Talk:Main Page/Archive index/181

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Who will win the Democratic presidential primary?

1st and 2nd Democratic Debate to be held on Wednesday, June 26, 2019 and Thursday, June 27, 2019
Candidate Home
state
Chance
of becom-
ing
Demo-
cratic
nominee
Monday,
June 17,
2019
June
26
8:57
pm EDT
Mon
day,
July 1,
2019
Twit
# of
accts:
fol-
low-
ers
June
26
New
Twit
ter
fol-
low-
ers
June
29
Candidate Home
state
Chance
of becom-
ing
Demo-
cratic
nominee
Wednes.,
June 19,
2019
June
26
8:57
pm EDT
Mon
day,
July 1,
2019
Twit
# of
accts:
fol-
low-
ers
June
26
New
Twit
ter
fol-
low-
ers
June
29
Sen. Cory Booker NJ 1.3% 1.6% 1.5% 2:4.4M +20,000 Sen. Michael Bennet CO 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 2:0.3M +2,000
Sec'y Julián Castro TX 0.4% 0.3% 1.2% 0.2M +88,000 V. Pres Joe Biden DE 29.6% 28.5% 14.9% 3.6M +8,000
Mayor Bill de Blasio NY 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 2:1.5M +5,000 May. Pete Buttigieg IN 13.4% 11.1% 10.4% 1.2M +61,000
Rep. John Delaney MD 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.02M +3,000 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand NY 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 2:1.4M +7,000
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard HI 2.6% 2.5% 3.5% 2:0.5M +42,000 Sen. Kamala Harris CA 11.5% 12.5% 24.9% 2:3.5M +105,000
Gov. Jay Inslee WA 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 2:0.2M +8,000 Gov. John Hickenlooper CO 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1M +2,000
Sen. Amy Klobuchar MN 1.4% 1.6% 0.5% 2:0.7M +11,000 Sen. Bernie Sanders VT 11.4% 11.2% 9.5% 2:17.7M +31,000
Rep. Beto O'Rourke TX 3.8% 4.0% 1.7% 1.4M +5,000 Rep. Eric Swalwell CA 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 2:0.6M +4,000
Rep. Tim Ryan OH 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 2:0.1M +3,000 Marianne Williamson CA 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 2.6M +55,000
Sen. Elizabeth Warren MA 15.4% 15.9% 17.0% 2:7.8M +86,000 Andrew Yang NY 4.8% 5.5% 3.8% 0.4M +99,000

VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 04:50, 16 June 2019 (EDT), Tuesday, 00:28, 18 June 2019 (EDT), Wednesday, 09:32, 19 June 2019 (EDT), 17:58, 26 June 2019 (EDT) 19:39, 29 June 2019 (EDT)

Biden cannot win the enthusiastic support of blacks and progressives. As the far left whackos drop out one-by-one, that leaves Harris, who can re-create the old Obama enthusiasm. So let's look at two scenarios:

(1) Electability; Biden does not have it over Harris. Among white privilege Democrats, yes. Among blacks, minorities and progressives, no. Biden's nomination will be be seen as one more slap down and ride on the back of the Democrat bus.

(2) Race war: So we'll see another race war in the Democrat party between 'ol time law and order defenders of segregation like Biden (a few traditional Democrat babyboomers - the Kerry voters of 2004), and those who see Harris as the legitimate heir of Obama's legacy. Biden-Harris runoff in the Spring of 2020 will make race the key issue - the Democrats general election strategy. Post-convention, Harris will carry the antifascist momentum into November against Trump.

The only way to avoid theses scenarios (all out internal Democrat party race war) is for Biden to bow out now, or be resoundingly rejected in Iowa and New Hampshire. I can't see Biden (or Warren or Sanders) beating Harris in South Carolina on Super Tuesday.

With Biden in, race remains the focus. With Biden out, Dems can debate healthcare, Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, immigration or whatever else suits their fancy. Pity poor Biden right now, he thinks he's a civil rights crusader, but to protect his legacy he has to bow out now. Or for the good of the party, he has to play the role of an older male white supremacist up to August 2020 just to defeat Trump. Tuff decision. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:15, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

The Democrat base is divided between West coast (California) and East coast. They fight over blacks in the South, Chicago Illinois, and Texas. So you have Harris who carries California and the South (and Chicago), and then a bunch of East coast liberals, Biden, Booker, Warren, Sanders, De Blasio, etc fighting among themselves. Sanders support eventually goes to Warren. Booker's goes to Harris. The only reason De Blasio and Sestak are in the race is to oppose Biden. The West, South, and blacks across the country are united behind Harris. The fight is between East Coast liberals, who ultimately (the longer it goes on) because of internal division among themselves must bow to the West and South's decision. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:29, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
It's a good illustration how the American system works. While Texas plays no role in Democrats' November strategy (particularly with Beto out), Texas does play a role in picking the nominee. As to Illinois, which sometimes can be considered a toss up in November, it likewise weighs heavily toward Harris.
IOWs, the electoral strategy people focus on in November is too often overlooked in primaries, where ideology and vision is considered the focus. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:35, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
We'll see this week if the three-week-long "four dwarves" formation holds up after the Biden/Harris switcheroo. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 23:40, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
Me: "What do you think of Kamala Harris?" Honest liberal: "Too phony." Me: "Then how about someone like, say, Yang?" Honest liberal: "[scowls] Not phony enough!" VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 00:55, 2 July 2019 (EDT)
Biden was never a serious candidate. He was drafted as a placeholder cause of name recognition. His heart was never in it, even less so now. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:10, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

Theconservativetreehouse.com has an update laying out the present DNC game plan. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:17, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

The format of the latest update is rigged; Harris and Biden have traded places. Harris has jumped from No. 4 to No. 1. The % column is outdated and misleading. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:47, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
Lol, that's a funny accusation, but no. The candidates are in alphabetical order; you're supposed to click on the column description at the top and the whole table will sort itself according to that column. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 15:02, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
Just a suggestion: have the most recent data first, left to right (and re-label the June 17 entry. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:08, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
July 8, 2017 Polling data: Shows a steady erosion of Biden support. He only remains in cause of his lead in General Election polling date. But this shows his support is tepid among Democrats. When the general election data begins eroding from 10+ he's out. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:57, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
[Pitches idea, holds up hands flat along the same plane and looks upward as if stepping back from a large display] "Kamala Harris and the Four White Dwarfs!" VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 21:37, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
I think we can all agree Kamala Harris is the prettiest presidential candidate in the history of the Republic, even prettier than prettyboy Pete Buttigieg. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:42, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
July 15: Warren gains .2 while the frontrunner Kamala looses about a point. The .2 gain are white racist Democrats (probably homophobes, too) who have dumped Biden and Sanders over their demented senility and are scared of a black president. So Warren's gain and Kamala's loss is Warren exercising her feminist white privilege. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:16, 15 July 2019 (EDT)
July 19: Someone asks Warren a direct question about her lying about her Native American heritage, and when people wake up the next day, they read about it, some not having heard about it, and her odds drop 0.6%. She is still up for the week, however, and so her odds are expected to rise for the sixth straight week. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 13:57, 20 July 2019 (EDT)
It's the same story. Biden and Sanders are through. White Democrat racists who are becoming engaged are not getting on board with the people of color: Booker, Harris, Castro, Gabbard. So they naturally gravitate to Warren. Socialism and ideology have little to do with it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:16, 20 July 2019 (EDT)
July 22: I replaced Williamson with Clinton, because Williamson's still stuck at 0.2%. I also corrected an error with Castro—I accidentally added 50,000 to his new followers. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 16:37, 22 July 2019 (EDT)
Lay off the drugs, kid. Dope kills. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:57, 22 July 2019 (EDT)
July 23: It also kills your chances for gaining the presidency: Kamala Harris wants marijuana possession federally decriminalized and criminal records expunged for non-violent marijuana convicted offenses. [Ann Coulter notes that prosecuting drug sales and drug use is a vital backup for plea-bargaining in cases where witness intimidation is common, and that drug possession is almost never prosecuted when not originally accompanied with more serious charges.] Tulsi Gabbard's fellow partial-ethnic-Indian pounces, calls Harris "not qualified to serve as commander-in-chief". Tulsi gains 0.3%; Harris loses 2.1%, probably capping off a four-week losing streak. VargasMilan (talk)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren tops out at 20.4%, Biden continues 15-day rapid climb at 18.0%. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 18:35, 23 July 2019 (EDT)
July 24: V. Pres. Biden dishes out his criminal justice reform plan, long on stirring otherwise inert different activities around and short on any kind of accountability for results. The differentness of the activities, I suspect, would make it easier to explain when, predictably, the players drop the ball. This is reported to be a case of targeting blacks to vote for him, which seems possible, because, if we can believe RobS's claims, Biden's previous criminal justice reforms were deleterious towards black communities. Meanwhile Biden persists in maintaining a strong lead in polls. Biden's odds climb 1.5% overnight. At this rate, he will pass Warren in a few days.
Kamala Harris demonstrates her keen sense of timing as she calls for impeachment of President Trump at the very moment when the investigation runs out of gas. And Trump isn't as innocent as a naked baby; for Kamala, he's clothed in a uniform of all manner of prejudices that only the most experienced eyes can discern, by means of which he'll march America away from our cherished diversities (cherished everywhere except within group identities) to its doom. This spikes her odds by +1.5% until the British oddsmakers inform themselves an hour later that she's just jawboning for the Democrat side. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 15:06, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
The damage is done. Blacks are even less enthusiastic about Biden than they were about Hillary. That's what caused Hillary's loss. Listen to the first 3 minutes of this video. This is THE ISSUE blacks vote on. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:21, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
Maybe this is the issue blacks will vote on: “When Black people commit a crime THEY GET 3 strikes, when illegal aliens commit crimes they get amnesty & benefits” VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 18:14, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
And maybe you can EXPLAIN yourself for quoting Shaun King, who only identifies as black, but isn't really.
"I love how @shaunking who is white and @Kaepernick7 who is half-white, have raked in millions by continually telling black people that they are less than white people.
"Two white men claiming the system is rigged for whites, as they rig the system to enrich themselves is funny."—Candace Owens (July 5, 2019)
VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 20:43, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
Shaun King is a molder of opinion, particularly among younger blacks. King has about as much African blood as Kamala Harris does. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:17, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
Elizabeth Warren rode the impeachment train up and down the hill as well, but her proposal to cancel student debt yesterday makes its way to the top of the agenda today, and her support rises on populist helium. Meanwhile, she works to pre-emptively deflect conservative criticism by proposing to break up the big tech oligopoly. Sen. Warren sees it in her interest to jockey for position at this early phase of the campaign. Her support rises 0.7%, but is significant, because if it holds, it would mean rising odds in favor of winning for seven straight weeks. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 16:33, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
Warren's campaign right now is a fight for college kids, whom she needs as volunteers and workers. It's a small sliver of the electorate, with low turnout. Her promises to these kids are predicated on the hope that the middle class taxpayers she needs these kids to act as door knockers for are not paying attention right now. This scenario is played out constantly. Virtually are competing for the same segment of voters right now, with Tom Steyer spending tens of millions thru his NextGen PAC. Abortion, student loans, and climate change are being hammered home. This issues of interest to adult middle class voters, taxes, foreign policy, healthcare etc. are given short shrift. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:31, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
July 25: No news today, except Trump gained another 1.5% to his odds of winning the presidency 24 hours after the Mueller Hearings. Trump's enemies used the hearings as a springboard off of from which to bounce, but most didn't fall for their deceptions, so he ended up with an out-and-out increase to 49.3%. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 16:55, 25 July 2019 (EDT)
July 26: No news. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 15:56, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
Biden promises to fight back next Wednesday, looks like he's going to be clotheslined by the double team of Harris and Booker. Biden got his panties in a bunch cause Harris asked him personally to nominate her at the California Democrat Convention. Evidently Harris's behavior violated snowflake etiquette. RobSDeep Six the Deep State!
Yeah there was a downward spike for Biden this afternoon. People who see Biden way ahead in the polls didn't expect him to say he needed to do more to defend himself. But I don't know whether the drop will resolve itself back up leaving a true spike or remain as a solid downward shift. Personally I'm shocked by the etiquette lapse and what it means and will need some time for deep thought to resolve it. Either that or for watching cute animal videos on YouTube. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 18:42, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
July 27: Coming next week:
Broke: Kamala Harris and the four white dwarfs.
Woke: The Harris-Biden-Warren Triumvirate!
VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 00:21, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
We got the Liz v. Bernie socialist cage match Tuesday, and the Biden v. Kamala grudge match Wednesday. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:14, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
Busing was the issue last time. Now we're onto mass incarceration. Booker is loaded for bear. Biden is finally on board with corrupting our children with marijuana. Booker and Harris will say "too little too late." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:21, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
Liz and Bernie will try to out-socialist each other, despite both being exposed as frauds and exploiting workers this past week. I suspect they'll bid up the cost of their programs from 150% of World GDP to 200% before it's over. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:27, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
The moderate-to-conservative wing of the Democrat party consists of minorities, whereas the fringe whacko far left is white, per CBS poll. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:51, 29 July 2019 (EDT)

Twitter data

If I'm reading the Twitter data correctly, between June 26 and July 8, 20,000 Twitter followers dumped Buttigieg and moved to Sanders, putting Buttigieg in 4th place behind Sanders 3rd place; Biden has fallen off the map to last.

Furthermore, it can not be argued that the data is invalid cause Biden and Sanders have established name recognition and following while other's do not.

So given the latest data, we have Harris maintaining a growing lead, Warren flattening out in second, Sanders with growing interest in third, Buttigieg's swift rise falling back to fourth; Marriane Williamson holding on to half of her impressive swift rise in fifth, Booker flattening out in sixth, Castro holding a fraction of his DNC-and-media-orchestrated-rise-to-counter-Gabbard in 7th, Gabbard likewise holding a near identical fraction with an impressive 500,000 total compared to Castro's 200,000 and Marriane Williamson and Booker's 2.5M. Biden is on life support, while Beto has flatlined at zero (Beto's 1.4M followers are all white privileged crackers in Texas; amazing that the DNC would put Castro on the same debate stage to destroy the DNC's strategy to carry Texas in the General Election).

While there is some overlap - namely that Twitter followers are relatively informed and follow more than one candidate, and shenanigans - namely much of Marianne Williamson's followers and donors are Republicans who consider her an articulate spokesperson of Democrat values, I think Vargas Milan is on to something with valid and valuable data. Much more than national polls which are at best published every three or four weeks, and state polls which often times are non-existent or conducted by outsiders. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:12, 11 July 2019 (EDT)

We don't know

Forecasting is a difficult endeavor. And we live in a fairly free society with a divided Democrat Party and that makes the primary unpredictable. I think it is going to be Biden or Harris.

Conservative (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

Iowa

This ought to be fun. Many Democrat candidates will be carrying their message that the economy isn’t working for all American to Iowa for 4th of July events. Iowa has three of the top five lowest unemployment regions in the nation: (BLS DATA) Ames, IA, and Burlington-South Burlington, VT, had the lowest unemployment rates, 1.5 percent each, followed by Midland, TX, 1.7 percent; Iowa City, IA, 1.8 percent; and Dubuque, IA, 1.9 percent. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:52, 3 July 2019 (EDT)

That's fascinating data. I wonder if the candidates are doing their research on issues like this.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

re: Britain/British/UK and my future main page right posts

During the period of 2004 to up until recently, which was the period that New Atheism had some influence (though strictly speaking New Atheism had influence up until Elevatorgate), I was a bit miffed that British atheists were attempting to spread their ideology to the USA. But that effort largely failed and now even atheists are admitting that the atheist movement is dying/dead (see: Decline of the atheist movement). And it also true that the Britain was the birthplace of Darwinism (modern evolutionism) which is a godless pseudoscience. Furthermore, there were British atheists/agnostics whining about my articles at Conservapedia.

But at the same time, the British influence on the USA helped bring America the concepts of limited government and liberty (Magna Carta) and the rule of law (common law). And there is a vast storehouse of cultural wealth from Britain such as Shakespeare, Methodism/Wesleyanism, the Baptists, Pilgrim's Progress, the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible, etc.

In addition, I do believe in the merits of the "special relationship" between the USA/UK (If it wasn't for the issue of the costly French and Indian War and who was going to pay for it, America's history with Britain would probably more resemble Canada's). Hopefully, post Brexit the USA/UK will strengthen their trading ties.

Also, I do admire the British for their politeness.

After all is said and done, I am not going to taunt the British evolutionists/atheists on main page right anymore (United Kingdom's road repair crisis, etc.). Instead, when I think of Britain/UK I will endeavor to think more positively and remember their contributions to mankind.Conservative (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2019 (EDT)

Britain/British is a misnomer; the British as an ethnicity are extinct. For the purposes of clarity, UK citizen is more useful. "Britain" or "British" evokes an image of white people from the World War II era. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:38, 21 July 2019 (EDT)
Where does that leave America and the Americans? Rafael (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2019 (EDT)
Hanging onto the racist NATO alliance in the false notion they are preserving white solidarity from being overrun by Slavic hordes. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:04, 21 July 2019 (EDT)
RobS, you have racism on the brain. Although race will certainly play a role in American/world politics for some time, it could play less and less of a role in the future.
Consider the following if Jesus tarries: 1) USA: "The current growth rate of biracial families is three times faster than that of the rest of the population, according to a Pew study published Thursday."[1] 2) By 2050, 7% of people in Western countries could be of mixed race. By the end of the 21st century, 50% of the people in Western countries could be mixed race. And by 3050, it could be 75%.[2]Conservative (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2019 (EDT)
Racism is the only issue Democrats have in 2020 to counter a good economy. Don't feed the trolls by making sweeping comments about immigrant groups. Focus on the need for (bi-partisan) legislative action and reform using specific examples of immigration fraud and abuse -- such as Ilhan Omar's father purchasing 3 asylum slots on the blackmarket which were granted to another family, getting herself elected to Congress under a false name, and violating immigration law by a sham marriage. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:02, 21 July 2019 (EDT)
Asylum reform can only happen with bi-partisan support; by feeding the notion that Republicans and Trump supporters are anti-immigrant racists, no Democrat can support reform of asylum laws. What is the result? You paint yourself as a racist, and Democrat voter rolls continue to get padded with illegal immigrants. When you go on an anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant rant, you're taking DNC bait. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:06, 21 July 2019 (EDT)

41% of Republicans want less immigration and they want higher skilled immigrants with more money. In an age with robotics/artificial intelligence a rational argument could be made for this. High skilled immigrants with money can produce jobs.

In addition, many immigrants don't speak English? Why? There is too much of an emphasis on immigration and not assimilation. When there is a flood of immigrants coming into a country, there is less incentive for them to learn English.Conservative (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2019 (EDT)

So, what are you saying? 40% of Republicans are racist? 100% of Republicans cannot change immigration laws. Only a bi-partisan consensus can do that. Way to go ignoring the issue and furthering Democrat talking points. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:22, 21 July 2019 (EDT)
Less immigration means racism? How does the current immigration level compare with previous levels?
Immigrants with higher skills and more money means racism? When a sports team recruits players they seek the best. Why shouldn't team USA do the same? Canada has a merit based immigration system. If you want to be a permanent resident in the Bahamas you have to have a significant amount of money.
Please justify your statements.Conservative (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2019 (EDT)
Let's assume what you are saying is true (and I likely agree with most of it); this is not exclusively a conservative or Republican issue. The only way to implement a practical program through legislation and reform is through bi-partisan consensus. Marginalizing yourself by framing the debate in terms that people whom do not share your socio/politico/religious views consider to be racist is not the way to achieve the aim you desire. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:01, 21 July 2019 (EDT)

"We empirically analyze the impact of immigration to the U.S. on the share of votes to the Republicans and Democrats between 1994 and 2012. Our analysis is based on variation across states and years – using data from the Current Population Survey merged with election data – and addresses the endogeneity of immigrant flows using a novel set of instruments. On average across election types, immigration to the U.S. has a significant and negative impact on the Republican vote share, consistent with the typical view of political analysts in the U.S. This average effect – which is driven by elections in the House – works through two main channels. The impact of immigration on Republican votes in the House is negative when the share of naturalized migrants in the voting population increases. Yet, it can be positive when the share of non-citizen migrants out of the population goes up and the size of migration makes it a salient policy issue in voters' minds. These results are consistent with naturalized migrants being less likely to vote for the Republican party than native voters and with native voters' political preferences moving towards the Republican party because of high immigration of non-citizens. This second effect, however, is significant only for very high levels of immigrant presence." - The National Bureau of Economic Research.[3]

The current USA immigration policy is obviously tilted towards benefiting the Democrats. And unfortunately, the Democrats are far less rational than they were 40 years ago.

Lastly, why did the USA bring in a Muslim immigrant like Ilhan Omar (who is proud of Al-Qaeda and she had no great skills when coming into the USA. Nor did she have a lot of wealth), when there is a huge nursing shortage in the US? It makes no sense.Conservative (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2019 (EDT)

Good. Now we are getting to the nexus of the problem. Ilhan came to the United States at the age of 12 on an asylum slot given to another family. The only explanation is that her father purchased 3 asylum slots on the blackmarket, one for himself and two for two of his daughters. The other three children were granted asylum in the UK under their real names.
This is what Trump wants us to focus on - asylum reform, and by extension comprehensive immigration reform - cause the MSM certainly will not.
The State Department determined in 2008 that 87% of asylum grants given to Somalis were fraudulent per Brietbart, July 19. 2019. The program was ended. The following year Ilhan committed immigration fraud when she married her brother in order for him to gain entrance to the U.S.
Asylum reform. This is the immediate focus. Comprehensive immigration reform will follow. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:46, 21 July 2019 (EDT)
We can't only pretend that something means what we want it to mean. "Comprehensive immigration reform" = amnesty. If we wanted that, we could have had that done while Tony Snow was White House Press Secretary. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 23:00, 21 July 2019 (EDT)
Since the federal government began passing immigration laws about 100 years, the U.S. has had major overhauls roughly every 30 years or so (with a few follow up tweaks). The last major tweaks were about 1985 and 1995. Even after 9/11 and the reorganization ICE, the Patriot Act, etc., there was no comprehensive reform. Eliminating the lottery is one of the big issues Trump often cites. We're do for a major overhaul. The whole system of quotas has to be reviewed, etc. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:25, 21 July 2019 (EDT)
As Artemus Ward once said, I bid you a welcome ado. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 15:12, 24 July 2019 (EDT)

JohnZ, Evangelical Christians are winning bigly in Britain!

The Christian Post reported on July 21, 2019 as far as Britain: "The percentage of respondents who said they were nondenominational Christians increased from 3% of the population in 1998 to 13% in 2018." See also: Growth of evangelical Christianity and Growth of evangelical Christianity in irreligious regions Conservative (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2019 (EDT)

I can see why you didn't post the link: Only 38% of Brits identify as Christian; lowest proportion in poll's history. JohnZ (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2019 (EDT)
As per the Book of Revelation, Jesus spits the lukewarm out of His mouth (Revelation 3:16). You can look at the loss of nominal "Christians" (Christians in name only) or you can look at the growth of evangelical Christians who are far more likely to be fervent, Bible believers.
Many of the former British Anglicans were never Christians at all. For example, shortly after a heretical Anglican Bishop was installed, the church got struck by lightning (He denied the resurrection and the virgin birth).[4] And if I recall correctly, the insurance company said it was an "act of God" so they were not legally required to pay.
I prefer to dwell on all the angels singing the song Hark the Herald Angels Sing (written by a British Methodist) every time a new British evangelical is born again which happens with a fair degree of frequency lately.
On the other hand, militant, British atheists are singing the blues. On December 2018, The Times indicated: "The number of atheists in Britain has fallen in the past year, according to a survey suggesting that more people are attending church, albeit irregularly."[5] Britain's Financial Times published an article in 2018 with the title/subtitle of: "The return of religion. Among atheists as well as believers, strident secularism is giving way to a renewed sense of faith’s hold."
JohnZ, is this song the new anthem for militant, British atheists? Face it, the thrill is gone away for good! Conservative (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2019 (EDT)
By the way, I hope you realize that the rapid growth of evangelical Christians and Muslims in Britain is a demographic death knell for the future of British evolutionism. And without evolutionism, British atheism is doomed.
Right now, only half of people in Britain are certain evolution is true while a third do not believe in it at all.[6]] And that is in the birthplace of Darwinism! Imagine the future growth of creationism buoyed by a growth of British evangelical/Muslim creationism.Conservative (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
Alas... JohnZ (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2019 (EDT)

The numbers on British/UK creationism may have been overstated, but the trend concerning UK/British evangelicals/Muslims is clear. And this trend will continue due to the birth rates of the religious, the below replacement level of births of the irreligious/nonreligious/liberals/leftists, immigration and religious proselytizing (see: Atheism and fertility rates and Desecularization and Growth of evangelical Christianity).Conservative (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

Furthermore, there is the issue of a potential Christian revival in the future in terms of Britain/UK (see: Atheism vs. Christian revival and Christian apologetics).
Reverend Dwight Longenecker wrote: "In the late eighteenth century atheism, rationalism and Freemasonry seemed to have taken over Europe. By the mid to late nineteenth century religious revival had swept through Europe and Christianity was surging forward."[7]
I hope these recent posts helped clarify things for you.Conservative (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
By the way, in terms of thoroughly changing a culture, Christianization can take hundreds of years. London is one of the top 10 rat infested cities in the world.[8]. Let's hope the Muslims/irreligious/nonreligious/nominal Christians (Christians in name only) leave London or become Christian converts and that the Christianization of London occurs with great alacrity! See also: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
If only Londoners were more like the Swiss! See: A lack of a significant rat infestation problem, crime reduction, Swiss right-wing leaning government and Swiss creationism.Conservative (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
By the way, most evangelical and Muslims are creationists. And most British, public school teachers bend over backwards not to offend Muslim creationist children and their parents (see: New Atheism, creationism and Muslims).Conservative (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
Some bona fide evangelical outfits beg to differ:
JohnZ (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2019 (EDT)

I believe have better data concerning Britain and more recent data from a 2019 article:

"The National Centre for Social Research, which claims to be Britain’s largest independent social research agency, released its 36th annual British Social Attitudes report this week based on a survey of 3,879 people...

At the same time, the proportion of the population that declares themselves to be Muslims (5%) and nondenominational Christians has risen. The percentage of respondents who said they were nondenominational Christians increased from 3% of the population in 1998 to 13% in 2018."[9], Christian Post, 2019

Also, the BBC said in a 2016 video that there were 500,000 pentecostals in Britain and its the fastest growing Christian community in Britain. [10] Furthermore, the captian below the BBC video says: "With unprecedented access to the workings of a Pentecostal church in London, this one-off documentary in the Black & British season lifts the lid on a faith that is growing fast." [11]

The American sociologist and author Peter L. Berger introduced the concept of desecularization in 1999. According to Berger, "One can say with some confidence that modern Pentecostalism must be the fastest growing religion in human history." See: PentecostalismConservative (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2019 (EDT)

In addition, read: Pentecostalism Invades Lambeth Palace by Peter L. Berger.Conservative (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ, I know atheists are into employing the fallacy of exclusion and denialism, but sooner or later you are going to have to face the fact that atheism/evolutionism are doomed in Britain. By 2060s or sooner or at least by the end of the century, whites will likely be the minority in Britain and British atheists very much tend to be white.[12][13] See also: Atheism and racism
Question: Are the Richard Dawkins/Stephen Fry/Ricky Gervais/Polly Toynbee/Peter Atkins/A.C. Grayling, who are Britain's most well-known atheists (Dawkins is a new atheist), all white as a cocktail napkin? Conservative (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2019 (EDT)
By the way, pentecostalism/evangelicalism both do well during times of political/economic instability[14] and a post Brexit world looks quite challenging. The EU is not going to make things easy. "Three of Europe's biggest economic engines — the UK, Germany, and Italy — are sputtering simultaneously."[15] Atheism generally does poorly during times of economic duress.
During the Great Depression in America churches which emphasized holiness grew and so did pentecostal Christianity.[16] "The Great Depression of the 1930s devastated many segments of American Christianity. Historian Mark Noll has noted that mainline Protestants not only faced economic uncertainties, but also theological uncertainties as liberal theology had begun to replace historic Christian beliefs. Many mainline congregations, schools, and ministries had to close or drastically cut back. Their institutions, funded by endowments that disappeared with the Wall Street crash, were running off the fumes of the past. However, there was a noticeable exception to the decline of religious institutions in the 1930s: evangelical and Pentecostal churches made significant gains."[17]Conservative (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ, if want to see how fast economic tough times can grow pentecostalism in a country, it is instructive to look at the Assemblies of God (AG) during the Great Depression. I cite: "In September 1929, the AG reported 1,612 churches with 91,981 members in the US. By 1944, this tally increased to 5,055 churches with 227,349 members. During that 15-year period, the number of AG churches tripled and membership almost tripled."[18]Conservative (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2019 (EDT)
Nondenominational ≠ evangelical, you feckin eejit - especially not in the very narrow (conservative Christian) sense you intend. In other news, half a million Pentecostals = < 1% of UK population. Lots of love, JohnZ (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2019 (EDT)

There is some overlap between nondenominational and evangelical, but granted they are not synonymous. Second, pentecostal immigrants have higher much higher birth rates that the irreligious who have below replacement levels of birth. In addition, they proselytize. Lastly, the reason you appear to be upset is because you realize that white, irreligious, British people are a dying breed demographically. Already, mainstream British news organization are talking about Britain hitting peak secular and the resurgence of religion in Britain (see: British atheism and UK and secularism). Conservative (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2019 (EDT)

JohnZ, you can kiss the secular European left goodbye soon?

Turkey Threatens To Reignite European Migrant Crisis.[19]

"Not every European government will fall if the migration spigot is turned on again - those countries already fortunate enough to have solid anti-migration parties in government will see the strength of those parties skyrocket - but the German and French governments will most certainly fall and the collapse of the Berlin-Paris axis would suffice to account for the European Union as well."[20]

Once Germany/France embrace right-wing governments, it is bound to shift British politics to the right as well. Conservative (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2019 (EDT)

By the way, the Turks very much tend to be creationists.Conservative (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2019 (EDT)

JohnZ, behold Conservapedia's Summa Atheologica article!

See: Atheism and its anti-civilizational effects

"A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian."[21] - Richard Dawkins. Conservative (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2019 (EDT)

JohnZ more bad news for you

Public interest in atheism has been significantly dropping in 2019 in the USA, UK and the world at large in terms of Google searches (see: Google trends - Atheism and agnosticism terms).

Conservapedia predicted that 2019 would be a terrible year for militant atheists. Another case of Conservapedia proven right?

Christendom has shown what an exceedingly weak proposition atheism is and done it in a myriad of ways. Read about the despair of many atheists: Morale of the atheist movement and Decline of the atheist movement and Atheists and the endurance of religion and Desecularization and Atheism and depression.Conservative (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2019 (EDT)

Ted Cruz fingers Antifa today on racketeering charges

"Today I penned a letter to Attorney General William Barr, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, and FBI Director Christopher Wray calling for an investigation into Antifa under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)." VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 22:06, 23 July 2019 (EDT)

Antifa is sharing the same tactics as Islamic extremists: They both think and act as though they are the vanguard of a violent revolution. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 12:10, 29 July 2019 (EDT)
Antifa is the paramilitary arm of the Democrat party. It won't be destroyed until the Barr, Horowitz, and Durham root out the Deep State coup plotters. Why do you think Barr brought back the death penalty the day after Mueller's public confession of his involvement? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:34, 29 July 2019 (EDT)

Dire prospects for the Democrats. Impeachment failed. They can't compete on ideas.

"The Democrats last chance to get Trump finished, going down in flames.....

"Now they are going to have to win an election on ideas rather than a political coup and the field of idiots they have running ....oh Lordy. Trump will crush them all." —RockPrincess (top conservative on Twitter)

VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 10:47, 24 July 2019 (EDT)

Democrats will never learn and never stop. Day after the Mueller fiasco, the flag burners are now flag wavers. 1:39 in. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:28, 25 July 2019 (EDT)

Don't bite the newbie editors via reversions

CP needs research assistants, copy editors, and people to do maintenance and formatting work, not just content contributers. Most wikis have a Don't Bite the Newbies policy. I find this archived discussion useful. If CP doesn't have an official policy, it still is useful for CP Admins to know that reverting newcomers has the effect of limiting CP's user base. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:05, 28 July 2019 (EDT)

Other than people inserting nonsense and/pushing misleading/errant liberal/leftist tripe, I think this was an excellent post. A little politeness and diplomacy goes a long way.Conservative (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
Oftentimes, new editors try to change the POV of articles, copy info from Wikipedia, or made other edits which are unencyclopedic (on an encyclopedia). Rob has a good point on treating new editors with respect, but it cannot be at the expense of the quality of CP's articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
Quality can be restored at anytime. Frightening off newcomers cannot. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:41, 29 July 2019 (EDT)

Dan Coats dismissed as Director of National Intelligence

Trump fired Dan Coats as Director of National Intelligence and has nominated John Ratcliffe. Coats was recently called the Deep State's "guy on the inside". During my Google search, Google helpfully provided news stories where they can't "verify" some of the colloquial remarks on Ratcliffe's résumé.

I guess particular news organizations' inadequacies in the vetting of certain individuals in government today translates into that candidate's culpability and not just the banal case of someone engaged in performing a vetting service quitting halfway. Supplying comforting fantasies to the spiteful seems to be these news organizations' characteristic role in today's world, but leaves room for doubt if they're truly conversant with "intelligence". VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 23:14, 30 July 2019 (EDT)

We definitely need a Ratcliffe article. Ratcliffe is pulling the plug on the Obama IC swamp. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:03, 31 July 2019 (EDT)

Mueller Report recap

"We were told Trump’s inquisitor was a calm, even-handed Republican with impeccable credentials who was trusted by everyone. What we learned yesterday was that the inquisition was run by the Democrat lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s aide who destroyed evidence with a hammer.

"We were told that the evidence of alleged Russian collusion was rock solid, the work of America’s top intelligence agencies. In reality, it was pure fiction cooked up by a Clinton-funded foreign contractor on the payroll of a sanctioned Russian oligarch.

"We were told the Trump campaign was never spied on or wiretapped by U.S. spy agencies. We now know the campaign was indeed wiretapped, that honeypots were deployed to entrap campaign affiliates, that overseas intel assets were used to set up meetings as pretexts for more spying.

"We were told our nation’s intel agencies would never use false information to justify secret surveillance of American citizens. In reality, DON and the FBI peddled lies to the FISA court that were cooked up by a foreign spook and a DOJ official’s wife, both funded by Clinton.

"We were told that our government’s top secret keepers would never leak classified or confidential information to the media. What actually happened is that top intel officials repeatedly leaked, often illegally, to cement a false narrative to support further spying on citizens.

"Finally, we were told that America’s top cops and spies would never foment a coup to overturn election results they didn’t like. We now know the most powerful unelected people in government cooked up lies as part of an orchestrated scheme to overthrow the duly elected president."

Sean Davis (top conservative on Twitter)

VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 00:40, 31 July 2019 (EDT)

My only question is, what government agency is "DON"? It's kind of ironic that DON "peddled lies" to implicate DONald Trump! I know I'm kind of breaking Sean's rhythm, but it goes to show, I put my name after them, but I don't always share the confidence these top Conservatives on Twitter show in their rhetorical strides! VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 04:47, 1 August 2019 (EDT)
He either meant DOJ, or it's possibly a shortened form of DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) who have to sign off on a FISA warrant. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:56, 1 August 2019 (EDT)

So now we're citing Pravda?

Excuse me, Russia Today, the anti-American, anti-Western propaganda outlet of the Soviet Union. Excuse me, Russia. During the active part of the cold war, apologists for the Soviet Union were known as Communists ("commies" for short), and were universally looked down upon, by sensible people, as borderline treasonous. I'm sure everyone here knows this, even if they didn't experience it themselves in their lifetime.

That Jeffrey Epstein is a horrible person, both as a sex offender and as a generally corrupt person, is well known. His ties to both Democrats and Donald Trump makes his situation particularly ironic. We, here in the United States, ought to have no trouble finding references showing his horribly corrupt nature, without going to RT. Even Breitbart would be a preferable source. SamHB (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, you employed the genetic fallacy. You haven't pointed out a factual error from the source. In short, once again, you are being illogical. It brings me no joy to point out you are being illogical by the way.
By the way, due to my work, in the past I came across a lady from Russia who needed some assistance. We became friends. There are things I have more agreement on with many Russians and not liberal Americans (Resurrection of Christ, homosexuality is a sin, etc.).
By the way, given the way that a great many Democrats want an illegal immigration invasion of the USA, it could easily be argued that many Democrats pose more of a threat than Putin. Personally, I find it rather ironic that the Russians may have hacked the DNC when Obama told Romney that the Russians were no great threat. And for years, many liberals/leftists saw the Soviet Union as no great threat.Conservative (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2019 (EDT)
"Obama told Romney that the Russians were no great threat". Lol, you certainly are giving the cleaned-up version—in 2012, for even suggesting it, Obama insulted Romney to his face! Of course, now, as was just promoted on MPR, there's no mention of Russian aggression whatsoever in the Democratic debates. To put it in a way SamHB can understand, the stated danger of Russian aggression is directly proportional to its ability to imperil Trump's presidency. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 23:18, 31 July 2019 (EDT)
Just heard Tulsi Gabbard trash "the warmongers" which presumably includes St. John McCain; Biden, another warmonger, claims "we were lied to" by the FBI and intelligence community over Iraq, but the FBI's Russia hoax and Mueller report evidently is sacred. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:32, 31 July 2019 (EDT)
Sam, that was then, this is now. Russia is a Christian nation. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:46, 31 July 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, about that... Russia's Orthodox Church has been a Communist arm since the KGB took it over, so I'm hesitant to call it a Christian nation, as you can see in these sources: [22] [23] Especially not when Vladimir Putin has boasted about keeping his KGB card, helmed the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students Communist and even gave a speech that heavily implied that he at the very least was in solidarity with the communist movement if not actually still believes in it. It's about as "Christian" as Cuba is, if I must be blunt. And don't think that just because Putin helms the ROC that he's Christian. Stalin also helmed the ROC during World War II, last I checked, he's an atheist all and out. If it were truly Christian, it would have dismantled Lenin's tomb and hung his corpse from a lamp post, ban the Communist party, and do everything in its power to condemn Communism, also tear down Karl Marx's statue in that public square at Moscow. That's what I would have done in his position. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2019 (EDT)
Note that I used the words "Christian" and "nation;" I made no reference to the Russian Orthodox Church. You are betraying your own bias. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:33, 1 August 2019 (EDT)
Even before communism, the land of Russia has always been perhaps the most multicultral on earth, with Orthodox Christians (or "Eastern Rite" which includes Greek, Meronite, etc), Roman Catholics, "Baptists" (a term collectively used to include most all Protestant Evangelical denominations), Jews both secular and orthodox, Muslims secular and fundamentalist, Hindus, Buddists, Siberian indigenous tribal beliefs, etc etc. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:40, 1 August 2019 (EDT)
Unlike the United States or Western Europe, the question whether Russia is a "Christian nation" is settled for as long as their remains a Russian nation. It will never be atheist again, or become Muslim, or anything else. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:49, 1 August 2019 (EDT)
[promoted by VM] First of all, if you're going to add additional comments, just add in the additional material and leave only one signature. Second of all, the Russian Orthodox Church is the majority religion in Russia, meaning it's essentially the de-facto state religion of Russia, so it's not even bias regarding my statement. And aside from that, one of the sources I cited was from the Celtic Orthodox Church. And anyone who adheres to Marxism and/or does NOT repudiate Marxism in any meaningful way is no Christian, even if they technically have Christian membership to a church. Besides, Putin is responsible for a lot of religious persecution, Christian persecution at that, and there's also sufficient evidence that the KGB has so thoroughly gutted the Russian Patriachate that it's effectively Christian in name only. Don't take my word for it, here's some sources:
And there's plenty more where that came from. I could care less about whether Russia is Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or, heck, any of the protestant religions: If they truly want to demonstrate they're a Christian nation, they need to tear down Lenin's tomb, tear down Marx's statue in the square, and outright outlaw Communism with an immediate death penalty if anyone is even CAUGHT trying to promote it in any way. Again, that's what I would do if I were in Putin's position, make sure Communism is rendered extinct in Russia, even burn my KGB card publicly and privately. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2019 (EDT)
It is no secret that the generic Christian "church" (see Matthew 18:20 for definition) went underground a hundred years ago. It further is no secret that the Christian church of Russia (1) defeated fascism and the Nazis, and (2) defeated communism and the Soviet Union.
You're just spewing re-cycled Marxist and the original Pravda talking points linking modern Christian Russia to organized religion. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:28, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
[promoted by VM] No, I am not. The sources I used are if anything anti-Marxist and not likely to repeat them. Do you REALLY think, for example, that the New American, which is tied with the John Birch Society, would be making these claims if they were Marxist talking points, or for that matter, Discover the Networks, which exposes far-left scumbags every day? The JBS was formed specifically to fight off Marxism and Communism. Besides, the Communists had control over the ROC since at least 1943, according to John Barron in his book KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Secret Agents. The only one who's spewing recycled Marxist and Pravda talking points is you by claiming that Putin's not a communist just because he helms the ROC. Gee, so I guess Stalin's not a Communist due to helming the ROC? Pokeria1 (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
Pokeria1: You would do well to totally ignore everything RobS says. Some people here are, to a greater or lesser extent, worth talking to. Rob isn't one of them. Cons, on the other hand, is occasionally fun to engage with. But he gets boring occasionally. As he is now. The others (NorthWest, Vargas, 1990s, etc.) occasionally make sense and need to be responded to on a case-by-case basis. SamHB (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
Are you still trying to start fights here, as well as try to stir up dissent between others on this site and then add fuel to the fire? You really need to mind what you're doing here, SamHB. Northwest (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
Pokeria1, Ok, I'm familiar with this criticism. The problem is an understanding of Russian culture.
Many of the writers you cite are guilty of a cultural bias viz-à-viz Russia, as true today as in Soviet times. The Enlightenment never made it to Russia. Revolutionary ideas such as separation of church and state are alien to Russian culture. Lenin and the communists tried to impose the concept on the Soviet people, but neither the Russians or the Muslims ever bought it. Everyone knows the ROC was compromised by civil authorities. Openness and democratization is a slow process; predators such as Bill Browder gave capitalism a bad name in the early days of the reborn Russian Federation. The struggle of Christians against the civil authority in Russia is very similar to that of Christians in the West and the United States. Discrimination against evangelical Christians in Russia today is nothing compared to Soviet times. You're asking Russians to embrace Western values instantaneously; they haven't even adopted Western accounting and business practices yet, so corrupted is the common cultural mindset after 70 years of Marxism. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:05, 3 August 2019 (EDT)
What I'm asking for is for Russia to return to the days of the Czar, and completely exterminate Communism, get rid of Karl Marx's statue as well as that of Lenin's statue, not to mention consecrate the heart of the Virgin Mary. If they really want to prove they've truly given up Communism, they should get rid of those stuff, ban that "World Festival of Youth and Students" Communist event, stop backing Angola, North Korea, the Communist leadership in Nicaragua, etc., etc., and more importantly, get rid of the unrepentant Marxists that are infesting the ROC, which, BTW, even is targeting actual non-Marxist ROC members such as Archpriest Lev Lebedev of Kursk for assassination. And don't think for one second that the Soviets didn't adhere to Enlightenment values. For goodness sakes, the entirety of Communism and Soviet ideology was derived from Enlightenment values, French Enlightenment thought at the very least (they even had monumental propaganda derived from French Revolutionary heroes, and aside from that, Marx specifically modeled all the forms of Communism after the Reign of Terror in France, and even had inspiration in part from Gracchus.). I actually could care less about Western values, just that they get rid of Communism. If they don't eliminate Communism fully, they're still a Communist country, simple as that. And for the record, I'd demand the exact same thing of France regarding the French Revolution, so western values has absolutely NOTHING to do with why I'm making these demands. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2019 (EDT)
[promoted by VM] Two points: the Virgin Mary is a Roman Catholic thing; Orthodox Christian teaching on the Virgin Mary is no different than Evangelical Protestants. Secondly, the Communists brought the Enlightenment and separation of church and state is exactly the point. The people as a whole never accepted these foreign ideas forced on them anymore than they accepted Marxism. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:53, 4 August 2019 (EDT)
Then WHY do they still have Karl Marx's statue up in Moscow? Why didn't they tear that down like they did the various Lenin and Stalin statues after the fall of Communism? Heck, why is Lenin's Mausoleum still in operation instead of, I don't know, torching the building to the ground and then hanging his corpse on a street lamp for everyone to see? If the Russian people truly never accepted these ideas, they would have made sure to tear all representation of those ideas down. Karl Marx isn't even Russian, he's German. And besides, Lenin never brought freedom of religion, they brought freedom from religion. As far as the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy, 1. Fatima and the fact that before the French Revolution occurred, it specifically required that both France and Russia consecrate the Heart of Mary if they were to avoid disaster, points to it being more than just whether or not Russia was predominately Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, and 2., while it's true that Eastern Orthodox churches are not doctrinally similar to Catholics (Catholics do not endorse divorce, while Eastern Orthodox does, for starters), they're actually more closer in terms of dogma to the Roman Catholic tradition than to Evangelical Protestants (which is understandable, since Evangelical Protestants are a more recent phenomenon, while Eastern Orthodoxy has been around for about a thousand years thanks largely to the Great Schism). Also, Bill Browder is NOT a Capitalist. In fact, his Conservapedia article specifically lists him as a Communist. Pokeria1 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2019 (EDT)
[promoted by VM] I don't know. Let's ask user:Conservative what the percentage of atheists in Russia is today? Your questions underscore my point - there is a lack of understanding of the Russian cultural mindset today as big as it was in Soviet times. The Russian cultural mindset differs vastly from Western European or Chinese. No, Russians are not the type of people who murdered the Czar's family (just days ago they had a big service to commemorate the 100 anniversary of the monarchs murder by communists). They are not the type of people to degrade a corpse like the Italians did to Mussolini. In this sense, the Russians are akin to the German people - they feel themselves victims of totalitarianism, for which the rest of the world blames them and still holds them to account. True, Lenin brought them freedom from religion, and that same religion destroyed communist rule.
Roman Catholicism has many controversial doctrines that Christians outside the Roman church do not adhere to: praying to saints, praying to Mary, the levitation or Assumption of Mary, etc. The Fatima incident you cite was a geopolitical alliance at a time when civil governments were very unstable and could not uphold the peace. A sort of "catholic ecumenicism." it has little to do with doctrine of either church.
As to Browder, he's both a greedy capitalist and corrupt communist. There's nothing unusual about this. Capitalism and communism are not polar opposites. The foundation of capitalism is trade, whereas communism is built on murder and thievery. Murders and thieves, when they are not murdering or stealing, still have to barter. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:57, 4 August 2019 (EDT)
Message to RobS: Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union Conservative (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2019 (EDT)
Just as an FYI, we should not rely on whoever lists themselves as Christian in a census bureau for whether they're actually Christian. Let's not forget, Sweden has a large Christian membership, yet many of them don't even believe in God, let alone Jesus Christ, and are pretty much CINOs. Even less so when the Estonian Orthodox Church strongly implied that Kirill is completely unrepentant of being a KGB agent or for that matter Putin was unrepentant (and quite frankly, geopolitical differences are irrelevant to me. If I were in Putin's position, and I wanted to get rid of Communism, I'd make sure to denounce Communism as a travesty to Christianity and try to outright destroy Communism for the sake of Christianity's survival, not try to tastelessly compare Communism to Christianity, or for that matter compare Lenin's tomb to Christian relics, and I certainly would not boast about keeping my KGB card and if anything publicly burn it.). Even Nazi Germany at least made a far bigger attempt to condemn Nazism than Russia did towards Communism. And don't forget, when Communism fell in Russia, everyone proceeded to tear down various Lenin and Stalin statues rather than keeping them up. And the Russians are certainly the types to tear down statues, doing a whole lot of that after the fall of the USSR. If they can tear down a lot of Stalin and Lenin statues after the USSR's fall, they most certainly can tear down Marx's statue, yet they made absolutely no attempt to even touch it, let alone tear it down.
And if we're in the wrong, if what we're doing is against God's will regarding our doctrines, don't you think God in a fit of rage would just obliterate us by now? Don't forget, he managed to have the Romans completely sack the Jewish temple in Jerusalem after Jesus's death and their not repenting of it, forty years after the fact (and Jesus even WARNED this would happen). He most certainly could, say, hurl a meteor towards Rome and wipe out the Vatican after it's fully set up to show his displeasure at those doctrines. Besides, it's not just Fatima: Around the time of King Louis XIV's reign, a prophecy occurred that mentioned that both Russia AND France would have untold disasters occur if their rulers don't consecrate the heart of Mary. It's even the main reason why King Louis XVI cannot ascend to sainthood despite living a largely sinless life, because he utterly failed to consecrate the heart of Mary before the French Revolution happened. It's even speculated that the French Revolution and the creation of the USSR were those disasters that were foretold. Bear in mind also that Russia and France didn't even hold to the same state religion, so when Mary pretty much communicated that, it's pretty clear she was NOT taking into account doctrinal differences.
And no, Browder is NOT a capitalist. Do you really think Conservapedia would neglect to mention his being a capitalist in his article? And they are pretty different. For starters, Capitalism does not try to exterminate religion simply for it even existing at all, while Communists are notorious for doing so. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2019 (EDT)
Wow. meaning no offense, I'm beginning to doubt whether you understand what a Christian or Christianity is ("My kingdom is not of this world.") You're still stuck on the ROC and politics. God avenging the death of his Son? Ha! The death of his Son is deemed "an acceptable sacrifice." Your retelling of events in 70 A.D. have a distinctly non-Christian, secular, and even Jewish spin on it. i'm not denigrating you or anybody for citing historical events unconnected to the Christian faith, but I do seriously doubt if you understand the meaning of the term "repentance" in Putin's case, Jeffrey Dahmer's, or even your own.
This past week Russia celebrated Navy Day. The Hammer and Sickle was on full display, not because they believe in Communism, but because it has become a Russian nationalist symbol for their victory over fascism. The Russian mindset still views itself isolated - a truly multicultural society isolated from an outside world that is fearful and hostile to it.
Russians' have a huge 70 year gap in their history, no one can trust official Soviet histories. For this reason, The Gulag Archipelago is required reading of all high school students, the closest thing to a contemporaneous account of their history. Older citizens who grew up in the Soviet era are entitled to look back on their childhood with fond memories. They are guilty of nothing. The Russian Federation is paying their Social Security pensions, even though it has no legal obligation to do so. But the cultural habits of 70 years of Marxist enslavement is hard to shake. It still manifests itself in corruption, tax cheating, cronyism, nepotism, bribery, kickbacks, etc. etc. The Christian faith is the one anchor that had guided the people, and still guides the people.
The idea that Browder is a "share the wealth" progressive is laughable; he, after all, after renouncing his U.S citizenship, is responsible for convincing John McCain to author the Magnitsky Act, which Barack Obama signed into law, brought about Cold War II and the schism between the American people and Russian people (where is Bernie Sanders when you need him?) RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:00, 4 August 2019 (EDT)
1. I actually DO understand Christianity, sat through the homilies, and also go through, say, ChurchMilitant. And just as an FYI, before his ascension, Jesus specifically told his followers that Jerusalem will meet disaster, and forty years later to the day, it met exactly that kind of disaster, at the hands of the Roman Sacking. Here, read for yourself: https://godsbreath.net/2007/08/14/predictions-jesus-made/ And as far as it not being of this world, Jesus ALSO told us Christians to spread the gospel to the four corners of the world, in other words, conquer it and ensure God is ruler over the world as well as heaven. He certainly order for us Christians what Jimmy Carter did to the Shah of Iran.
2. There are plenty of symbols that they could have utilized regarding Russian history that they could have used to represent Russia, that didn't involve Communism. Why not use the symbols used by Czarist Russia, to show they've renounced Communism while at the same time retained Russia's identity of it formerly being of the Czar. Barring that, they could easily have used the republic that was in place before Lenin took it over. I'm pretty sure that had a symbol that wasn't the Hammer & Sickle. And I don't fear Russia. Far from it, I actually actively wish that it restore its Czarist heritage, and also consecrate the Virgin Mary's heart per her request. But they need to fully renounce Communism, period. And that especially includes Putin doing everything to squash it, and not faking his being a Christian as part of a show and tacitly admitting in an interview with Larry King that he believes in man rather than God.
3. Yeah, and right now, Putin's advocated actually HONORING Stalin's memory, and even compared Lenin's corpse to saintly relics. I'm sorry, but if he truly were sincere in being anti-Communist, he'd have them utterly demonized for all time, names stricken from history other than as a means to condemn them, and all of that. He even banned The Death of Stalin despite it exposing the horrors of Stalin. And I don't care HOW hard it is to shake. If they can tear down monuments to Lenin and Stalin, they most certainly can tear down Marx's statue, and ought to have done so a LONG time ago.
4. In case you haven't noticed, Communism ITSELF was founded on a lie. Karl Marx was a guy who engaged in flawed research at best, and outright fraudulent writings at worst, never even bothered to at least ASK his uncle for information on what factories are actually like and find out there, and he was a massive waster of money, and he never was even born impoverished, he was actually a spoiled rich kid in reality. So don't expect Browder to be consistent to his beliefs. In fact, being massive hypocrites is probably the closest the communists have to actual consistency. George Lucas, after all, was instrumental in getting Obama to cut the Bush-era tax cuts and increase taxes, and then he sold Star Wars to Disney simply to get out of the tax increases he begged Obama to implement (not to mention basically was a huge Occupy supporter and has implied he favored the Soviet system over the Hollywood system). Besides, Leon Trotsky was a "share the wealth progressive" as well, yet he did many of the same crap that Browder did. I believe it was Lenin who mentioned "selling the capitalists the rope which they'll hang themselves from." One last thing, we DON'T worship the Virgin Mary, her ascension, or the saints. We revere them, yes, but that is absolutely NOT the same thing as worshipping them. There's a pretty big difference between the two. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2019 (EDT)
[promoted by VM] As to point 2, here is where understanding the Russian mind and Russian culture comes in. Russia, during Soviet times and now, consider themselves to have singlehandedly defeated Nazism. They discount British claims, Lend Lease, and even French claims for god sake, that the Western alliance played any significant role in defeating Nazism. NATO likewise was organized after Russia's defeat of Nazism. The Hammer and Sickle today symbolizes Russian patriotism in the Great Patriotic War (note, this link should redirect to Operation Barbarossa, not World War II). They've always been a bit paranoid. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:25, 4 August 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, and they also tend to not realize the only reason the Soviets even HAD a war against the Nazis was because of Stalin pretty much stupidly gutting his own forces. They also tend to not know about the Rapes in Berlin or several wartime atrocities they conducted. Heck, they're bringing back Stalin statues at Putin's order as we speak, so that's not a good enough reason to reject what I earlier said. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
[promoted by VM] Stalin is viewed as a strongman who stood up to a hostile world and protected their multicultural society. The Magnitsky Act only feeds into that. And there is no going back on censorship or multiparty elections at this point. The process is called "democratization." Putin critics are deemed fringe whackos, which are tolerated in every non-communist society. They are not treated as traitors, but emblematic of Russian democracy. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:29, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
Actually, Stalin is viewed as a brutal dictator, and in fact, part of the reason why the Nazis even invaded the USSR as easily as they did is due to a couple of factors. 1. Stalin slaughtering many of his own citizens for banal reasons, which led several of them, such as Ukrainians, to view the Nazis as liberators, and 2. Him gutting his own army with his infamous purges, leaving them unable to actually make any really sound strategy. That doesn't strike me as a strongman, and I'd hold to that view even if I had in fact been Russian, and I honestly fail to see how mass-arresting and executing people simply for stopping their applause 1 second too soon for his taste or for failing to deliver a personal recording of a Mozart concert to him on time actually benefits Russia in any way other than MAYBE keeping the saps' heads. Besides, Robespierre also engaged in similar actions to Stalin during the height of the French Revolution. Last I checked, France doesn't consider him a strongman despite his personally being responsible for giving the order to cut loose and execute a whole lot of people. And quite frankly, them embracing democracy is EXACTLY why they're still a communist state. Let's not forget that Stalin, Lenin, even Karl Marx specifically indicated that democracy was one-and-the-same with Socialism/Communism, or at the very least was a vital element to turning a country into that. Heck, want a true example of democracy in action? Look at the September Massacres and the Reign of Terror, heck, the October Revolution even, also the various General Strikes in France. That's in fact one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers, contrary to popular belief, NEVER wanted us Americans to be a democracy at all, not even Jefferson, and he's a massive fanboy of the French Revolution. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

[reset]

  • Stalin is viewed as a brutal dictator, and in fact, part of the reason why the Nazis even invaded the USSR

See, now you are articulating the anti-Social Justice Warrior, fascist POV. Again, Westerners do no under stand Russian culture.

  • Stalin slaughtering many of his own citizens

People without rights are not citizens. Again, you don't even understand Western idioms.

Socialism destroyed morality and shaped the thinking of generations about what justice is, what government and bureaucracy are for, and how it operates. Putin is a true anti-fascist Social Justice Warrior in the traditional sense; the fact that 'progressive' socialists now have come out of the closet, through the LGBT movement, rather than use homosexuality to compromise and blackmail people, is really just an internal family dispute on the Left. Putin comes down on the side that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of; Western progressives and homosexuals consider it their ticket to power, to finally destroy the opiate of the masses and promote egalitarianism. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:08, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

It ought to be obvious to anyone following this discussion over months, you are arguing that Vladimir Putin is a hardcore leftist. The Trump-Russia hoax in the United States supports my premise, that gay marriage, gay rights, the homosexual agenda etc. , which Putin opposes, is indeed an internal family dispute among socialists. Like World War II, communism vs. fascism, innocent people are dragged into these leftist sectarian disputes. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:24, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

I've got a dentist who hailed from Russia, and she also indicated she was NOT fond of the fact that they still had Marx's statue up in a way that indicated she was all too familiar with that. And besides, Ion Mihai Pacepa, having been a DIE agent under the yoke of the USSR, is all too aware of Russia, and has even implied that it has NOT given up its communist ways. So no, the Westerners I cited are if anything all TOO understanding of Russian culture, especially the kind of culture brought about by the Soviets. And as far as your second point, they're under the yoke of the Soviets, they're registered to live in that country and aren't even allowed to leave, they're pretty much forced citizens. And I'm very much AGAINST the SJWs. But guess what, Putin merely voicing that stuff doesn't change the fact that he's an unrepentant Communist, by his OWN admission I should add, heck, by Gorbachev's admission even (and he's not much different from Putin, either), and aside from that, Stalin, by the terms you used, also is an anti-SJW fascist because he had a tendency to lock up gays in the gulags, doesn't change he's a far-left scumbag. It's the same deal with Putin. And I definitely agree with you, which is in fact why I opt that we eliminate ALL forms of leftists, whether it be Putin, Soros, or anything like that. Pokeria1 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
Very good. You have articulated you position well and clearly. Now, please expand on why Leftists in the United States are so ardently opposed to leftists in Russia? And don't try to convince us that American leftist are nationalists or patriots. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:50, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

Vesti and the MSM

By the way, I really don't like the fact that there is not a lot of major news outlets on the right-wing side of the aisle. It is better than it was before the latter part of the 1990s, however.
And the mainstream news is useless. They were clueless when it came to the 2016 presidential election for example. Plus, they pumped the Russian-collusion farce which the last Mueller hearing helped show was a total dud.Conservative (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2019 (EDT)
Russia's Vest TV program, 60 Minutes, regularly has some of the best, most interesting, open public debates on politics I've seen anywhere in the 21st century. It is very very impressive the level of knowledge and sophistication of this program's viewers about geopolitics, considering the Soviet background and how far Russians have come their openness, understanding, and discussion of real world problems in just 25 years. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:06, 31 July 2019 (EDT)
Am I going to get in even more trouble for asking what "Russia's Vest" is? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 04:58, 1 August 2019 (EDT)
Vesti News, a very well produced TV network. Not as insulting to the viewers intelligence like CNN or NBC, but I'm not a typical Russian viewer so I can't speak authoritatively on the subject. But I do find it informative and stimulating in the face of blatant lies from many U.S. MSM networks. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:26, 1 August 2019 (EDT)
Ever see this clip of Putin with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska? According to Ratinfestedwiki, Deripaska is a Trump ally; it turns out Deripaska illegally colluded with Robert Mueller and Andrew McCabe to violate the Iran Sanctions Act. And, according to CNN, Deripaska is an Epstein-lite type figure who funds an international school of prostitution for billionaires when he's not working for Mueller and McCabe's FBI. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:45, 2 August 2019 (EDT)

7-11-2017 Newsweek article: Why American Conservatives Love Anti-Gay Putin. Putin's workouts have more machismo than Obama's too.[24] [25][26] Conservative (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2019 (EDT)

Well gosh, Cons. Putin is pure comedy gold, and you really know how to find it on the internet. And he sure has your favorite comedic attribute: machismo. What a man! His comparisons to President Trump are eye-opening. A few things:
  • In your third video, when Putin is doing cable flyes, he has only 3 active plates on the machine. The amount of weight for lat pulldowns is unknown. Altogether pretty wimpy.
  • Your video of Trump doing lateral raises and lunges is also not very impressive. Oh, sorry, Obama was in those videos. Please use your extraordinary internet research ability to find videos of Trump working out. I particular, we'd all like to see him do the standard fitness tests: push-ups, sit-ups, squat jumps, and pull-ups. We's also like to see video of him in basketball and volleyball games, and we'd like to know his time for the 100-meter dash and mile run.
  • While you are heaping comedic praise upon Putin, you might want to find comedic videos about some of his other humorous activities:
    • Invading and annexing Crimea.
    • Having his allies in Ukraine use Russian missiles to shoot down civilian flight MH17, killing 298 people.
    • Having a political opponent assassinated on a Moscow street, while security cameras mysteriously malfuntioned.
    • Using Polonium-210 to murder another political opponent.
    • Using Novichok to murder other political opponents.
These topics are all comedy gold. Much more than atheism-and-whatever-we're-obsessed-about-today. And opposition to homosexuality doesn't begin to excuse any of this.
Just so you know, all decent patriotic Americans have been aware of the evils of Communism over the last 70+ years. Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43, and Obama all understood the importance of protecting the country that they were sworn to protect, from Communism. None of them ever joked with Russian/Soviet/Communist leaders about interfering in our elections, and none of them ever said that they "fell in love" with a Communist leader.
SamHB (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
I'll give you Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter (kind of), Reagan, and the Bushes (well, the last ones were in the gray area due to adhering to globalism, though they at least recognized Communism as evil and made efforts to prevent it). However, I wouldn't call Clinton someone who wished to protect America from Communism, let alone patriotic. He was a guy who not only engineered several anti-war and especially anti-American protests abroad, but also went on a trip to Russia during a time where no one in the West barring spies was actually allowed to attend, not to mention spent a lot of time trying to implement it while in office (I suspect the only reason he didn't get as far was due to the 1994 Republican Revolution forcing him to back off somewhat), and don't get me started on his selling military secrets to Communist China for campaign cash (or as RobSmith pointed out, the Crimean Annexation had less of a body count than the Libyan incursion, of which there's evidence that he only participated in Libya and other incursions simply because he saw it on CNN). And Obama most certainly had not protected America from communism, and if anything was willing to sing praises of communism as openly as could be allowed of him. For goodness sakes, his secretary of the press has Soviet/Chinese-style Communist propaganda posters displayed prominently in his own house. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2019 (EDT)
Not to engage in whataboutism, but the Libyan invasion had far more disastrous consequences than the Crimean Annexation, and so what if Putin engages in the same conduct as the Clintons? Every dead body on this side of the Atlantic gets added to the Clinton body count, and every dead body on the other side of the Atlantic gets added to the Putin body count. My advice: Don't wear your tinfoil hat during a lightening storm. RobSDeep Six the Deep State!
Obama (a) protected the country from communism? (b) didn't joke with Putin about elections? Jumpin' jiminney! I'm speechless. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:43, 3 August 2019 (EDT)
Okay, first of all, I'm American, conservative, and anti-gay, yet I utterly HATE Putin, mostly because he still adheres to Communism, as I posted with those links. Second of all, don't think that just because he's against homosexuals, he's automatically our ally. Technically, Joseph Stalin was also against homosexuals, as was Che Guevara, yet they were our enemies, and not even CLOSE to conservative. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
"Anti-gay" = abusive term for "homosexual rights skeptics".
And I recently saw a clip on the internet of Obama on The Ellen Show dancing in place in front of a large background that was all pink. It was an attempt at virtue-signalling, but thankfully I and probably a great many others were able to deflect the signal by not watching it in the first place. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 11:46, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
What "virtue" was she "signalling"? Support for homosexuality? In any case, I'm glad you had the mental fortitude to deflect it by not watching. I didn't see it either. I don't think I would have been "signaled" to turn gay. SamHB (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
No no, Sam, it wasn't Ellen. It was President [or presidential candidate] Obama himself who was dancing! VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 00:41, 3 August 2019 (EDT)
Yes, I knew that Obama was doing the dancing. I assumed that Ellen was doing the "signalling", though I'm not sure, because I don't know what this "virtue signalling" stuff is. Some kind of electronic mind control over the airwaves? Anyway I'm glad you were able to deflect it by not watching the show. SamHB (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2019 (EDT)
Watch the Democrat debates, it's not a discussion of policy, it's wall-to-wall virtue signalling.. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:51, 4 August 2019 (EDT)
Let me associate myself with Vargas Milan's comments. Communist training schools need to fix their curriculum for infiltrators. I don't know anybody who is "anti-gay," just as I don't know anybody who is "anti-immigrant." Neither exist in rightwing or conservative circles. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:28, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
There are more male homosexuals as a percentage of the population than lesbians. War and homosexuality has caused many old maids who wanted to marry.[27] Evolutionism helped cause WWI and WWII.[28][29][30]Conservative (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
What fascinating information! And supported by, of all things, three creationist web sites! SamHB (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
"Approximately one in 100 American women and two in 100 American men identify as homosexual, with another four percent of Americans identifying as bisexual." - statista.com [31] But women are more likely to be bisexuals.[32] This sounds about right in terms of men being more likely to be homosexuals. Men are generally more likely to deviate from societal norms (men are more likely to be criminals[33][34], atheists, etc. See for example: Atheism and women).
Of course, the above figures are not surprising since homosexuality is a choice/sin (see: Homosexuality and choice).
Yet another case of Bible scientific foreknowledge given that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin/choice (Romans chapter 1, etc.)?Conservative (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
Historian Jacques Barzun observed how Darwinism caused the horrendous brutality of the wars leading up to this one: "Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens — all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate." See: World War I and Darwinism and Evolutionary racism.Conservative (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2019 (EDT)

Well, this sure started a lively discussion! It was gratifying to see so many people come out and do the things that we each do so well. I look forward to seeing the videos of Donald Trump showing off his athletic prowess. SamHB (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, classic Russian music. Enjoy! (Despite the Russians putting some flies in Hillary's soup)

Try to enjoy these classic Russian songs, despite the Russians putting some flies in Hillary's soup.

By the way, Obama was supposed to protect the 2016 presidential election from significant Russian interference. I hope this helps clarify matters for you.Conservative (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, cat got your tongue ? Of course, I take your silence as an admission that Russian interference in the election was Obama's fault. "The buck stops here." - President Harry Truman. Conservative (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
Huh? Were you talking to me? I don't want to play just now. SamHB (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
I love this video. Few videos capture the spirit of Russian culture as this one does. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:29, 4 August 2019 (EDT)

SamHB, another reason why many American men should love Russians

"Still, gender norms do exist in the homes of Russians: men should be macho, women should be kind, delicate, and beautiful...

It's true, Russian women are known for their beauty...

Still, Russian women in cities are known to go out and lavish outfits, complete with fur coats, fine jewelry, and flawless makeup and hair. If you're venturing out to experience the nightlife, you're sure to encounter dozens of beautiful Russian women, but strike up a conversation and you'll quickly see they're also extremely intelligent and personable—as long as you're nice." - tripsavvy.com[35]

11 Millions Russian Girls Can't Marry due to Gender imbalance, Single Men's Paradise.[36]

These ladies sound so much better than the liberal women in the unfree state of Massachusetts! Conservative (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2019 (EDT)

How many liberal women in Massachusetts do you know? SamHB (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2019 (EDT)
Conservative, though very practical, has the remarkable strength of imagination of someone you'd sooner expect to see working in the fine arts and, given correct information (which he is very resourceful in finding), can understand events and personal characteristics before he even experiences them! VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 01:19, 3 August 2019 (EDT)
SamHB, liberal women generally do not believe in wifely submission so they are totally unsuitable wives. Good wives need to love, honor and obey.Conservative (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2019 (EDT)

Communist opposes Pokeria's Russia plan

I spoke to a communist about Pokeria's support for a plan to benefit Russia by banning communism there altogether, but he said Pokeria's plan was "based on a theory that doesn't work out in the real world", and "why would Pokeria even want to try a policy that common sense and not-so-distant history tells us would end up failing badly?" VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 01:00, 4 August 2019 (EDT)

Well, gee, of COURSE a communist would oppose my plan. They'd be pretty stupid to support my plan if they wish for communism to continue. As stupid as a businessowner stating that Capitalism should be destroyed. Besides, such a plan worked against the Nazis when they did a similar ban in Germany, and a similar plan against WWII-era Japan after the war worked as well. If it can work there, it most certainly can work against Communists. Far from not working out in the real world, it actually HAS worked out in the real world, certainly moreso than our ignoring the issue and acting like the Berlin wall collapsing meant the end of Communism. And quite frankly, a lot of liberals made the exact same argument regarding Reagan's methods of stopping the USSR, and it certainly broke the USSR's back at least. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

For better or worse, Russia/Putin and the USA are "frienemies"

For better or worse, Russia is a "frienemy" of the USA. The USA can work with Russia as far as keeping a lid on Muslim terrorism. It can also engage in nuclear talks.

On the other hand, Russia will probably keep doing election interference in order to make USA elections look bad. Russia does this to make their elections/rule look more legitimate.Conservative (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2019 (EDT)

SamHB vs. User: Conservative. SamHB badly loses again

User: Conservative wrote: 7-11-2017 Newsweek article: Why American Conservatives Love Anti-Gay Putin. Putin's workouts have more machismo than Obama's too.[37] [38][39] Conservative (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2019 (EDT)

SamHB wrote: "Well, this sure started a lively discussion! It was gratifying to see so many people come out and do the things that we each do so well. I look forward to seeing the videos of Donald Trump showing off his athletic prowess. SamHB (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2019 (EDT)".

According to liberal/left leaning Wikipedia: "Golf is a club-and-ball sport in which players use various clubs to hit balls into a series of holes on a course in as few strokes as possible."[40]

According to Golf Digest: "My main memory of playing golf with Donald Trump—preserved with more care now that he's the president—is that he really went after the ball hard. But the interesting thing is that though Trump's action might have looked a little reckless, it soon became clear that it was quite under control... Trump was 67 when I played with him in 2013 at his course outside Charlotte and in early 2014 at Doral, but he still possessed a significant remnant of big-man athleticism... As a golfer, the 45th president is the real deal."[41]

VIDEO: Golf Digest: Trump vs. Obama. According to Golf Digest, Trump is the better golfer! Specifically, Golf Digest said that Trump was the "best golfer ever to hold the presidency."[42]Conservative (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2019 (EDT)

GOLF???

GOLF??? So first we get a comparison of the athletic prowess of the current president of the Soviet Union Russia with that of the former president of the United States. So I steer the conversation to the current president of the United States, suggesting some serious indicators of athletic prowess—see above, about cable flyes, bench press, lunges, various classic fitness tests, basketball, track etc. And I get something about Mr. Trump's achievements in golf. Sorry, I'm looking for actual athleticism. At least the sorts of things that Vladimir Putin likes to show off. I'm still looking forward to seeing videos about Mr. Trump's athleticism.

And this might be interesting. The guy cheats at golf! I never thought that anyone would consider golf to be worth cheating at. What next? Solitaire?

SamHB (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2019 (EDT)

Yes, golf

SamHB, according to Golf Digest: "Trump was 67 when I played with him in 2013 at his course outside Charlotte and in early 2014 at Doral, but he still possessed a significant remnant of big-man athleticism." (bolding added for emphasis)[43]

Specifically, Golf Digest said that Trump was the "best golfer ever to hold the presidency."[44]

Below are some resources for you:

By the way, if you look at THIS VIDEO, you can clearly see that Obama doesn't even have a remnant of athleticism! Lifting tiny, little weights makes you weak like women! Conservative (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2019 (EDT)

American mainstream press fails again. Russia Today one of the few press outlets to say atheist shooter Conner Betts was an atheist and self-described leftist

Christian Post reported this matter too (see: Connor Betts).

Vindication that Russia Today should be used on main page right when done appropriately!Conservative (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

Dayton shooting

Social media is part of the problem. Hate and bullying thrives festers and grows on these platforms promising a “safe space” and “healthy conversation” yeah ok [eye roll emoji]

We all know, it’s not about either, it’s about pushing a left wing agenda. At any cost. F--- Silicon Valley.

Look at what’s trending on this s------- platform. Thankfully only roughly 20% of the US population is subjected to this vile narrative pushed by left wing zealots. Hyperbole on steroids. This garbage Pushes me further to the right. Boo!

people so unstable they see white supremacists everywhere, where none exist, are delusional and should not gain any more power in government than they already have. — RockPrincess VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, August 4.

Coulter: Maybe liberals should have thought through blaming Trump for the El Paso shooter. Dayton shooter is a big fan of socialism & Elizabeth Warren. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 21:31, 4 August 2019 (EDT)

Incorrect headline - not Buzzfeed

The recent headline about Buzzfeed is dishonest. Buzzfeed didn't say that, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said it an Buzzfeed reported his statement. It should be changed because as it stands it suggests it was Buzzfeed made the comment. It didn't. JohnSelway (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

See here. JohnSelway (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

No, you're dishonest. Paying attention to what's being said about not politicizing abusive individuals is what's important, not who said it.

Personally, I think crime shows like CSI have frightened would-be serial killers with public exposure of all the different ways they can be tripped up. Statistics show their numbers have gone down. So those remaining with little regard for human life feel forced to go out in a "blaze of glory" in a public place.

By the way, if you show defective understanding of what is obvious like capitalizing page sections except when there's a literary effect involved, I will correct it. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 02:55, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

The headline reads: Even liberal/left leaning Buzzfeed News declares about the El Paso shooter. But it should read Dan Patrick says in Buzzfeed "You know, in this manifesto that we believe is from the shooter, this manifesto, he talks about living out his super-soldier fantasy on Call of Duty. We know that the video game industry is bigger than the movie industry and the music industry combined, and there have been studies that say it impacts people and studies that says it does not, but I look at the common denominators, as a 60-some-year-old father and grandfather myself, what's changed in this country? We've always had guns, we’ve always had evil. But what's changed where we see this rash of shooting? And I see a video game industry that teaches young people to kill." . Buzzfeed only reported what he said. Why is this even in dispute? JohnSelway (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
Imagine for a second I was a random person on the internet who looked at the front page of Conservapedia and saw that quote. Firstly I would wonder why there was no link to the Buzzfeed article but when I found it myself I would immediately see it wasn't actually Buzzfeed but Buzzfeed reporting what Gov. Dan Patrick said. So why does Conservapedia say Buzzfeed made the statement? It is obviously incorrect. JohnSelway (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
If you don't get it, I'm not going to explain it. Why is this even in dispute? Because even if true, it came wrapped in a package that accused deliberate deception. Even habitual deliberate deception. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 04:44, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
It is true - even [your own article] says Buzzfeed was quoting Dan Patrick. So yes, the main page item is incorrect. JohnSelway (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

JohnSelway, your unreasonableness manifests itself once again. Something can be called dishonest if it was done intentionally to deceive. You didn't demonstrate this.

And given that I scrupulously footnote the various articles I have created (or helped to create) and given that even my critics have said that I create factual articles and have made good points, you are certainly not going to prove your contention (see: Essay: A British atheist on Conservapedia's atheism articles and Essay: British agnostic acknowledges the reasonableness of a User: Conservative editor).

I will fix my unintentional mistake.

By the way, given the way that left-center governments are collapsing in the world and being replaced by the populist right, what made you jump to the conclusion that dishonesty was involved? Surely, I am not operating from a position of desperation.Conservative (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2019 (EDT)

Thank you Conservative. I didn't mean to suggest you were dishonest and perhaps I should have used to the word misleading instead. JohnSelway (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
P.S. I work up early and found my computer still on. Rather than go to bed, I did a quick look at the news. I was a bit groggy when I did the post. I should have been more careful if I chose to do the post. Looking back, I should have just gone back to bed and not read the news nor done a post. The horrific news of two back to back shootings happening got the better of my judgement though.
On a more positive note, given the poor quality of most news organizations, I have decided to follow what's going on in the world via more methods than news organizations (follow important trends, etc.). An ambulance chasing, sensational news pushing, controversy seeking news organization seeking clickbait is unlikely to give a person a good understanding of the world anyways. This is particularly the case if it is run by liberals/leftists which most mainstream news organizations are. Conservative (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
JohnSelway, you wrote: "... perhaps I should have used to the word misleading instead." We both know you should have used the word misleading. There is no "perhaps".
Frankly, I have given up trying to reason with you. The underlying cause of your unreasonableness is likely pride as you are not even willing to fully own up to your error as demonstrated via the word "perhaps" in your apology. And I don't see you addressing your inordinate amount of pride anytime soon. It brings me no joy in saying this by the way.Conservative (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2019 (EDT)