Talk:Main Page/Archive index/153

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WaPo and CIA, again

From WaPo's article about Trump:

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.

Let me spell out in plain English who "an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State" is : CIA, the boys who created ISIS. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 00:38, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

The media watched complaisantly while Obama committed treason with Iran. Now they want to play national security watchdog. I see Obama has awarded himself a prize in courage: "Obama: Not bombing Syria 'required the most political courage'."
Based on the timing, this looks suspiciously like the Deep State retaliating for the Comey firing. If we take the WaPo report at face value, the person who leaked this stuff should be doing serious jail time. Yet whoever it is apparently doesn't fear jail. And why not? Because he thinks that if he can oust Trump he becomes a hero. Does that sound like a reliable source? There might not even be a source. I note that the Plame Affair started with a WaPo report that claimed Rove shopped the Plame story to six reporters before contacting Novak. That report turned out to be completely bogus. As far as I know, no explanation was ever given for the original report or how it got written. So a blockbuster story can appear in WaPo and later turn out to be entirely fictional. PeterKa (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
This is only the beginning. The 25th Amendment allows for the Cabinet to remove the President. Their already working on that. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 09:57, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
Well, well, well. Trump has confirmed the WaPo report, once again throwing his spokesmen and explainers under the bus, this time including McMaster. Here is his tweet of May 16: "As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining….…to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism." With Russian reporters at the meeting, it was obviously inappropriate to discuss classified information at all. PeterKa (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
  • This confirms McMaster as the leaker to the Post on the story Trump leaked classified information.
  • WaPo is the CIA mouthpiece thru Jeff Bezos, who owns the Post and simultaneously​ holds a cloud computing contract with CIA to provide cloud computing thru Amazon, i.e. 'on the payroll'. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 10:43, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
I guess Trump felt that he needed a publicity stunt to eclipse the Comey firing. "Trump has been throwing gasoline on a firestorm for no other reason than that’s what Trump does," as Jonah Goldberg puts it.[1] PeterKa (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
No, I disagree. You have to take the long view, as Trump does. This most definitely is not Clintonism, where everything is dictated by the 24 news cycle. Obama had much success with it, too. The media still plays it that way, and the fact Trump refuses to play along is one reason they hate him. You need to understand the broad strategic objectives, underlying positions of players and institutions, and most definetly refuse to be swayed or impacted by day to day headlines. Or even thinking much of them. Focus on the facts and underlying issues. Trump is at war with Intelligence Community. They want to remove him. He wants to gain control over them. Speculation, rumor, and BS needs to be ignored.
We are living right now in an event which has happened maybe only 3 or 4 times in our nations history. Every citizens needs to be armed with facts to survive this. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 20:44, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

Theory of the crime

CrowdStrike was in charge of DNC's computer security. When the Wikileaks dump occured, CrowdStrike indentified Rich as the inside leaker. The insider leaker was liquidated. The Russian hacking story was invented as a cover story to hide the fact it was an inside job. Trump Tower was pinged to provide probable cause for a FISA warrant, although the ping likely came from CrowdStrike or other "computer scientists" closely associated. Meanwhile Guccifer 2.0 was invented likewise as a "Russian hacker", to discredit the validity of the real information coming out of Wikileaks (with Rich as the original source).

Does this succinctly cover it and sound plausible? Questions welcomed. Thank you.nRobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 11:33, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

It wasn't the Russians after all

He sent 44,000 DNC emails to Wikileaks. Then he was murdered: "Seth Rich, slain DNC staffer, had contact with WikiLeaks, say multiple sources." PeterKa (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

Assuming the Hillaryistas killed him, there is a good chance the NSA fingered him. Someone needs to put Susan Rice under oath and ask her and find out exactly who she "unmasked." PeterKa (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
There is FusionGPS, CrowdStrike, a possibly yet a third unnamed entity. FusionGPS has refused to cooperate with Senate investigators requests. CrowdStrike, in my estimation was best suited to finger Seth Rich. CrowdStrike, or individuals related to it, are probably the ones pinging Trump Tower with the bogus pings deflected to look like they came from Moscow.
The Russian hacking story originated in the Hillary Clinton camp. The FBI has never examined DNC servers, so it's impossible for them to confirm it ever took place. Guccifer 2.0 as well was a Clinton/DNC operative (actually, a computer expert on-loan from Biden's staff; no evidence Biden was involved). RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 10:58, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
We may never know what really happened. If RobS is willing to accept a "misdirection" theory regarding the Russians, the PeterKa should also be willing to accept a "misdirection" theory about Rich. You can identify a laptop or IP address without accurately identifying the person operating a computer. All of this needs to be investigated by professionals. JDano (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
That's what lies at the heart of Comey's incompetence. Comey accepted the professional word of CrowdStrike that DNC computers were hacked without ever examining servers. When Congress pressed Crowd Strike, they backed off their theory, but Comey did not. Comey used CrowdStrikes disinformation to get a FISA warrant on Trump Tower. And if it wasn't CrowdStrike pinging Trump Tower, it was an someone very similiar with the same motivations. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 15:17, 18 May 2017 (EDT)

The FBI hasn't examined Seth Rich's laptop, you're peddling conspiracy theories. The FBI hasn't examined DNC servers, The Russians hacked the election!--Jpatt 11:52, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

I see WaPo has a piece debunking this story: "The Seth Rich conspiracy shows how fake news still works." It makes some good points. For example, it's reasonably well established that Wikileaks got the DNC emails from "Guccifer 2.0." But I note that the Seth Rich story is actually better sourced than the MSM's stories about Trump giving away secrets and insulting Comey at his meeting with Lavrov. PeterKa (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Guccifer was another false flag operation, set up to discredit Wikileaks once the DNC discovered Seth Rich downloadeded copies of the emails. Guccifer was a former IT staffer for Biden. Follow the link. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 00:36, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
  • The MSM is going nuts over this issue today. Here's CNN: "Fox News removes false story on Seth Rich's murder -- six days after it was debunked." This reminds of when the MSM insisted in unison that U.S. could not possibly be cooperating with British spy agencies and that Napolitano was some kind of thought criminal for even suggesting it. As the MSM sees it, Fox News is all that stands in the way of their right to spread smears and have them accepted as Truth. PeterKa (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2017 (EDT)

Special counsel appointed

Pointing and laughing. Lionel Mandrake (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

It's Mueller. A guy Republicans and Democrats can agree on. A guy who succeeded William Weld as US Attorney for Massachusetts. William Weld, Gary Johnson's running mate, and one of the Boss Hogs in Iran Contra. This spans the investigations of Iran-Contra, Whitewater, Torturegate, and Benghazi. If anybody can whitewash an investigation, surely Mueller can and restore public confidence in our institutions simultaneously. When are people going to realize investigation = coverup?
Iran-Contra? Clinton's get a promotion and a few underlings get their fingers slapped. Whitewater? Nothing. Torture? Brennan hacks the investigators and gets promoted to CIA Director. Benghazi? A guy instrumental in carrying-out Obama/Hillary arming the Islamic State, gets offed by them cause he knew too much, becomes the hero in death.
I have full faith Mueller can restore confidence to our institutions, the FBI, IC, DOJ, Congress, the White House, and our electoral process without reforming the system. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 22:04, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

There have been "independent counsels" and "special prosecutors." I assume "special counsel" is a combination of these two phrases. I guess we will find out what it means. It seems like a another clever move by Rosenstein. He has tried those before only to have his work blown up by Trump.
Was it an impeachable offense for Trump to ask Comey how the Flynn case was coming along? Obama was certainly never held to a standard like that. See "The Comey memo offers no proof for impeachment of Trump" and "Under the Obama Precedent, No Trump Obstruction of Justice." PeterKa (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

There currently is no Independent Counsel law such as Watergate, Iran Contra, or Whitewater was investigated under. In those cases, a panel of three federal judges selected an Independent counsel. We are back to a system where an administration gets to select somebody to investigate itself.
Mueller essentially is taking over from Acting Director McCabe, who was overseeing the investigation while at the same time under internal Inspector General review for (1) conflict of interest in Hillary email investigation, (2) conflict of interest in the Steele/FusionGPS aspects of Russian influence (Steele worked for FusionGPS and FusionGPS itself was an unregistered Russian agent; FBI offered to pay an unregistered Russian foreign agent for the Steele dossier).
So basically, despite media spin, this is good news - until Mueller reveals himself a corrupt pile of garbage like the rest of them. But his reputation and integrity is well known.
Ultimately, it'll all be covered up. The coup plotters illegal activity, and any far flung connection between a past casual associate of Trump with Russian connections. House & Senate Committee will each write a report. Mueller will make recommendations to DOJ. Unlikely anybody will be prosecuted. Unless some other scandal explodes in the meantime (which can happen on Team Trump or a countermove against the IC/Obama holdover coup plotters). The big question is, will it be concluded before Midterms? or will it be a Midterm issue? RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 00:17, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
Since the appointment, we've been deluged with news reports about what a great reputation Mueller has. So I'm starting to worry. The big case when he was FBI director was the 2001 anthrax mailings. For years, the FBI treated Steven Hatfill as their sole “person of interest."[2] It was obvious from the beginning that Hatfill was an innocent man fingered by conspiracy kooks who wanted a right-wing perpetrator. PeterKa (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
Um, 9/11? That was pretty big, at least as far as I remember. JohnZ (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
Yes, the Anthrax case remains a very interesting a case, and also a case study of government's operations, but we still have incomplete knowledge of it. I'll reserve discussion of that for another time and place. It should have no baring on present facts and circumstances.
However, speaking on direct recollection right now (I'm sure sources will support what I'm going to say), Mueller personally is an interesting individual. The Directorship now has a limited 10 year appointment. This remains a troublesome and controversial issue. In theory, he's like a Federal Reserve Board Governor, independent of politics. But the issue is one most large cities likewise grapple with- depoliticization of police departments. A mayor in most cities isn't free to appoint his crony to run the cops.
So this compromise 10 year legislation is aimed at not having another Hoover. Meantime, some of the best, most experienced, independent, qualified personal are denied appointment (I'm speaking of city police chiefs as well), while an incompetent or political hack may be the the only candidate available (a good argument against term limits). So after this huge debate in city councils across America since the death of Hoover until Obama, why did Mueller serve 13 years and not 10?
And this answer is quite simple: for all the hoopla about Barack Obama, by 2011 there was not confidence in his judgement to make a 10 year appointment to the FBI. Democrats had no qualms about Mueller's 10 year record, and as a compromise the 10 year limit was layed aside and he was asked to stay on longer. Once Obama was re-elected in 2012, Obama then earned enough confidence to not deny him making his own appointment. I, for one, at the time thought a 13 year tenure was plenty and for that reason alone thought it was time for him to go. But many like myself had no feeling of confidence the next 13 years would be so easy as the past.
Ultimately, I think my feelings, instincts, and judgements were correct: a lifetime appointment of Mueller at any stage, 2001, 2011, or 2013, would have been preferablle to a three year tenure of James Comey who perhaps not willfully, oversaw the politicization of the FBI. They've become no different than the Chicago cops. Google it to see what the residents of Chicago think of their police. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 19:41, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
JohnZ: Not only that, but 9/11 featured an even bigger FBI screw up: They let the Bin Laden clan go back to Saudi without questioning anyone. What does it take to get a non-great reputation in Washington? PeterKa (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
You're following a BS line of argument.
After the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979, international protocols were established for the quick exit and removal of foreign personal among all member states who joined the agreement, in the event of a mass emergency and the fear of uncontrollable mob violence. Your quoting Michael Moore now. FBI had a duty, under international law, to expedite the removal of foreign nationals in cooperation with the the State Dept. It's no conspiracy. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 20:19, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
The 9/11 Commission says they were interviewed by the FBI.[3] That would make us both wrong. PeterKa (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
Micheal Moore, using guilt by association, hyped simple facts out of proportion to anything bordering on reality, trying to inflame passions and hate. Yes, there were family members (remember, the term "family" in Arab culture is much larger and inclusive than Westerners can imagine; but a son I believe was present, who later wrote a book about growing up in Afghanistan in 1990s. It's very amusing and the kid is as American as apple pie). The Saudi nationals were in some form of protective custody, either direct detention or (depending how wealthy you are) guarded in their place of residence. During this time. 72 hours, 2300 persons were "screened". There has never been any allegations the FBI screwed up and let a terror suspect slip away. And per the international protocol, these people all likely were going to be deported whether they wanted to or not. If one choose to stay, I'm certain all sorts of legal hurdles would have be met to absolve the federal government of responsibility for their safety, should they be victimized by a random attack by a US national simply because they were foreigners or their name was "bin Laden".
Finally, I do not believe for an iota of an instant that Michael Moore is ignorant of these facts and didn't have it explained in researching and producing Fahrenheit 911. And it is unconscienable what he did with these facts, that God or somebody needs to hold him to account, unless he can muster the courage to offer an apology to the nation and generation he so maliciously harmed, spewing his hate with deliberate misinformation. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 03:11, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
Moore's No. 1 talking head was Richard Clarke, the Clinton holdover who authorized the flights. He neglected to mention this in the film. The Saudis were big supporters of the Taliban. The central thesis of the film, that the Saudis manipulated Bush into attacking the Taliban, is ridiculous. PeterKa (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
Didn't just fail to mention it, failed to mention the law required them to do it-unless the Saudi nationals had some legal means to fight it. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 15:27, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

I unblocked JohnZ and lifted his topic ban

Here is what I wrote on User: JohnZ's talk page:

"I unblocked you. You are free to edit Conservapedia again. JDano made a decent argument against your banning on page page talk that I just read. I also saw that you made some decent edits to articles when I looked at your edit history more closely.

The topic given above has been been lifted as well.

If you vandalize again, the above topic ban will be imposed or one similar in nature will be imposed should someone write an article on Propaganda in the Soviet Union.

Make more quality edits to articles and you will not face complaints about your adherence to the 90/10 rule. You can definitely build goodwill through quality edits. I have unblocked User: AugustO and would gladly do it again if he was blocked again. It is because he makes decent edits to articles.

Since you are at a wiki where the majority of people disagree with your politics, try to be as harmonious as possible and stick to the improvement of the articles on the talk pages using facts/evidence and well-reasoned arguments. If you had done that on the Pizzagate article's talk page, instead of complaining about JPatt's Twitter activities, chances are there never would have been a call to ban you. For example, you could have documented in the Pizzagate article that Alex Jones apologized for promoting Pizzagate and provided various sources to document this matter such as THIS SOURCE and THIS SOURCE. Just stick to the facts/evidence and avoid making commentary about other editors using words like "exceptional stupidity". I am going to endeavor to be more harmonious with other editors as well.

Lastly, thanks you for your recent commentary on the CBP talk page. Ultimately, however, the CBP is not going to materially change."Conservative (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2017 (EDT)

Thanks. I'll endeavour to persevere. JohnZ (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
More and more it appears as if Eric Kaufmann's ideas about desecularization are coming true. Have you read the new article UK and secularism? Conservative (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
It's certainly an interesting extended riff on that Guardian article. I'd refer you to Betteridge's law of headlines, though. Note the conditionals as Bullivant carefully couches his argument:
"...growth of no religion may have stalled ... Younger people tend to be more non-religious, so you’d expect it to keep going – but it hasn’t. The steady growth of non-Christian religions is a contributing factor, but I wonder if everyone who is going to give up their Anglican affiliation has done so by now? We’ve seen a vast shedding of nominal Christianity, and perhaps it’s now down to its hardcore."
He's (very sensibly) acknowledging he could be completely wrong. I suppose there's a lesson there for us both. JohnZ (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

JohnZ, here is an August 2016 article: Decline in UK Christianity 'halts'. So we have 1 years of halting. And in the second year (it has almost been 2 years), these religions grew: Anglicanism, evangelicalism, penteocostalism and Islam.

In 2011, Eric Kaufmann wrote:

"We have performed these unprecedented analyses on several cases. Austria offers us a window into what the future holds. Its census question on religious affiliation permits us to perform cohort component projections, which show the secular population plateauing by 2050, or as early as 2021 if secularism fails to attract lapsed Christians and new Muslim immigrants at the same rate as it has in the past. (Goujon, Skirbekk et al. 2006). This task will arguably become far more difficult as the supply of nominal Christians dries up while more secularisation-resistant Muslims and committed rump Christians comprise an increasing share of the population."[4]

Now when you consider the Syrian refugee crisis possibly bringing in additional immigrants and the fact that Kaufmann was talking about Europe as a whole and not the UK (it seems as if France, Germany and the UK politicians are very amenable to Muslim immigrants and other immigrants), it is not at all implausible that the new trend of desecularization may be starting already in the UK. Conservative (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2017 (EDT)

I'll freely concede the logical possibility of the desecularisation thesis, but as we've discussed previously, I don't see how it would be helpful for your particular brand of conservative Christianity (if true) unless you're prepared to embrace a degree of ecumenism that appears beyond you. How do you hope to make common cause with congregations you're all too happy to denounce as CINO? JohnZ (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

The odds of impeachment

Paddy Power has reset the odds of impeachment to 4/6, up from 10/11 before the Comey firing.[5] That corresponds to a 60 percent chance of a Trump impeachment. Can anyone stop the Deep State's rampage? A lot depends on who the next FBI director is. We need a warrior who will clean up the rat's nest that FBI has been ever since Clinton politicized it by firing Director William Sessions. Appointing Mueller as special counsel can be viewed as a gambit to allow a nominee to be confirmed in the Senate, where McCain is making trouble. If we get some "nonpartian" Comey-clone, that would suggest Trump has thrown in the towel. PeterKa (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2017 (EDT)

Not gonna happen. Comey was gone months ago when he failed co-operate with Congressional investigators, but they don't have the power to fire him. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 01:41, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
Senator Grassley for example, started asking for documents back in February relating to why Hillary Clinton still had a security clearance despite recommendations Comey made, not to prosecute, but rather have that "internal security" (as Hillary called the investigation) and disciplinary proceedures. No response. More requests on other matters, even relating to Andrew McCabe. Feinstein signed off on both requests, and another about FusionGPS. Comey's refusal to cooperate with Oversight ground Senate investigators to halt. Comey wasn't fired cause Trump was tee-ed off, he was fired (1) mishandling the Clinton investigation and bring the Bureau into ill repute, and (2) Republicans and Democrats in Congress lost patience with him for disrupting their work and wasting their time. This is the story of James Comey. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 02:20, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
As long as Trump's approval rating among Republicans is sky high, he has nothing to worry about. It's 84% now, down from 89% in January.[6] He was elected despite the opposition of the Media-Dem Alliance. PeterKa (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

Well, maybe it will happen

Gingrich is one of only a handful of people who could salvage this Congressional session's legislative agenda. Not the whole thing, but anything would do right now.

Trump's management style has got to change however. All administrations face this problem - depleting the pool of talent. They start off with the "best and the brightest", but overtime one by one certain positions get refilled. Obama for example went through 4 defense secretaries in eight years; long about the time he was looking for a third one, all the best candidates refused because they didn't want to be treated like first two - having their judgements and opinions ignored. Real professionals weren't interested in just holding an honorary title. So number 3 really was about number 6 or 7 on the list. By the time Obama got to number 4 the guy was catapulted from about number 20 on his original list. Over time, you end up having unqualified people in important positions, over their head, because you have a reputation as a rotten boss to work for.

National Security Advisor, Chief of Staff, and Press Secretary are just too important of positions that you can't be disposing of them every three or four months. Trump seriously has to get grip on how Washington works. If Gingrich were to step in, it would essentially be Gingrich and Pence running the country, which might not be a bad idea. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 01:58, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

The "Comey memo" debunked

Who should we believe, Comey's videotaped congressional testimony given on May 3, or a memo that the lying New York Times doesn't have: "James Comey Said Under Oath That He Was Never Pressured To End An Investigation!!" PeterKa (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

It doesn't matter anyways. It's a he said/she said. No evidence uncorroborated words written on paper contrmporsneously are truthful. And it's author, according to written and videotaped comments by Congressional Democrats, has zero credibility. More BS news. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 02:33, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
We can be pretty sure that the Founding Fathers didn't have this sort of thing in mind when they wrote the impeachment clause. Jefferson ordered his Justice Department to prosecute Vice President Aaron Burr for treason. The rule that presidents shouldn't get involved in individual cases is yet another hypocritical Watergate reform.[7] PeterKa (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
He was doing his job. Comey needed firing. Hillary Clinton said as much. Now the reputation and peoples confidence in the FBI can be restored. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 05:19, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

The apparent inability of conservatives to effectively fight the Left

It turns out that the Obama Administration designed the Paris Climate Agreement so that it would be pretty much impossible for anyone to choose to leave]. Even though the pact is ridiculous by putting most of the burden on the West rather than China or India, and even though courts could use this to block pro-energy reforms, the fear of losing geopolitical power or "remaining relevant" is powerful in forcing Trump to reconsider. The deep state knows how to stop conservatives from reversing their "accomplishments." This is similar to the whole Jerusalem embassy thing. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

The left is not unstoppable.
The Soviet Union collapsed.
The secular left has suffered and to continues to suffer many defeats due to late 20th century desecularization and 21st century desecularization. Creationism is growing quickly in our Europe (see: Evolution). Global creationism is seeing rapid growth. Pentecostalism is growing like wildfire. The secular left has been powerless to stop the explosive growth of evangelical Christianity in China.
Brexit was passed.
Right-wing parties are growing in Europe.
Donald Trump was elected.
The Democrats lost of ton of political positions across the U.S.A since Obama was elected.
It took about 70 years for the Soviet Union to collapse. Liberalism made major gains in the 1930s and 1940s under FDR and then started really taking off since the 1960s. So that is merely 50-90 years or so. And historically most empires/ideologies eventually collapse.
Governments are finding it harder and harder to maintain control of information flow which is definitely not good news for the left.
There is evidence that Generation Z nay be the most conservative generation since WWII.[8][9]
So the whole notion that the left is unstoppable is defeatists and is contrary to the historical record. Conservative (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
Fair enough, but the European elites are preparing to punish Britain during the negotiations and to make the negotiations a huge pain. And we all know what the media and Dems are doing to Trump. Let's hope Trump has the guts to destroy the entire legacy of Obama and the liberal presidents before him. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
I forget to add a few more important defeats of the left:
The has been a recent explosion of right-wing news websites.[10] These helped get Trump elected.
Homeschooling, vouchers and charter schools are growing trends.
Lastly, it is unrealistic to believe that the left will give up suddenly unless there was a big collapse of the present system and they were totally rejected as a result (Like the Soviet Union). It is going to require a fight. Conservative (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
The other matter is given the growth of Muslim extremism/terrorism due to the most religious Muslims having the most kids, a very doable strategy for right-wing politics is to fire up opposition to Muslim immigration which should be a big winner in Europe in 5-15 years. And Europe's opinions about Muslim immigration will spread elsewhere such as the USA. Conservative (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
Those are good points, and let me make clear that I'm not a "defeatist." My problem is that I know that many conservative people are unwilling to fight the liberals and reverse all their changes. I think there is a term for that behavior, where liberals come to power and enact all sorts of leftists laws, and then conservatives are elected and basically endorse those leftist laws, ensuring they stay permanently. I want to end that practice, but I'm worried our current leaders will continue it. Practically speaking, the Left is unstoppable. I changed the header anyway.
You make strong points, but let's note that the USSR, which was an imperialist power over the Eastern European nations, has been replaced by the socialist/globalist EU, which is bossing Hungary and Poland around.[11][12] Homeschooling is legal in the U.S. and growing rapidly, but it is illegal in much of the rest of the world, including Europe. If you homeschool you children in Germany, you'll literally be arrested and charged with "child abuse." Left's hope these things can be changed. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
It's a structural flaw in philosophy that plays out in strategy and organization: conservatives promote individualism, whereas the collectivist mindset of liberalism lends itself well to working in cell groups. Hence 3 organized self-sacrificing liberals can match 10 unorganized conservative thinkers that have no consensus. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 23:12, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

Practically speaking, the left is stoppable.

The right-wing branch of politics is made up of more than conservatives. For example, there is the alt-right who definitely played a role in helping to get Trump elected.

Historically, most empires fell from within which enabled outside forces to exploit the situation. The left currently has much of the Western World on a unsustainable path and severe consequences will probably be felt in about 15-20 years. When tough times come, people often turn to faith and family.

Excerpt from the academic paper entitled The Changing Face of Global Christianity by Dr. Todd Johnson & Sandra S. Kim:

"As Latourette’s Great Century was coming to a close, churches outside of Europe and the Americas that took root in the 19th century grew rapidly in the 20th century.10 Africa, in particular, led this transformation growing from only 10 million Christians in 1900 to 360 million by AD 2000. Given current trends, there could be over 600 million Christians in Africa by 2025. Shortly after 1980, Christians in the South outnumbered those in the North for the first time in 1,000 years. In 1900 over 80% of all Christians lived in Europe and Northern America, however, by 2005 this proportion had fallen to under 40% and will likely fall below 30% before 2050. Projections for the future show that the Christian churches of the Global South (Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania) will likely continue to acquire an increasing percentage of global Christianity...

Another daily reality for Southern Christians is poverty. Much of the global South deals with serious issues of poverty and a lack of access to proper health care. Countries that have been hardest hit by AIDS, such as Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Swaziland, are also countries where Christianity is flourishing. Without access to the necessary medical care, accounts of healing and exorcism found in the Bible are taken more seriously. The work of the Holy Spirit exhibited in the ministry of signs and miracles of healing and deliverance from demonic powers has exploded in the ministry of Pentecostal/Charismatic churches in the global South. David Smith describes these churches as “overwhelmingly charismatic and conservative in character, reading the New Testament in ways that seem puzzlingly literal to their friends in the North,” and as “largely made up of poor people who in many cases live on the very edge of existence.” Thus the growth of Christianity in poorer regions implies not only an alternative reading of the Bible, but a different experience of the Bible."[13]

See also: Social unrest in Europe altering its religious landscape.

In addition, see Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London.

Should Jesus tarry, the left will be defeated. It is not a matter of if the left will be defeated, but a matter of when. Conservative (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2017 (EDT)

(ec)No better example exists of rugged individualism vs the collectivist mindset right now than Donald Trump, untrusting of his own staff members, and no match for the 15,000 strong Intelligence Community (in service to NATO & and the Atlantic Alliance) out to get him. They control the lesser cell groups, the MSM, the DNC, and the educational system. The situation is reminiscent of Saddam Hussein, holed up in an underground earthen shelter, unable to spend $600 million in paper currency he thought would save him, needing to sleep 8 hours a day while 60,000 armed troops are hunting him down round the clock. It seems the sensible thing to do is come to some accomodation with your critics. As things stand now, it wouldn't be surprising at all if he returns from his 9 day trip abroad in a box. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 23:12, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
Lastly, the Bible indicates that the anti-Christ will be in power when Jesus returns. The anti-Christ will perform supernatural wonders. He doesn't sound like a secular leftist to me. One way or another, the left will lose power. Conservative (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
One-world government is the ultimate goal of the Left. They believe in the concept that humanity is progressing for the better, and they want to create a utopia where there are no wars, conflicts, or borders (cultural and national). The way I see it, the Left's vision is ultimately going to win. The UN, EU, Paris Climate Agreement, WTO, IMF, and the other international organizations are forerunners to the politically-unified OWG that will eventually be established. This is the epitome of big government. Yes, the Anti-Christ will not be an atheist, but he will promote his pagan, satanist religion. We see the New Age movement and universalism on the Left today. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2017 (EDT)
The Bible talks about wars and rumors of wars in the end times. The anti-Christ will probably not appear until there is a crisis. The current system has not broken down yet. I think it could in about 15-20 years or less. It will be probably be worse that the Great Depression. Conservative (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2017 (EDT)
The anti-Christ is not a future event: whosoever denies that Jesus is the Christ, this is the spirit of anti-Christ. The First Pilar of Islam is the spirit of anti-Christ, for example. It has always existed and persists in the foreseeable future.
Christians are called to the mission field to defeat the spirit of anti-Christ thru the preaching of the cross. None of this is illogical, mystical, or rocket science. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 03:44, 20 May 2017 (EDT)
There are two versions of the anti-Christ: the many anti-Christs who exist today and the one Anti-Christ who will come. See 1 John 2:18. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2017 (EDT)
That one is to be no more feared than the ones you encounter daily. Most importantly (and this is a grievous sin) you are not to hide your head in the sand from the ones you encounter daily and focus on that scary monster that may never appear in your lifetime. This is a gross misreading of scripture. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 15:51, 20 May 2017 (EDT)
Yes, but the coming Anti-Christ will be different from the rest. God makes this clear in His Word. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
It's a full blown picture of the spirit you encounter daily that occupies the lives of non-Christians, their destiny, and who their master is. It's not so much a future event as it is a daily event that is real in the lives of people. Whether they believe any of it is no consideration. In addition to creating us, God has offered us an opportunity, to understand why he created us, who he is, and what our final destiny is. And how to get there. He didn't just create the world and walk away from it. Even the most unbelieving, godless idiot will tell you life is hard. We're very lucky to have what we have in God's word - we wouldn't know how to deal with other human beings without it. And it's for the here and now, that is the Christian believers appointed task, not to be worried about some far off event. Sufficient is the day, the evil thereof. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 03:29, 22 May 2017 (EDT)

1990sguy, the reasons why the left won in recent years is that many American baby boomers tend to be narcissistic, contentious, selfish and unwise. In addition, they practiced idealism in politics instead of realism so they bought it into a lot of idiotic, unwise and impractical ideas. American baby boomers on the whole don't care about creating a large debt and leaving subsequent generations to pay for it. Newt Gingrich did force Bill Clinton to have a balanced budget though.

And unfortunately, the boomers were poor parents and the millennials didn't turn out very good as a generation. Perhaps, this situation is part of the cyclical nature of things. People born in prosperous times can get complacent and then when hard times come, people sober up. We see this cycle being played out in the history of Israel in the Bible. On the other hand, maybe the U.S. will not renew itself and the United States will face years of being a declining power for many years to come. Biblical Christianity is America's only hope for renewal. Conservative (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2017 (EDT)

Wrap your head around this word: palingenesia. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 20:53, 20 May 2017 (EDT)
This definition I linked to, while interesting, is incorrect. It says "Men could not experience new birth until Christ was born (John 1:12)". That simply isn't true. Zacharias & Elizabeth in the opening chapters of Luke were just and righteous, as was Simeon at the Temple, snd the 84 year old widow. And there's only one way to be declared just & righteous. Job as well, in chapt.1 verse 1. How? Same way as Abraham was righteous (Gal. & Rom). Or what does the phrase, "From everlasting to everlasting" mean? God tends not to insert things just for poetic effect.
Sometimes I wonder if these bible scholars ever studied the bible. You got the same problem with Islamic scholars, too, I guess. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 03:47, 22 May 2017 (EDT)

Trump doesn't bow to Saudi king

Isn't it nice to have a president who isn't a national embarrassment? "GREAT AGAIN: Unlike Obama, Trump doesn’t bow to Saudi king" PeterKa (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2017 (EDT)

Even though Trump did not bow to the Saudi king, the Saudis appear to be hosting a much more friendly reception for him. They even have billboards along the roads commemorating the visit.[14][15] This visit, at least so far, is a success. Also, Trump's planned speech will not be about human rights and democracy, but rather about good vs. evil -- something that will much better convince the conservative Islamic leaders.[16] --1990'sguy (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2017 (EDT)
Trump also received this. Did Obama get the same honor? --1990'sguy (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2017 (EDT)
Both Obama and Bush got the Collar.--Whizkid (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2017 (EDT)
I think Obama's bow half compenstated for the drag queen wife he showed up with. That was really offensive to them, and many others, on state visits. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 15:57, 20 May 2017 (EDT)
The Saudis are more concerned about the Iranian-backed Shiite army in Yemen and the Iranian nuclear program than they are about whether the U.S. president bows or not. PeterKa (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2017 (EDT)
Mmmhmm. So pouring in more of our one export commodity, guns and cluster bombs, will turn into more of a bloody mess than Libya & Syria, and anywhere else we've helped out with humanitarian aid to prevent a humanitarian disaster. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 18:41, 20 May 2017 (EDT)

Many people are saying it was wonderful that Mrs. Obama refused to wear a scarf in Saudi Arabia, but they were insulted.We have enuf enemies RobertPlant (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2017 (EDT)

We've learned that Melania has a mind of her own. PeterKa (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2017 (EDT)
@RobertPlant: It was not an insult: [17][18] Foreigners and non-Muslims are not expected to wear a head-covering. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Just noticed you referred to Michelle Obama. I can't say what they thought, but they probably were not very offended, considering this. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

I was quoting Donald Trump RobertPlant (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

But why did Donald Trump say that about Michelle Obama but not about his wife? RobertPlant (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2017 (EDT)

Easy. Only women are required to wear headscarves. The Saudis were insulted when Obama showed up with a man pretending to be a woman. We have enuf enemies. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 00:32, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
SJW haven't figured this much out yet: when people of non-Western cultures meet a man with surgical silicon implants in his chest, who takes female hormone injections, and wears women's clothing and fragrances, they might not be so keen on playing make-believe like Western culture is prone to do. In fact, they may take offense for trying to impose your values on them. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 00:40, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Oh, I get it now! At first I was confused about the reference to a "drag queen wife". You see, I'm not very conversant with the jargon of alternative sexual styles, but I had a hunch that "drag queen" refers to some kind of cross-dressing. Now I see that you are saying that Michelle Obama is a man. And apparently transgendered or something. It's really nice that we have sysops (well, "assistants") writing stuff like that. It's really going to make a good impression on the public, and attract people coming here and wanting trustworthy information. SamHB (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Read the Conservapedia Commandments; everything has to be true and factual. By 2016, foreign leaders had enough of the Obama's deliberate deceptions. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 05:04, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Domestic partnerships are illegal in China. What kind of example would that set to 1.2 billion Chinese if the government honored somebody who does not respect their laws, sensibilities, and customs? They are not required to live in the make-pretend universe of Western liberals. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 05:27, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
And why would anything I'm saying be offensive? It's all supposed to be normal, and legal, and nothing to be ashamed of, remember? RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 05:30, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Cool story, Rob. Shame about the two kids with an obvious familial resemblance to both parents, though. Darn genetics conspiring to make you look all foolish... :( JohnZ (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Sam and John are correct. Michelle Obama is most definitely a woman; she has mothered two children. Even our page about her refers to her as "she". There is nothing on her page to suggest that she isn't a woman.--Nathan (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Cheers. For added comedy value, here she is, as a baby in a dress, with her parents and brother Craig. It's from a WaPo article, though, so perhaps it's all part of another corrupt and depraved Deep State conspiracy.JohnZ (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
@Nathan, shame on us for respecting the gender identity she favors.
@JohnZ, those two obviously have different fathers. Look at the skin tone and shape of their heads. Where's their baby pictures? Where's their birth certificates? Where's Michael/Michelle's birth certificate? Cute kid. Who would have imagined she'd grow up to play linebacker after her mother dressed her up in girls clothes? No wonder she identifies as a woman.
Amazing they thought they'd get away with this. But history has a way of making the truth known. Equally likely, they'll be forgotten and swept under the rug as a national embarassment. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 15:50, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Look, you've got one possible sane move in this discussion and I'm going to give it to you up front, because we'll only end up there anyway after several thousand words of mind-numbing inanity. Google "Caster Semenya" and there's the butch-but-with-functioning-ladybits fig leaf your "argument" requires. Don't ever say I don't give you anything. JohnZ (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
I'd love to write the screenplay for this scene. Can't you imagine Putin & President Xi standing together, watching it unfold on TV, slapping their knees laughing. Then, in a moment of crisis, who does the Obama team send out to explain what happened? Susan Rice! Yah, that's a believable explanation. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 22:03, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
And here's your evidence Obama's welcome traces back two years earlier to Obama's 'women'. On the positive side, it is encouraging to see the Chinese Communist government responsive to the complaints of lowly hotel staff. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:45, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
Because you're not part of the group in question. Minority identity groups already compromise so much as it is to function within the wagons liberals use to form a circle, hide behind each other and consequently wield the threat of a grievance mob. If all liberals must even muzzle themselves at times while their cohorts are taking their turn pleading their own grievances, often in ways contradictory to any given interest of the rest of the group's interests, taken separately, they're sure as h--- not going to allow you to speak freely.
As it is, you're numbered among the non-compliant liberals as equals in being pointedly excluded from having any authority pertaining to their groups, if not regarded and dismissed altogether with outright hostility. That which elite liberals say are the things that makes the group authentic, if they happen to say anything at all, are things to be accepted rather than debated. VargasMilan (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

Besides not bowing, none of this crap "America Has Shown Arrogance, We Have Not Been Perfect, Our Own Darker Periods in Our History."--Jpatt 11:46, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

RobS, that is a really nasty, un-Christian thing to say. Michelle Obama is clearly a womanRobertPlant (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2017 (EDT)

That's an awfully bigoted remark, don't you think? Why would pointing out the obvious be an insult? Is being transgender something to be ashamed of? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:46, 25 May 2017 (EDT)

Iran leader

Based on mainstream media reports I've seen, the elite is treating Iran's president as some sort of defender of freedom who will free Iran and bring progress. Do these people realize that the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, holds the real power? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2017 (EDT)

That's absolutely correct. The Iranian President, if he has a counterpart in the West, really is more like Sean Spicer, the White House Press Spokesman. He's just the spokesperson for the Supreme Council, the Ayatollah, the Majlis, and Speaker of the Majlis, just so outsiders don't get confused. He doesn't really have any political positions or influence of his own; when he speaks, he's reflecting the concensus among the real power centers, much as the White House Press Secretary tries to keep other Executive Departments and allies in Congress on the same song sheet. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 00:23, 21 May 2017 (EDT)