heavy artillery barrage of evangelical Christianity and the walls of militant atheism are crumbling in China as a result. Yang Fenggang of Purdue University, in Indiana, says the Christian church in China has grown by an average of 10% a year since 1980. He reckons that on current trends there will be 250,000,000 Christians by around 2030, making China’s Christian population the largest in the world. Mr. Yang says this speed of growth is similar to that seen in fourth-century Rome just before the conversion of Constantine, which paved the way for Christianity to become the religion of his empire.[12] If Mr. Yang is right, and there is no reason to believe he is not right, North America may see a lot more Asian evangelical immigrants in the future. Conservative (talk)

The General Social Survey released the SDA Analysis Tool for the 2016 survey recently. You can find it here… I looked at the religious affiliation for the youngest cohorts (18-24 year olds and 18-30 year olds). According to the survey, Christian affiliation held steady with the 18-30 year olds (2014: 61.6% Christian / 2016 – 61.6% Christian.) Among the 18 – 24 year olds, there was a slight increase in Christian affiliation from 58.9% to 61.0%. Maybe we could be seeing a turnaround for the church in the near future. AnchorDown (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
According to survey data, there is no religious group American atheists dislike more than evangelical Christians.
Also, the majority of the world's atheists live in East Asia and China has the largest group of atheist in the world (see: Asian atheism). Furthermore, evangelical Christianity is seeking explosive growth in China and the intelligence level of those Christians is very high and is in fact higher than the bulk of Chinese as a whole (see: Growth of Christianity in China and Asian atheism and intelligence). In addition, these Christians are very hard working (see: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). The very astute investor Jim Rogers and others are predicting an Asian Century and in large part fueled by China. One of the most powerful forces in modern life is globalization given global communications/competition/trade/immigration. In addition, the Christians in China are very zealous/determined and committed to evangelism - even outside the borders of China (See: Christianity, Asian century and its implications).
Furthermore, if the loss of the largest population of atheists in the world who are replaced by the most zealous type of Christians in the world that happen to be very intelligent/resourceful wasn't bad enough for militant atheists, there are a whole slew of entrenched powerful trends/forces that are lining up to grind down irreligion in the 21st century (see: Causes of desecularization and desecularization).
European godlessness did have an influence on the United States, but nevertheless historically the level of atheism/agnosticism in the USA has remained relatively stable (see: American atheism). But long term, things are stacking up against American atheism/agnosticism and recently there has been much division in American atheism which killed any increased morale they experience due to New Atheism (see: 10 reasons why American atheism will see a significant decline and Atheist movement). Also, New atheism is effectively did now as a movement (see also: Richard Dawkins' loss of influence).
If all this wasn't bad enough for American atheism, American Christians and other religious groups, have a hedge of protection against secularism which is the expected growth of an ethnic group which historically has been resistant to secularization - namely Hispanics. And Hispanic evangelicalism is seeing rapid growth in the United States (see: Atheism and Latino Americans).
Checkmate atheists. :) Conservative (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2017 (EDT)

FDR and the press

When all the controversy over Trump's relationship with the press, it's a good time to review some history: "FDR's War Against the Press" The radio stations of the 1930s understood that they could lose their FCC licenses if they got labeled anti-New Deal. They broadcast FDR's fireside chats in full with minimal commentary as faithfully as Twitter broadcasts Trump tweets. The Senate had a Lobby Investigations Committee that poured through tax records and private Western Union telegraphs in search of dirt on FDR critics. No job in Congress was more important to the White House than this. Senators Black and Minton, both chairmen of this committee, were rewarded with seats on the Supreme Court. PeterKa (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2017 (EDT)

FDR viewed William Randolph Hearst as his biggest enemy, probably more than Tojo or Hitler. He certainly didnt have much opposition in Congress or anywhere in Washington.
Incidentally, there are many many parallels to FDR, personally and politically. If Trump,'s to be successful, he needs to start studying the FDR playbook. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 08:10, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
When Supreme Court opposition to FDR collapsed at the end of 1937, a "Conservative Coalition" between southern Dems and Republicans was formed in Congress. So there was always opposition in Washington. PeterKa (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2017 (EDT)

Gorsuch confirmed

Neil Gorsuch was just confirmed. Are we going to need to mention that?--Abcqwe (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2017 (EDT)

Done! --1990'sguy (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
I meant on the news feed, not the page for Neil Gorsuch, but I suppose the MSM has it fully covered.

Abcqwe (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2017 (EDT)

2016 -2017 fantastic years

I have been hearing liberals refer to 2016 with a obscenity in front of the year. But 2016 was a glorious year.

Here is what 2016 brought:

1. Trump elected

2. Surge in right-wing politics.

3. The 3 major creationist websites saw a big surge in traffic in the latter part of 2016 (, and

Now that Christian apologists spent some time debunking various atheist talking points as a result of New Atheism appearing/disappearing and evangelical Christianity surging in the world (see: Growth of evangelical Christianity), I believe that the various lines of argumentation for biblical Christianity are going to rise in prevalence and importance on the world stage.

4. Loss of morale in the atheism movement and only about 2,000 people showing up for the Reason Rally. YouTube atheist Thunderf00t said, "I'm not sure there is anything in this movement worth saving. Hitchens is dead. Dawkins simply doesn't have the energy for this sort of thing anymore. Harris went his own way. And Dennett just kind of blended into the background. So what do you think when the largest gathering of the nonreligious in history pulls in... I don't know. Maybe 2,000 people. Is there anything worth saving?[13]

5. The scholars at the Center for Global Christianity, who collect reams of data, projecting the actual number of atheists in the world is now actually dropping (see: Global atheism statistics). Previously, it was just the global percentage of atheists in the world decreasing that was being reported.

2017 is shaping up to be a fantastic year. Right now, jobs in manufacturing and construction and not just service sector jobs are seeing significant rises. Trump killing off onerous regulations is having an effect. Conservative (talk)

There's also the fact that AiG opened the Ark Encounter in 2016, and Brexit occurred that year (at least the vote did). ICR is also moving forward to build its own creation museum in Dallas (not to compete with AiG, but to complement). Let's just hope that the Trump Administration does not become the new establishment. I've heard some concerning reports that Kushner's influence is growing at the expense of Bannon and even Priebus. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
The old girl's loosing her mind, poor thing. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 13:37, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

2017 may end on sour note: December 4th Could Trigger The "Most Violent Economic Shock In History"

How December 4th Could Trigger The "Most Violent Economic Shock In History".[14]

The EU was poorly designed. Eventually it was going to breakup. Long term that will probably be a good thing, but in the short term and midterm, there may be a lot of economic pain while the system flushes out the economic stagnation. I hope it does not cause 10-20 years of global economic depression. Conservative (talk)

Good news: The Italian government will confirm an economic growth forecast of 1 percent for 2017 and revive its privatisation programme next week when it publishes a new multi-year fiscal plan, junior Economy Minister Enrico Morando said on Saturday.[15] Conservative (talk)
Italy's buoyant 5-Star keeps options open on euro referendum.[16] Conservative (talk)

Pepsi pulls "Black soda matters" ad

It's a sad day when a multinational conglomerate is forced to pull a classic street protester parody off the air: "Pepsi Pulls Ad Accused of Trivializing Black Lives Matter." They "did not intend to make light of any serious issue," according to the apology. Hey, I just wanted Kendall Jenner to explain how I could, "Join the Oconversation." Pepsi certainly got attention. They could end up making more money by not showing the ad. PeterKa (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

I participated in a taste test which showed that Pepsi is better than Coke, but Royal Crown Cola beats them both.
And uncarbonated sparkling water, lemonade, ice tea and loganberry drinks beat all the colas. "Another review of several studies found that the combination of sugar and carbonation may lead to severe dental decay. However, plain sparkling water appears to pose little risk to dental health. It's only the sugary types that are harmful."[17]
If God wanted drinks to be carbonated, He would have given us signs. He didn't!

Who in their right mind would pass on cool refreshing water and delicious lemonade, ice tea and loganberry and drink inferior tasting carbonate drinks?Conservative (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
In general, "sodas of color" are losing to 7-Up in the culture wars. JDano (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
Businesses that get overly involved in politics for frivolous reasons are foolish. With politics being very divided in the USA, it is a no-win situation. Conservative (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
What, are you arguing for a carbonated beverage tax now? You sound like a big government liberal.
Imagine, being an African-American and true believer whose family member was killed in an officer-involved shooting with a white officer, to awake and see your movement was exploited and hijacked by for-profit corporate interests. Now they could backtrack and say they'll contribute to the non-profit Black Lives Matter movement, an organization Sheriff Clarke branded as a hate group. What happened to Starbucks would happen to Pepsi. It's not just media and politicians out of step with popular sentiment, corporations and advertisers as well. They painted themselves into a corner om this one. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2`

WWI and today's Democrats

I just wrote two articles on the origin of World War I: Kaiser Wilhelm II and Schlieffen Plan. I think there is a definite contemporary resonance. After the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the Germans started thinking of themselves as Europe’s top dog. After they had to back down before the Anglo-French at Agadir in 1911, they went batty and started lashing out, much like Trump-era Democrats. PeterKa (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

I think you trace German sentiments back to the Second Reich in 1871. Or back to the Frankfurt parliment in 1848 and debates over Grosse Deutschland v Klein Deutschland. Or back to the defeat of Napolean. Germany's naval arms race with Great Britain pre-dates the Russo-Japanese war.
In retrospect, even the second Moroccan crisis should not be overblown for what it was; one year earlier all Western powers, GB, France, Germany, Russia, and the US, all sent troops to China to put down the Boxer rebellion, reflecting what today would be called a global consensus.
Hitler says in Mein Kampf he was rooting for Japan because Russia's defeat would mean an end to Pan-Slavism, the Slavic nationalist movements spreading throughout the Austo-Hungarian (obviously impacting the families of Austrian civil servants, of which Hitler's family was), like among the Serbs for instances who ultimately murdered the Archduke. While those sentiments may have been true among Austrians, the same can't be said in Imperial Germany, where the general feeling was Germans weren't getting the respect the felt they deserved after having twice defeated France in the past 100 years. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 10:19, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
The Democrats today remind me of 2-year-olds who don't get their way. Their reaction to Trump's election was predictable. Even so, I was somewhat surprised by the depth of immaturity. Conservative (talk)
The Syrian strike has shaken things up; the coup plotters and his staunchest critics are behind him, and his most ardent supporters condemn it. I suspect we'll see a similiar response on the domestic side when he comes out for saving social security and a minimum wage increase.
It's hard to believe McCain is serious going forward with a Russia investigation now that Trump has tested the effectiveness of the Russian missile defense system. And has shown his willingness to test it. This has application to North Korea's missile defense system as well. Their's probably isn't as modern as the missile defense system deployed in Syria, so there isn't much time for improvements and upgrades, now that the weaknesses are known. Same is true for Iran. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 15:04, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
I don't know if I would go back to 1871, much less 1848, but it's true that Germany's drive for world domination at all costs has a longer history than I let on earlier. In 1900, balance of power logic suggested an Anglo-German alliance to counter the Franco-Russians. Yet Anglophobia raged in Germany in response to the Boer War. BTW, the Boxer Rebellion was in 1900, 11 years before Agadir. PeterKa (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
You're right. I misspoke on that point. But the larger point that Eight Nation Alliance, which included Japan, still stands (as a footnote, France & GB jointly occupied Beijing in 1875 to put down an uprising, four short years after France could not defend its own borders or capital in 1871, which German international observers, who were few in number, took such a projection of power as quite arrogant).
From the defeat of Napolean to the outbreak of the WWI you are dealing with the rise of national concsiouseness, not just its full blown expression in nationalism itself. (Ironically, while Western powers like the EU are trying to obliterate the idea of national conciousness among Westerners, at the same time we are try to instill the idea of national conciousness into the inhabitants of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, South Africa, Syria, and a host of other places)..
I found this section of this article right to the end very interesting - which touches on many current issues including the recent coup attempt against President Trump (references to Ukraine and Pro-Russian stance). It has the background beginning in 1848, and beyond the first paragraph there are no sources cited. This is very much a live issue. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 14:02, 13 April 2017 (EDT)

Looking at that Election, yes, my brother in law shewed me films of teenage girls saying they would kill themselves because Hilary lost, and as Christians we would not want that, but that they repent. They had their chance, given the system You have, so too bad. As for that, in principle, it is not right that a party with less votes gets to win the Election, because this is not the will of the people, even if I am no fan of the Liberalism that has perverted the Democrats, who at least many decades ago were not as synonymous with Liberals as they are now. If a country is democratic, then what the majority decide should be the government, but instead there is a convoluted system that ends up somehow turning defeat into victory for Donald Trump. I will be honest and say I was not always a fan of his, but he is preferable to Hilary Clinton. In New Zealand we brought in proportional representation, which is better, but unfortunately the politicians got a hold of it, and wrecked it, forcing in a five per cent threshold, meaning that more than once, Conservative, Christian parties over the years, who had won up to 4.7 % of the vote, did not get any seats, and stupid other parties who got less votes got seats because at least one of their members won a local seat - ours is now also a convoluted system that needs changing, but the principle behind proportional representation is fair, since then no party getting less votes will win the election, and You would be upset if the roles had been reversed, and Hilary had won with less votes, which could also have happened. Some criticise our system as it almost always results in coalitions, which some say are weak, but the current one is not, and in any case, if all the people in a country cannot make up their mind, and are mixed in their opinions, then so be it, but I still hope change the system to be fairer. As a aside, to Hitler's alliance with Japan, I suspect that had he defeated the Soviet Union, he would have turned on Japan, being they were not Aryan anyway, and I fail to see how the Nazis on principle justified an alliance with a non Aryan people, just because they were themselves xenophobic and militaristic. This shews though the stupidity of racist thought, because if one espouses it, then it limits the friends one can have in a world where people need all the friends they can get - as long as it is not through compromise. God Himself never wanted people to be racist - He told the Jews not to mix with some races, not because they were different, but because they were idolators - so this was a spiritual, not a racial, separation, because He also allowed the Jews to wed people from other areas, those not Jews, but only those who had not bowed down to idols - come out from among her and be ye separate, have we not all one Father ? hath not one God created us ? for He hath made of one blood all nations. Cbl12 (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2017 (EDT)

We are a federated union of 50 sovereign states. The states are not provinces or counties. Of the three million popular votes Hillary won by, 7 million were concentrated in 3 states dominated by extremists, California, New York, and Massachusetts. Less the 3 million nationwide, subtracted from 7 million extremists in 3 states, Trump carried the popular vote by 4 million in 47 states. Those three states he lost do not constitute enough electors to win, either.
We are a federated system. The states elect our president, not the people. It makes no sense hearing the type of argument you laid out from people living under our own system, who stubbornly refuse to learn how our system or laws work, or how to change it, and in their naivety call it "unfair"; it makes even less sense hearing it from non-Americans.
I think I can speak for a very large majority of Americans who would say we do not want such willfully ignorant people governing us.
As to Japan, what if what if what if....Instead of attacking Pearl Harbor, the Japanese invaded Siberia while the Getmans were at the gates Moscow, many Communist bosses were fleeing East to Siberia in fear for their lives, and Soviet Far Eastern armies were already being deployed West because of the collapse of USSR's Western front? RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 14:40, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
I agree with RobS concerning the Electoral College. The CP article lists several reasons why the Electoral College is a very good safeguard against various negatives. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
IOW, if your only source on the American system is from people who don't understand it, refuse to abide by the rules, and have a warped perception of law and justice, in order to reform or change the system, you'd do best to stop listening to those people and allowing their sick perceptions influencing one's own views. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 16:20, 13 April 2017 (EDT)

Kansas Special Election: a different perspective

The mainstream media interpreted the special election as an indicator of Trump's popularity among conservatives. Despite that narrative, there are several other, much more plausible reasons, for the close election: [18] --1990'sguy (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2017 (EDT)

This was supposed to be the beginning of tsunami to sweep the Republicans into the sea. Turns out, it was a replay of the November elections. The key factor to look at is that the liberal red-baiting Russophobic bigots (that's all they got to sell is anti-Slavic racism) forced the GOP to spend a little more money to hold a seat than expected. But so far the score is Ronna Romney 1, Tom Perez 0. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 16:17, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
The election for Tom Price's House seat next week will be more interesting to watch, however. I've heard that his district is more swing territory -- Trump barely won the district in November. I just hope the GOP candidate there is a better campaigner than Ron Estes. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
Look at the Kansas candidates, Estes looks like the stereotypical cigar chomping fat cat Republican, and the Dem looks the fresh new exciting fresh new idea commie lib. People aren't being fooled snymore. I'm encouraged.RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 22:23, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
Democrats were desperate for this seat and have been mostly silent on their loss. It's telling.--Jpatt 22:32, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
It was a replay of November. The last 10 days the only news I heard was how GOP were ready to start jumping off buildings and the Democrat hoards were storming the gates to take back America and lead us to the Promised land. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 22:39, 12 April 2017 (EDT)


If this isn't the sign of a new era, what is?

The most successful business decision makers on the planet who run the worlds largest consumer market and fatest growing economy, after spending a night at Mar-a-Lago, made the rational judgement it's in their own self interest to pay American coal miners $22 per hour rather North Korean coal miners 43 cents per hour. Imagine that.

After Trump's meeting with Xi, I think Trump may actually possess more persuasive powers than Reagan. If I were a Trump critic, I'd zip it real quick, unless I was hellbent on proving what an ignorant idiot I am. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 22:35, 12 April 2017 (EDT)

April 15: Eyes on North Korea

North Korea has a history of staging major events on April 15, Kim Il-sung's birthday.[19] None of NK's test blasts up to this point was convincingly nuclear. The one in September was 10 times the size of the 2006 blast, which measured 0.48 kilotons.[20] A 4.8 kt blast could be a really big ANFO explosion, and not nuclear at all. 38 North says there has been a lot of activity at the test site recently: "North Korea’s Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site: Primed and Ready." Clapper said a year ago that Yongbyon was ready to produce plutonium. The plant has the capacity to produce 6 kg of plutonium a year, so they could have bomb's worth at this point.[21] PeterKa (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2017 (EDT)

Countdown to nuclear war. So, if they go through with the test, do think Trump will retaliate with a Syrian-style strike, or take the Obama preferred course of putting a thumb up his culo? RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2
The Chinese media today is full of gratitude that Trump didn't label China a currency manipulator. Yesterday, they sounded pretty scared of him. ("Not only Washington brimming with confidence and arrogance following the missile attacks on Syria, but Trump is also willing to be regarded as a man who honors his promises."[22]) I guess something has been worked out.
Don't think that either North Korea or China are crazy. They are both in it for the money. Everything is for sale in China, including foreign and domestic policy. As a businessmen, Trump has insight into their mentality. China suspended coal imports from NK back in February. It was never a subsidy. Chinese utilities were paying below market prices for the coal.
Xi Jinping's corruption was detailed in the Panama Papers in 2015, but this information still a secret from the Chinese people. I'm sure the NSA could come up with even juicier details if Trump put them to work on it. The Chinese people have little interest in foreign policy, but they certainly care about corruption.
The claim that 150,000 Chinese troops are massing near the border? This story claims it was fake news, probably generated by traders to move the market.[23] PeterKa (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2017 (EDT)

It is as I have written it. I stand by all I have said.

Greetings. I am a born again Christian, and consider myself a Conservative also, check my page Cbl12. Now I have an issue with the Article on Labor Union, which seems to portray workers, or at least unionists as some sort of sinister group seeking to undermine Christian values as part of some sort of Communist conspiracy. I even tried to edit the article, but what I said was taken off. I am a person of working class background, and I am proud of that, and have taken on jobs of manual labour, and sometimes felt the bosses were not fair in what they paid, but I did my work, because this is what God expects of us. For well over a quarter of a century, my father, Jim Lilly ( 1941 - 2010 ), was a union delegate and later union president in the Meat Workers' Union in Belfast, New Zealand, where he turned pigs' guts into sausage skins - someone has to do it - and it was as much that he struggled to stop the men getting pay cuts, rather than aim for pay rises, and only ever worked towards a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, which is also Biblical. Unless certain people of the Middle and Upper Classes think that we only want massive amounts of money for doing nothing - I have never seen that ! My father was a born again Christian, and never a Communist nor Socialist, and was not corrupt, and I would resent the kind of generalisations that Liberals make against us, or the Klan against Blacks and Jews, if people are going to tar with the same brush everyone who tries to campaign for decent pay. I should not think Conservapedia would be so unfair. I believe in a free market with some protection for local producers against foreign imports, where a person can run a company to make money and enrich themselves, but remember that the Bible warns the rich to be just, and sticks up for the poor more than it does for those who have this World's good. If these capitalists live off the toil of the honest working man and woman, they need to pay what is fair, so everyone can provide for their families. I believe in a decent standard for products that companies make, seeing we are spending good money to buy stuff we trust will not fall to bits as soon as we get it. Capitalism is fine, and the alternative is just stupid, but if we believe the Bible, we know that God sticks up for the little guy. I realise there was Left Wing influence and mob corruption involved in unions, but that did not include all, and that some unionists used violence, but then so did the men sent to break up strikes, when bosses could not be bothered to discuss things. Look at this and some of Your articles, and perhaps get opinions from unionists You trust, unless this Conservapedia is only a tool for the furtherance of the doctrine of the rich, and does not care about those less well off. I think not. I trust You are as Christian as You say, but each of us also gets influenced by our backgrounds, and if we do come from a well off family, it is more that we might not be aware of how life is for others. Recently I have come to realise also that some of the History I have been taught may also have been corrupted by liberal bias, and sometimes I wonder what to believe - at least with respect to History itself, and what really happened. Thank You. Cbl12 (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2017 (EDT)

What you have said may be true, and I acknowledge that many Christians were in labor unions, but that does not take away from the fact that labor unions, at least in the U.S., have an unfortunate history. Historically, labor unions were associated with radical socialism, which wanted to do much more than help workers. Labor unions did become mainstream later in U.S. history, and many Christians were members of them. If nobody else agrees to add your point of view to the article, I'll see what I can do.
However, there are many problems with labor unions. Many labor unions here in the U.S. donate money to left-wing organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the Democrat Party. Also, in many states, supporters of unions have passed laws forcing people to join a union if they work, even if they don't want to.
For us at Conservapedia, I don't think our opposition to labor unions has anything to do with being wealthy -- I'm definitely not wealthy. The opposition to labor unions that you see on Conservapedia rather has to do with their promotion of left-wing politics and the big pain they are to taxpayers and employers (which is not the same thing as opposing the rich). I have also seen the unions make many unreasonable demands. In one school district near me recently, the teacher's union demanded a 23%-or-so wage increase, and then they went on strike for over a month, ruining the school year for the students. Not only do those public sector unions hurt students, but they also result in much higher taxes for taxpayers -- to support teachers who retire in their 50s, receive six-figure paychecks, get pensions, and get a three-month vacation every summer. In my union-friendly state, local governments are required to do business with union companies, and the prices many of them demand are so high, that many governments can't afford to do business with them. In principle, I don't have a problem with labor unions, (some unions, like police and border patrol unions, are actually quite friendly towards conservatives) but the current system is unacceptable, and it is chasing people out of states like mine (Illinois, California, etc.). States with weaker labor laws, like Texas, are seeing economic booms, and their populations are growing dramatically. Also, many labor union bosses, while also being much further left-wing than their union's members, also make a lot of money and are in the 1%. Their unions here also tend to promote far-left politics while at the same time advocating for higher wages.
I respect your point of view, and I respect your father who helped lead a labor union as a Christian. And, if nobody with more knowledge of labor unions considers your request, I will see what I can do. However, opposition to labor unions has little-to-nothing to do with favoring the wealthy and hurting the poor. It rather has to do with ensuring a free and fair society. Unfortunately, in many states in the U.S., people aren't even free to choose whether or not to join a union. There are, of course, two extremes, and I think in the U.S., we are on one extreme. Of course, business owners should treat their employees fairly, but high standards should also apply to unions. I cannot say anything about New Zealand. I hope my answer has clarified things, and I hope you become a regular contributor here. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
@Cbl12, your father's payscale had nothing to do with the employer. It has everything to do with market demographics. The growing Muslim population in the UK don't eat pig guts. So either convert over to goat sausage or quit you job and join the jihad. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 13:33, 13 April 2017 (EDT)

Bannon gets the back of Trump's hand

It's all about making the Trump hotel brand classier, according to the Washington Post: "Inside Bannon’s struggle: From ‘shadow president’ to Trump’s marked man." Bannon should have got a suit, tie, and shave a long time ago. PeterKa (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2017 (EDT)

Wapo's had it in for Bannon since Flynn, Sessions, and Kellyanne's problems. They've had an army of investigators and reporters out trying to retrace his every step over the past ten years (many reports come back how difficult and murky it is). Insulting a family member, Kushner, didn't help (called him a cuck).
On the other hand, a messy breakup would leve Breitbart sounding like Alex Jones these days. He needs Bannon not just to counter Jones's criticism, but to sell a bunch of things on the domestic agenda, healthcare, social security reform, minimum wage, jobs, etc.
A more known quantity would be easy to predict. But here, it may ultimately end in Breitbart leaving of his own accord eventually, if Trump simply snubs him by giving him onky 15 minutes a day, or a week, or doesn't invite him along on Airforce One for some important event, or even just a trip to Mar-a-Lago. That's often how things like this get resolved. The question is timing. When would be the right time and who's going to replace him? Trump just doesn't need another embarassing detraction right now.
At root tho, I think it was his insult to Kushner- and Ivanka, that caused this. Epshteyn was let go for unwittingly causing the president similiar embarassment. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 01:31, 14 April 2017 (EDT)

A century of Canada

Canada was another side effect of World War I. Mark Steyn, the most awesome living Canadian, reviews the memorial services at Vimy Ridge: "The War That Made The World We Live In." François Hollande, the most tone deaf and least popular French president of modern times, came by to explain that the men at Vimy were actually fighting for Muslim immigration and reduced carbon emissions. PeterKa (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2017 (EDT)

Wow. All I can say is wow (and from 19:20 on he summarizes the roots of WWI in 1848; but from 16:30 on is purely excellent). RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 20:14, 14 April 2017 (EDT)

News:Turkey referendum giving Erdoğan more power

I think that the news of Erdoğan gaining more power should be on the top of the news page today. It is a very sad day for Turkey, seeing a formerly secular country go in this direction. Especially considering Turkey used to be a role model in the Sunni world.

--IluvAviation (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2017 (EDT)

Irreligious people have less children than religious people and atheists have a sub=replacement level of births (See: Atheism and fertility rates). The 21st century is expected to be a century of desecularization. Religious conservatism/fundamentalism is expected to grow in the 21st century in terms of its global market share (for example, see: Growth of evangelical Christianity).
Secularism was never/rarely neutral. For example, secularists often pushed evolutionism in public schools. In addition, secular leftist ideology is also pushed in public schools. Conservative (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2017 (EDT)
London is next place secularism will fall. I cite: End of 2.4 children, as Britain has biggest families in Europe. More four-baby families in Britain than almost all of Europe, with immigration a major factor . Also, What British Muslims Really Think. Conservative (talk)
Secularism is the best option for Turkey. Do you really want to see desecularization in the greater middle east region? 'Cause that's what's happening in Syria. (The Secualar-ish Assad government vs Al Nusra, Hezbollah, ISIS, Fatah Halbab...) A secular government just lacks any official religion, religious standpoint, or preference for one religion. Turkey is over 99% Muslim, what do you think will happen when secularism falls? Certainly not your idea of a Christian utopia. London won't be the next place for secularism to fall: a country like Kyrgyzstan or Jordan is more likely. Even on the premise of your argument (which is wrong) that secularism is bad, we all know Whabbist Theocracy is far worse. (Just look at Saudi Arabia). While the radical religious ideas in London are a concern, I would worry a lot more about Nigeria, Brunei, Uzbekistan, and Jordan. I know you don't like Wikipedia, but I doubt you've heard of the murder of Mark Weil: --IluvAviation (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2017 (EDT)
"Realism is the philosophical theory that believes that reality exits independent of our perception of it. Idealism is the philosophical belief that reality is merely a mental construct and there exists no object without an observer."[24]
I do endeavor to be a realist and not an idealist. And often what I want to happen and what I think is going to happen are two entirely different matters. And the trend of desecularization and religious fundamentalism growing in the three branches of Abrahamic religions (namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism) are longstanding trends. Desecularization has been going on since 1970 and no doubt accelerated after the dissolution of the Soviet Union happened on December 25, 1991. And while,I do not want the expansion of fundamentalist/radical Islam to occur, radical Islam probably will expand due to religious fundamentalists having more children. In Turkey, this means that secularism is likely to be under a state of siege and eventually collapse.
The secular left and the left in general, on the other hand, often engages in idealism in order to try to impose their wishful thinking on reality. And they often due this in a deceitful manner with evil motivations (see: Atheism and historical revisionism). And when their false narrative of reality (which includes wishful thinking as well as deceit) collapses and reality rears its ugly head, I have seen that the left does not handle it well. The left was in shock after Trump's win despite the fact that a lot of the 2016 elections results was dependent on battleground states which were difficult to predict and that Hillary Clinton was a poor candidate with a lot of scandal baggage. In addition, it is well-known that it is extremely difficult for a political party to achieve 3 consecutive presidential terms wins for their party in a row.
The rate of desecularization is going to accelerate because atheists/agnostics/liberal theology has often relied on the power of the state to impose their ideologies. And the historian Martin Van Creveld has observed and rightfully stated the the power of the state is decreasing(The Fate of the State by MARTIN VAN CREVELD). Furthermore, birthrate related expansion of the gap between irreligious and religious populations could happen at an accelerating rate for sometime due to improved medical conditions in developing countries.
Furthermore, the economic decline of Europe and an eventual breakup of the European Union could ignite warfare in Europe. Warfare in Europe would reduce the irreligious population of the world. Europe has a long history of warfare and wars are often ignited for economic reasons. And although the EU was poorly designed and caused various problems, the one benefit it did bring was a smaller possibility of warfare in Europe while it existed. But it was doomed to fail because the various differences in culture/wealth/industriousness of the European nations made a short term political union of the Europe possible, but in the long term impossible due to a lack of a fiscal union of Europe (uniformity of fiscal/budgetary/business policies among European nations). Conservative (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2017 (EDT)

User: IluvAviation, you wrote: "Certainly not your idea of a Christian utopia." Bible believing Christians are not utopian thinkers. In fact, we are the opposite. We believe in the sinfulness/depravity of man and therefore man-made utopias are wishful thinking. Furthermore, it is common for Christians to believe that we are living in the end times (especially Israel become a state in 1948 and many Jews returned to their homeland. The Bible predicted the return of Jews to their homeland[25]) and the Bible teaches that in the end times mankind will become more sinful and not less sinful. On the other hand, the secular left has engaged in the ends justifies the means type practices in order to try to establish utopias and committed atrocities to a higher degree than an other ideology in history (see: Explanatory links between atheism and mass murder). Christians believe the only lasting/eternal peace is in heaven. Conservative (talk)

In addition, London could certainly be the next place for secularism to fall. It may not officially fall, but through appeasement and the irreligious not wanting to rock the boat, it could certainly happen unofficially. The new atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has has noted that creationism is being allowed to be taught in some public schools due to the government not wanting to offend Muslims.[26] Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."[27] Conservative (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
I would like to revise to comments about London being the next place for secularism to fall. Secularism will fall in Kyrgyzstan or Jordan before it ever happens in London. But I do see definite signs of secularism eroding in London and eventually falling.
"In the 2011 census Office for National Statistics, the proportion of Muslims in London had risen to 12.4% of the population (40% of England's Muslims). In the boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets, the percentages of Muslims were over 30%."[28]
Eric Kaufmann, an agnostic scholar of demographics and how it affects politics who is often more realistic than other irreligious people, wrote:
""In addition, those with religious beliefs tend to have higher birth rates than the secular population, with fundamentalists having far larger families. The epicentre of these trends will be in immigration gateway cities like New York (a third white), Amsterdam (half Dutch), Los Angeles (28% white), and London, 45% white British.
Let's take a closer look at the UK census figures. These show that the proportion of white British in the capital declined from 58 to 45% of London's population in ten years, twice the fall recorded in England. But hold on: the number of Christians nosedived by 3.8million in England but fell a mere 220,000 in London. In nine London boroughs, the number of Christians actually increased, with Hackney and Newham topping the list. Now let's add non-Christians to the picture. The number of religious people in England declined by over 2million in the past decade but grew by 440,000 in London. In seven London boroughs, reverse secularisation took place. In Redbridge and Newham, the share of nonreligious people in the population was cut in half!"[29]
According to Dr. Peter Hammond, "When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons). Guyana -- Muslim 10%l; India -- Muslim 13.4%; Israel -- Muslim 16%; Kenya -- Muslim 10%; Russia -- Muslim 10-15%. After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning: Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%. At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare: Bosnia -- Muslim 40%; Chad -- Muslim 53.1%; Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%".[30] Now in Britain, Muslims are treated better than France and the Brits have been more careful not to offend Muslims so to their is less hostility between agnostics/atheists and Muslims. For example, there is no headscarf ban in Britain whereas in France there is a headscarf ban.
Now given the above statistics and that London has a Muslim mayor, it would not surprise me if the wall of secularism in London is more porous than it was in the past - especially in the light of Dawkins saying that creationism is being allowed to be taught in some schools due to Muslim creationism. It would also not surprise me if creationism was widely being taught unofficially in the London boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets.
In recent years, atheists have had some notable cases of ducking debates and backing out of debates (see: Atheism and cowardice). So it would not surprise me if secularism falls unofficially in London due to secularist appeasement (Of course, the more Islamic regions within London would fall first}.
Eric Kaufmann has indicated that the projected growth of Muslims in Europe has been overblown by various right-wingers[31]. In addition, there are definite signs of secularism falling relatively soon in Jordan/Kyrgyzstan.[32][33]Conservative (talk)
My point is that desecularization in the Islamic world and the Greater Middle East is a very bad thing. You think secularists force ideas on you? Brunei just banned CHRISTMAS. Yup. Which would you rather have: Secular Brunei (Where Christmas and Easter are legal) or Sharia Brunei (Where apostasy is punishable by stoning and Non-Islamic holidays are banned. That is real Christian persecution, forget about teaching evolution) And atheists are by no means compliant in deseculaization, just read about the Attacks on Atheist Bloggers in Bangladesh (because they didn't want Sharia)IluvAviation (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
To think anything other than secularism in the Islamic world is a system that could remotely respect basic human rights, you are mistaken. Bad things happen when Islamic nations ditch secularism.IluvAviation (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
I tried to point that out at CP/WIGO @ RW and was reprimanded for it. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 21:28, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
Not all atheists are cowards. The atheists in Bangladesh are the exact opposite of cowards. In fact, it has been the atheists who are some of the most vocal against Islamic law; an atheist was sentenced to 2000 lashes for (correctly) critisizing the Saudi theocracy and tweeting that he was an atheist. Avijit Roy was acked to death by Islamists for writing website critical of religion (he was an atheist). Waleed Al-Husseini was arrested by Palestinian National Authority for "Insulting Islam" (he was an atheist, and was very lucky that international attention spared him the death penalty. Omar Batiwil was Yemeni teenager killed for comments critical of Islam on social media. None of those atheists are cowards in any way, they were willing to make to ultimate sacrifice to stop fight theocracy.--IluvAviation (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
All valid points. Now, might I suggest here is the weakness of promoting the gospel of atheism. Being that's it's embraced by probably around 1 in 20 inhabitants of planet earth, it appears to other 95% of inhabitants of planet earth all about self, promoting the individual preacher of atheism.
Now, we can go on to discuss what little hope atheism offers to either the individual, or the larger society as a whole, and more importantly society's future. I'd suspect to hear what a 'liberating' effect atheism has on a person's conscience, freeing one of the strictures of the past. But I have sat and prayed with many convicted murderers serving long prison sentences, and I'll rip that argument to smithereens if any 'intellectual' is stupid enough to present it to me. And you'd probably soon be asking God's forgiveness for being so foolish to bring it up. RobSThe coup plotters are going down 23:16, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
Atheism liberates one from the fears instilled by a theocratic government. As Raif Badawi said, "Staes which are based on religion confine their people in the circle of faith and fear". And my only argument previously was that the new Islamist governments of various nations (just look at Brunei) don't respect basic human rights as much as their previous secular governments. (Ex, Christmas used to be legal in Brunei). If a secular government of an Islamic nation is removed, Islamic theocracy is usually inevitable. (Possible exception for Albania, but that's about it.)--IluvAviation (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
I can agree with that; a bunch of dope-using porno watching secular Muslims are more harmless and innocuous than a bunch of dedicated and devout rock worshippers who take that anti-Christian garbage serious any day. RobSThe coup plotters are going down 08:01, 19 April 2017 (EDT)

ILuvAviation, your wrote: "My point is that desecularization in the Islamic world and the Greater Middle East is a very bad thing. You think secularists force ideas on you? Brunei just banned CHRISTMAS. Yup. Which would you rather have?"

Of course, you totally ignored what I wrote above. This was very predictable. Secular leftists always double down. I specifically said that it doesn't matter what I want. I said I was a realist and not an idealist. There is a longstanding trend of desecularization and religious fundamentalism growing in the world due to sub-replacement levels of birth among the irreligious and significantly higher level of birth for religious fundamentalists and this trend is expected to continue in the 21st century. And I provided plenty of data to back that up. In short, what I want is irrelevant. How much clearer can I make this to you? I not only made it crystal clear, but I repeated this matter for emphasis.

Also, I never said that all atheists are cowards. I did point out, however, how irreligious Britain is appeasing Muslims and I expect the appeasement to continue. And I gave a resource related to British atheist cowardice.

Next, religion had a lot of influence on colonial America. And the colonists did not need atheism to "liberate them" and cause them to be brave. America is somewhere between a secular state and a theocracy. For example, Wikipedia, a wiki founded by an atheist and agnostic, indicates, "The election of William Linn as first Chaplain of the House on May 1, 1789, continued the tradition established by the Second Continental Congress of each day's proceedings opening with a prayer by a chaplain."[34] In addition, the USA has the pledge of allegiance with the words "under God" in it, "In God we trust" on currency, etc. etc. In addition, the religion of evolutionism is taught commonly in public schools unchallenged. The atheist philosopher Michael Ruse, who is a philosopher of science, admitted “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. If 'you can’t teach religion in science classes', why is evolution taught?"Conservative (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2017 (EDT)

I never said America needed liberation from religion. I have always been reffering to the greater middle east and Islamic world. Being a realist means noticing precedent; when an Islamic nation desecularizes, Sharia follows. Just look a Iran, Brunei, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Mauritania...Need I write the whole list? I repeated my point for the same reason, to emphasize the fact the Brunei had one choice: Secularism or Sharia. To argue Secularism is just as bad a Sharia is silly. Secular governments don't stone people to death, or force people out of cafes to pray at gunpoint. Atheists don't fly airliners into skyscrapers or start the Lord's Resistance Army. We debate people. By the way, "Irreligious Britain?" The Church of England is still official. If you were truly a realist you would realize that secularism is needed in the greater Middle East. Don't believe me? You can always visit Chechenya, Syria, or Iraq. Will desecularization happen? Not if we can help it. Atheists in Islamic nations don't pray to stop Sharia law, they fight it with words. Desecularization doesn't have to happen. Atheists are becoming more conservative as liberals fail on terrorism policy.--IluvAviation (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
It's not just desecularized Muslim states that went full bore sharia. Many hypersecularized countries have. Anatolia (Turkey) was once secularized Christian; Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia were once secularized Buddist. Desecularization is not a substitute for Christianity. Secularization is not the main enemy of Christianity, It's only one step in a process.
Desecularization is like withdrawing troops from Iraq too early. It leaves a power vacuum for Satanic forces to fill. "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man...and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself..." RobSThe coup plotters are going down 16:09, 21 April 2017 (EDT)

IluvAviation, re: Irreligious Britain: A Eurobarometer poll in 2010 reported that 37% of UK citizens "believed there is a God", 33% believe there is "some sort of spirit or life force" and 25% answered "I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force" (See also: British atheism).

Second, you wrote: "Desecularization doesn't have to happen." You still haven't addressed this information: Atheism and fertility rates and Desecularization.

On December 23, 2012, Professor Eric Kaufmann who teaches at Birbeck College, University of London wrote:

I argue that 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious.
On the other hand, the secular West and East Asia has very low fertility and a rapidly aging population... In the coming decades, the developed world's demand for workers to pay its pensions and work in its service sector will soar alongside the booming supply of young people in the third world. Ergo, we can expect significant immigration to the secular West which will import religious revival on the back of ethnic change. In addition, those with religious beliefs tend to have higher birth rates than the secular population, with fundamentalists having far larger families. The epicentre of these trends will be in immigration gateway cities like New York (a third white), Amsterdam (half Dutch), Los Angeles (28% white), and London, 45% white British."[35]

At a conference Kaufmann said of religious demographic projections concerning the 21st century:

"Part of the reason I think demography is very important, at least if we are going to speak about the future, is that it is the most predictable of the social sciences.
...if you look at a population and its age structure now. You can tell a lot about the future. ...So by looking at the relative age structure of different populations you can already say a lot about the future...
...Religious fundamentalism is going to be on the increase in the future and not just out there in the developing world..., but in the developed world as well."[36]

Third, I wrote, "What I want is irrelevant". This is not entirely true. I believe one can speed up atheism losing losing global market share, but you cannot reverse it. Since 1970, atheism has been losing global market share and yet not a single atheist has come up with a workable plan to reverse things (see also: Atheism and leadership and Global atheism statistics). There are no atheist missionary organizations whose plans are to evangelize Africa (see also: Atheism and apathy).Conservative (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2017 (EDT)

Mark Steyn has some cool graphics that show how Anatolian Turkey defeated Kemalist Turkey by producing more babies: "Who Lost Turkey? (Revisited)" PeterKa (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
PeterKa, Steyn makes a very compelling case that demography (fertility rates) was very much the decisive factor in the decline of Turkish secularism.
Additional fuel that accelerated Turkish desecularization was Turkish, Muslim creationism which has a strong following in Turkey (or at least did until at least 2007 [37] I don't know enough about Turkish politics/society to know if various controversies involving Adnan Oktar has caused a waning influence of Turkish anti-evolutionism). A significant portion of modern Turkish/Muslim creationism was borrowed from American creationism (namely the Institute for Creation Research). Conservative (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2017 (EDT)
Eric Kaufmann in 2011: "However, the magnitude of demographic radicalization in the Muslim world seems more in keeping with the American and European pattern than the Jewish one. This means that significant change will take half a century, as opposed to the situation in Israel, where startling changes have occurred, and will occur, within the span of a decade."[38] Conservative (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

User:IluvAviation, you never made a real argument why the demographics/fertility rate issue, which is longstanding trend of nearly 50 years, would not continue the process of global desecularization.

In 2011, atheist Jacques Berlinerblau declared: "The Golden Age of Secularism has passed."[1]

Second, in the 1300+ history of Islam there have been a handful of atheists who spoke out publicly against Islam in Islamic countries and all of them have been brutally suppressed (or likely nearly all of them). And atheism does not have a strong history when it comes to martyrdom. In addition, Arab societies have a general aversion to nonconformity and they tend to be authoritarian. And the death penalty is common for being an atheists in Islamic countries. And generally speaking, the biggest advances of atheism have been due to exerting the power of the state. Namely, through public school indoctrination and repression (see: Atheist indoctrination and Atheism and communism). And atheists are generally apathetic when it comes to personal evangelism and being missionaries (see: Atheism and apathy). And among the few atheist churches I have heard about, not a single one of them that I know of has organized atheist missionary trips to the Middle East, Africa or Latin America despite the fact that atheism is not prevalent in those areas.

If all the above were not enough, on top of this, a number of notable atheists/agnostics have indicated that the pessimistic about the future of the atheist movement (see: Atheist pessimism about the atheist movement).

For example, in 2011, the atheist Jacques Berlinerblau declared: "The Golden Age of Secularism has passed."[39] The agnostic Eric Kaufmann said that "Secularism is weak and exhausted..". Conservative (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2017 (EDT)