Talk:Main Page/Archive index/154

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Liberals are pantywaists. They have a weak ideology. They will be defeated

See also: Essay: Liberals are pantywaists. They have a weak ideology. They will be defeated.

Four pieces of evidence that liberals are pantywaists and will be defeated:

1. "Liberals worldwide seem to have concluded, with a collective sigh of relief, that Macron’s emphatic victory is a sign that the global “populist” wave has peaked, and that time is on their side. Such optimism is premature. The weakness of Macron’s appeal—and strength of Le Pen’s—among many young French voters is further evidence of a disquieting truth: In many parts of the world, the young may simply care less about liberal democratic values than they once did."[1]

2. The Next Generation of Americans (Gen Z) May Be the Most Conservative Since WWII.[2]

3. The ability to bounce back after many significant defeats is a key to long term victory. How emotionally resilient are liberals? Will they be able to withstand multiple big defeats over a period of years? In addition, the ability to: pull yourself together and understand why you were defeated; study the opposition and know thy enemy; and come up with a rational plan to eventually win is a key to long term victory.

4. Furthermore, not only do liberals have to come up with a long term term plan, but it has to be a workable long term plan. Long term, how economically viable is leftist ideology? Does the USA and most Western European countries have high and unsustainable levels debt? Does Japan have a huge and unsustainable amount of government debt? Is Venezuela one of the worst economies in the world? Was a very large part of the Soviet Union's collapse due to economic reasons? Will more and more young people sour on liberalism when the consequences of high government debt hit countries which supported liberalism? Do we liver in a global economy where a lower amount of government debt will be a competitive advantage for countries over the long term? Long term, will lack of economic growth due to high levels of governments force liberal governments to trim overly generous social programs loved by liberals?

To answers these questions please read this paper issued by the European Central Bank: The impact of high and growing level of government debt

I hope this clarifies matters. :)Conservative (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

I, for one, welcome our new conservative overlords. JohnZ (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
JohnZ, I added point #4 which is a capstone to my argument. Conservative (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the heads up. Whilst you're gazing into your crystal ball, you might want to ask it about the industrialisation of Africa vs. increasing automation in the developed world. Both will be disruptive forces, and the interplay between them will be fascinating to watch. JohnZ (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
It'd not going to happen anytime soon now the Hillary Clinton and the neocolonialists put Africa back in chains. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 19:43, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Tell that to China. I doubt they're spending all that money on infrastructure just for the warm glow it gives them inside. JohnZ (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

JohnZ, it is not a matter of crystal ball gazing. It is just a matter of taking into account broad trends, looking at key indicators and having a pretty good idea of what is true and what is untrue.

I will point out that I was correct before in my prognostications:

Granted that Donald Trump is not conservative and more of a right-wing populist, but he did pick Mike Pence as his running mate, appoint Betty Devos as his Secretary of Education and put Ben Carson in charge of HUD. And if Jesus tarries, conservatism/right-wing politics and fundamentalist/conservative religion will continue to grow.

Already in Britain, the birth place of Darwinism, we have seen secularism not advance for 2 years in a row and religiosity actually grew this past year. See: UK and secularism

By the way, have you examined the resource: Evidence for Christianity vs. evidence for atheism? Conservative (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

I'm glad we agree on Trump, at least. You should probably worry more about the impact his inevitable implosion will have on the GOP's electoral prospects, and on the credibility of those in the conservative media who cheered him on all the way. JohnZ (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
No biggee. We survived Nixon. We survived th Baby Bush. We'll survive Trump. Don't you find it telling that Trump critics have to resort to using George W. Bush to attack Trump? RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 21:18, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Nixon instituted wage and price controls. Not a conservative. GW Bush increased government regulations on business and ran up the government debt. His "compassionate conservatism" was not conservatism.
JohnZ, more importantly, perhaps you missed the terms "long range trends" and "key indicators" (which include economic indicators such a government debt and GNP growth). Trump/Brexit are merely birth pangs of right-wing politics to come. Religious conservatism will fuel right-wing politics.
Lastly, I expanded the essay Liberals are pantywaists. They have a weak ideology. They will be defeated.. Please read the latest version which is the finalized version. Conservative (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Regarding Trump, so far his policies have been very conservative -- repealing regulations, nationalism, securing the border and immigration enforcement, judges, etc. He would need to change his policies quite a bit for me to change my mind. I'm just worried he's going to listen to the leftist establishment and stay in that Paris Climate Agreement. Other than that and the whole Jerusalem embassy thing, I think he's taken very conservative stances. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

User: JohnZ, you quote William Empson on your user page who was an English literary critic and poet who was critical of Christianity. Are you from the UK? Second, who predicted the fall of Richard Dawkins first - you or an evangelical Christian conservative at the User: Conservative account? Second, who first predicted the recent stalling and eventual falling of British secularism/irreligion which has occurred in the last 2 years? Was it you or an evangelical Christian conservative using the User: Conservative account? If you are from the UK, why should we trust your political commentary over the commentary of an evangelical Christian conservative who has a better track than you when it comes to predictions? If you are from the UK and an atheist, you can't even predict what is going to happen in your own backyard let alone America and the world as a whole!

Admit your utter defeat JohnZ and create a 6,500 word article on the topic of Propaganda in the Soviet Union as an act of contrition! Conservative (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

JohnZ, another point. Is a Trump implosion inevitable? First, liberals said he couldn't win the primary. And then many liberals said he couldn't possibly win the election. And after he won the election, many liberals claimed he was not their president.
One thing I can say for certain is that the Democrats can't implode. They have lost 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts since Obama was first elected president and then they lost the White House. So the implosion pretty much happened already. For the first time in history, Deomcrats do not control a single legislative chamber in the Southern USA. Overall, the party is now at its lowest point at the state level since 1920.
Trump's reelection is still within the realm of possibility and you didn't give me one single reason why his implosion is "inevitable".
It is true that the Democrats/liberals are making it very difficult for Trump to govern, but that is a sign of their desperation. There are like rats trapped in a corner. Conservative (talk)
Trump 2020 raises record $314,000 in just one day.[3]. U.S. News & World Report: Donald Trump Will Likely Win Reelection in 2020.[4] Newsweek: 2020 ELECTION BETTING ODDS PEG TRUMP AS FAVORITE.[5]
JohnZ, Trump's implosion is inevitable? Conservative (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
He's likely British - he used the British spelling, "Industrialisation," instead of "Industrialization." He might be Canadian though. He's certainly wrong about a human imploding, though; that's doesn't happen.----Nathan (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
Abcqwe, I hope he is British. The Brits are used to being in a declining empire. So as the secular leftist ideological empire continues to unravel, it will not be so painful to him. He will just keep a stiff upper lip like an Englishman should.
Unfortunately, Richard Dawkins was not able to take his defeat at the hands of feminists with a stiff upper lip. He whined about being bullied by feminists. See: Unlike Napoléon Bonaparte, Richard Dawkins failed to take his Waterloo like a man.
Very often there are 5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.
Many secular leftists have moved beyond the denial stage of secular leftism dying and they are at the Dawkian anger stage (see: Richard Dawkins and anger). The secular leftist PZ Myers is at the anger/depression stage of secular leftism dying as can be seen HERE and HERE.
Hopefully, most secular leftists will soon move to the stage that the agnostic, academic Eric Kaufmann has reached which is the acceptance of the eventual death of secular leftism.[6]
I am afraid that JohnZ is still in the denial stage of secular leftism dying.
The ex-atheist C.S. Lewis at first resisted the death of atheism within himself. But he eventually hecame a Christian and was surprised by joy. One thing for sure, should Jesus tarry, the dying of secular leftism in Britain will make Britain a cheerier and cheerier place at Christmastime each year. Conservative (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2017 (EDT)

Since this country isn't even close to a theocracy I think secularism is safe.User:Pruno

Yet when secularism peaked, we weren't a communist state (in which atheism is mandated). It doesn't take a theocracy for Christianity to flourish; it flourished in colonial America, in European monarchies, in the first republics of Latin America, and in the new African nations. Christian institutions burgeon hidden in China today, and can do the same in a democratic republic. Also, sign comments by typing four tildes.--Nathan (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
User:Pruno, look at the history of the New Atheism movement. It was launched not because of a concern of an impending theocracy, but due to anger that religious people had a significant influence in public affairs. It was also due to anger that the secularization thesis had proved to be false.
Also, there may be some good news about Richard Dawkins given his health condition of high blood pressure. He may have moved beyond anger at Muslims and he may be at the bargaining or even acceptance stage. His foundation says it is now interested in the civil rights of Muslims and that it joined an interfaith organization.[7] But who knows with Dawkins. It could just be a public relations ploy given the flack he has received about his comments about women/Muslims.
Will Richard Dawkins eat shish kabobs with his Muslim friends at their Ramadan dinners? Conservative (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
The word you're looking for is "iftar," the post-sunset mean of Ramadan.--Nathan (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
Not eating in daylight. Has science proven there's any health benefit to this? AFAIK, there's not. Whatsamatter with science? Doesn't have the cahoonies to challenge the Koran? RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 12:17, 22 May 2017 (EDT)

@Conservative: Apologies for the late reply. Aye, I'm British. Trump's implosion is inevitable because of Trump. It's hard to imagine a more perfect storm of venality, hubris and mendacity in one man, and inconceivable that he will not ultimately be exposed as unfit to be president.

History will judge that he was in fact revealed as such multiple times during the campaign, but prevailed in part because of partisan blockheads such as yourself, who pretended not to notice in the shabby, opportunistic hope he'd advance some of your legislative agenda once in office.

You've got Gorsuch and it'd better make you happy, because the conservative movement's credibility will be crippled by its cheerleading for Trump long after he's been drummed out of the White House. JohnZ (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2017 (EDT)

Trump will not be removed from office. Besides, a president's approval ratings so early in their presidency do not indicate how they will do in the next election. If we looked at Reagan or Obama's approval ratings during their first terms, we would have thought they would have lost re-election. Reagan's ratings were low as late as 1983 (they were in the mid 30s in early 1983 and remained below 50 for most of the year[8]), and in 1984 he won 49 out of 50 states.
Since you're British, I will also say that Jeremy Corban will not become Prime Minister and the Liberal Democrats and Labour will not come to power in a while at least. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
@JohnZ, People complained about their choices in 2016. However now we see the the distinction ever more clearly. You had traditional, rugged individualism, rewards for achievement, and a system built on meritocracy on one hand, and the traditional corrupted bureaucratic, leeches, liars, career opportunists, and murderers on the other. America stood at the crossroads, and it choose the path more familiar and keeping with their own values.
So it's up to Trump. Finally proving himself 'king of the hill' which is the traditional competitive ambition of every American who is not a pantywaist (83% of us). I can't see Trump sitting on his laurels having achieved this ambition, but it might happen. OTOH, I think he's dedicated to the task people have asked him to do, even if it means compromising himself - something he's not accustomed to - to make it work. He's had thirty years to think and plan. But calling him an idiot or incompetent, while I'm sure it makes you feel better, on!y discredits yourself and your own arguments. You should follow our lead, wait eight years then dump all your hatred scorn and abuse imaginable on Obama, cause now everybody knows what we say in unquestionably factual. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:58, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
Thirty years planning for the job? Are you f______ kidding me? This is the man whose briefing documents have to be liberally salted with his own name to keep him reading to the end.
Man, it's going to funny watching you lot trying to sneak the still-twitching corpse of his presidency down the RINO memory hole. JohnZ (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
Only in the wishful-thinking minds of liberals like you would you think that the Trump presidency (which is doing a much better job than you and the liberal media give him credit for, despite the end-runs and interference being done by the Democrats and RINOs) is a "still-twitching corpse". You still don't have any real interest in making worthwhile contributions to this site and would still rather just throw around insults and snarky comments on the talk pages, do you? Northwest (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
@JohnZ, we are living in an historic moment. The future of the Republic is at stake. After decades of practice and experience overthrowing governments, the US Intelligence Community has turned on itself. We, the citizens of the Republic, have created a seditious monster. There is only one man now standing between the freedom of future generations and an unelected deep state revolutionary vanguard bureaucracy. We're not going to let it happen. Just as the Pentagon is under civilian control, so to will this Intelligence Community be brought under Legislative and Executive Branch control. This is the issue. Trump, more than anyone right now, understands what is at stake. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:13, 25 May 2017 (EDT)

JohnZ, you wrote:

"@Conservative: Apologies for the late reply. Aye, I'm British. Trump's implosion is inevitable because of Trump. It's hard to imagine a more perfect storm of venality, hubris and mendacity in one man, and inconceivable that he will not ultimately be exposed as unfit to be president."

JohnZ, you have a very limited imagination if what you say is true. The whole left wing program is a lie and the economic unsustainability of generous social programs with soaring debt that chokes economic growth is proof of this. Without economic growth, generous social programs will come to end.

Next, when Trump ran he didn't try to turn himself into some messiah-like figure, but Barack "You can keep your insurance and your doctor" Obama did. He easily surpasses Trump on the hubris front and on the mendacity front.

In addition, Crooked Hillary easily surpasses Trump on the venality and mendacity front. The actions of the Clinton Foundation (a description of which was detailed in the book "Clinton Cash") and her hiding of thousands of her emails which were under court order to release are proof of this. And her irredeemable/deplorables comment is a statement with gargantuan implications when it comes to hubris. Who does she think she is to call such a sizable portion of the American electorate "irredeemable"? Who is Hillary Clinton? God Almighty? When you go to Britannica and look up its entry on "liberal elitism", don't be surprised if there is a picture of Hillary Clinton.

Trump could connect with the common man and filled his events with thousands of people without the aide of entertainers. Hillary didn't did that and couldn't do that because she is a hubristic , liberal elitist, snob. We both know this and you might as well admit this.

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton in her role as Secretary of State was a textbook example of the Dunning–Kruger effect (persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority when they mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is). When Trump was faced with data indicating things were more complicated then he initially thought when it came to healthcare, he admitted this. When the Chinese gave a decent rationale explaining they were not currently manipulating their currency to make it lower in value, Trump reevaluated his position. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, screwed up a large portion of the Middle East which was an impetus for Europe to be flooded with refugees. And then she talked about what a great job she did as Secretary of State and all the miles she traveled. Conservative (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

How many CIA agents were killed by Hillary's emails?

While Hillary used her private email server and Obama received his presidential daily briefing on a tablet computer, the Chinese slaughtered or imprisoned 18 to 20 suspected CIA sources. Whoever was responsible, this was a breach on the same level as Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen: "China killed CIA sources, hobbled U.S. spying from 2010 to 2012: NYT" PeterKa (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

Why did Hillary delete 33,000 emails? It was blatant obstruction of justice. To make a risky move like that worthwhile, it had to be something pretty incriminating. PeterKa (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
Comey was fired for bringing the FBI into disrepute. We need to make clear, reopening the Clinton email & Foundation investigations is the only way the FBI will ever enjoy public confidence ever again. RobSLock Up The Coup Plotters! 16:18, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

Lewinsky fingers Ailes

Monica Lewinsky wants us to know that she is a good liberal who understands that the Clintons know best: "Monica Lewinsky Pens Op-Ed About Being Target of Ailes' Fox News." She told twenty some odd people the story of her and Bill, but she thinks it's the fault of Ailes and Drudge that it became public. The Clintons put together a batch of witnesses to prove that she was literally crazy. If Starr's DNA test hadn't confirmed her story, she would be getting electric shock treatment at a mental institution. It's like a Simpsons episode: "It's good that Clinton molested me. Yes, we all think it was good." PeterKa (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2017 (EDT)