Talk:Main Page/Archive index/184

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see: Conservapedia:Community Portal

Who will win the Democrat presidential primary?[edit]

See also 2020 presidential election
Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee Who will win?
Chance of becoming
Democratic nominee
Candidate CA
End of
End of
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE 28.5% 20.2% 23.6% 23.5% 23.5% 22.7% 23.0% 20.6%
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 1.6% 2.0% 1.8% 2.2% 2.4% 2.3% 0.5% 0.8%
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 11.1% 8.3% 6.1% 5.3% 4.5% 4.4% 4.6% 5.1%
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 2.5% 1.4% 1.4% 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 1.1% 1.4%
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 12.5% 27.4% 10.8% 10.9% 6.6% 7.4% 5.0% 4.3%
Rep. Beto O'Rourke O'R TX 4.0% 1.3% 0.5% 0.9% 1.2% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0%
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 11.2% 7.5% 13.4% 12.7% 12.2% 12.5% 9.3% 7.8%
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 15.9% 21.5% 31.5% 33.4% 35.2% 36.6% 40.8% 46.7%
Sec'y Hillary Clinton Cli NY 1.7% 1.5% 2.0% 1.9% 3.6% 3.4% 4.6% 5.7%
Andrew Yang Yan NY 5.5% 3.3% 4.0% 4.4% 5.4% 5.2% 4.8% 4.4%
Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee Who will win?
Twitter followers
Candidate CA
as of
end of
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE   03.6M:1 +19,000 +64,000 +12,000 +17,000 +8,000 +45,000
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 04.4M:2 +28,000 +39,000 +3,000 +6,000 +3,000 +9,000
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 01.2M:2 +72,000 +101,000 +9,000 +23,000 +48,000 +26,000
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 00.6M:2 +34,000 +118,000 +20,000 +15,000 +5,000 +27,000
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 03.6M:2 +245,000 +119,000 +11,000 +25,000 +11,000 +48,000
Rep. Beto O'Rourke O'R TX 01.4M:1 +4,000 +116,000 +51,000 +20,000 +14,000 +24,000
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 17.8M:2 +134,000 +264,000 +45,000 +63,000 +22,000 +93,000
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 07.8M:2 +225,000 +273,000 +50,000 +65,000 +27,000 +137,000
Sec'y Hillary Clinton Cli NY +316,000 +20,000 +66,000 +22,000 +123,000
Andrew Yang Yan NY 00.5M:1 +77,000 +22,000 +48,000

Proportional representation and the Democratic nomination[edit]

I had assumed that Sanders would drop out and endorse Warren at some point, but this article argues that the proportional representation system used by the Democratic Party makes that less likely. Under the current rules, a candidate keeps earning delegates as long as he is getting at least 15 percent of the vote. In other words, Biden, Sanders, and Warren can all go to the convention and horse trade once they get there. Despite the 2016 reforms, the superdelegates would loom larger than ever. After so many rounds of voting reform, the Dems may find themselves with a 19th-century-style brokered convention. Many Warren and Sanders supporters give Biden as their second choice. So if either of them were to drop out during the primaries, Biden's chances would improve. PeterKa (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2019 (EDT)

It's all about money right now. Let's look at three candidates:
  • Kamala Harris has enough reserve funds to make it through the opening primaries, with staff organizations in those states. However, Kamala's big money donors are bailing. She's seen as another Beto O'Rourke, well funded but basically incapable of jumpstarting her campaign. Her decision now is, Do I stay in the race and continue getting embarrassed, or drop out and convert the funds over to my next Senate campaign committee? She's running for VP anyway.
  • Pete Buttigieg, enjoys the exact opposite of Kamala. He's well funded and the donations are increasing. So all the money gets poured into building campaign organizations in early primary states.
  • Tulsi Gabbard: Has enough money to make it to New Hampshire (February 2, 2020?). All her money is going into New Hampshire, where she is doing well in polls. If she does well there on primary day, say into the top three, the money can pour in real fast. Millions can pour in overnight.

Sanders doesn't expect to be the nominee. He's running to shape the agenda and narrative, and make sure whoever it will be isn't another so-called centrist.

So you have Biden (the supposed centrist) and Warren (Hillary in Sanders clothing), and a third younger contender whom Millenials are expected to gravitate to come the early primaries, likely Buttigieg or Gabbard. Sanders knows Warren is a fraud, so he's not ready to back out. Buttigieg more resembles the Sanders platform. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:23, 21 September 2019 (EDT)

Andrew Yang should be counted in this group with appeal to Millenials, Gabbard, Buttigieg and Yang. One or two of these could make the Place and Show positions behind Warren (Biden, Sanders, Harris, and Booker all may done as of today). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:26, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

After the recent allegations against Kavanaugh, I find myself adopting a conspiratorial mindset. For the Dems as a party, dragging out the Kavanaugh affair makes no sense. Kavanaugh was the principle author of the Starr report and my pet theory is that the Clintons are determined to get back at him. Think of Jay Leno, Norm McDonald, or Don Imus. They were all huge in their day, but none of them had what it took to fend off a Clinton takedown. In other words, Bernie, you're next. Isn't it odd that only three Democrats ran for president in 2016, even though there was a vacancy that year? The Clinton smear machine is headed by Neera Tanden. The media is always running stories about Warren moving up and overtaking Bernie or someone else even though the RCP average swings back and forth. From a Republican point of view, the Indian wannabe is certainly the Dem who looks the easiest to beat. The liberal media is oddly unconcerned about Warren's general election chances. Instead, they say we should vote for her because of her numerous "programs." It's such an insincere and unconvincing line that it sounds a bit like they've been taken hostage. PeterKa (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Peter, are you counting Bernie? To this day on his Twitter page he brags about being an "independent". VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 11:08, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Dragging out the Kavanaugh allegation is easy: it's based on the Democrat theory that voters are stupid and believe any line of crap CNN feeds them. The DNC & CNN's ability to bring out mobs into the street feeds into this echo chamber.
The parallel here is when the "Hard hats" started beating up on anti-war protesters in 1972 (Hard hats = the not-so Silent Majority). Some people reckon the Proud Boys to the Hard Hats, but it's a bit of stretch; the Hard Hats were construction workers who beat up hippies on their lunch break, whereas the Proud Boys are moreless seen as vigilante troublemakers. In many ways, the situation seems more volatile today than in 1972, which was the most violent period of Americans fighting Americans since the Civil War. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:36, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
I conceive Antifa to be in the business of casting "hecklers' vetos". "Sorry, the situation's gotten too volatile. We're going to have to cancel the event." VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 16:48, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
The Brits don't have access to RobS's knowledge, but they reckon the odds of Warren becoming the nominee to be almost as large as Harris's, Sanders' and Biden's combined. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 11:30, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
You should read this: Britons Still Betting On Hillary Clinton to Win the Democratic Nomination; it shows the wide gulf in understanding between US & UK politics. Hillary;s goose is cooked. even if she wanted to run, it would only divide the party. Brits evidently do not understand the role of money in US politics; it costs over $1 billion to run for president; there's only 400 days remaining. Sh'e have to average $2,500,000 a day in fundraising now to make it, and she's not even trying.
When the FEC filings come out for the Third Quarter ending September 30, you'll see Buttigieg increasing his average, Booker and Harris decreasing, which is the death knell.
The Sarah Palin boom was based on her fundraising ability. Trump rallies are fundraising affairs. The minute the cost of renting a venue to make an appearance exceeds the funds raised, the public appearances cease.
Americans make the same mistake, they confuse media hype and popularity with electability. Most of the money comes from "big money" donors who bet on a winner, but have been burned three times now in the past three years - Hillary, Beto, and Kamala. This is what sets Trump apart - he is not owned by "big money" donors, and threatens to expose and upset the whole corrupt system. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:56, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
It's Warren's to loose right now. The New Hampshire primary will be the first test of the Millenial Generation - the majority age group now - political strength, or will the Brezhnev, Andropov's, and Chernenko's remain in control of the Democrat Politburo.
It may be a bit early to invoke Keith Olbermann's immortal words. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:22, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Did you mean plurality age-group? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 17:19, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Yes, that's right. Here's a Pew Report (can't find the updated one that confirms this). It took a long time for boomers to wrest control from the World War II generation (Papa Bush '92, Dole '96), but there is a more pronounced age resentment every day, or "generation gap" as we used to call it. Climate change vs. nuclear proliferation being the dividing line between voter priorities based on age. So what's the response to this? Medicare for All. Millennials feel no obligation to their seniors, whom they regard as having destroyed the planet, and seniors shouldn't get any special privileges like Medicare.
This is the weakness of the Medicare for All argument: Seniors, with an 85% voter participation rate, understand Medicare for All cuts into their benefits (i.e. healthcare rationing). it's not fair they paid for it all their working lives, only to have younger people get a free ride at their expense when seniors no longer have the ability to work. Kamala Harris got body slammed by an 80 year old lady in a wheelchair on this question. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:23, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Most of those born between 1946 to 1952 or so are already getting Medicare by virtue of the fact that they've already retired. If there's a privilege to be gotten, it would be by Boomers who simply haven't retired yet. Who's going to pass a law to take away Medicare from the older group so as to treat all Boomers equally as far as fairly distributing the punishment of the crimes for which they're blamed? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 00:50, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
Look, here's the facts of life: There is no way you will convince any sizable percentage of voters 62+, with a participation rate of 85%, consisting of 68 million people (68 x .85 = 57.8 million voters), that Medicare for All will not reduce the quality of the healthcare coverage they paid for, for 40 years, to qualify for. Not happening. The Kamala Harris BS answer, "We're gonna pay for it", won't fly. That crap works with stupid whippersnapper communist Democrat voting punks, but not for a person who's lived their whole life witnessing that kind of communist junk.
Compare 58.7 million to Hillary's 65 million vote tally and Trump's 62 million. And remember, this is the generation that voted for Social Security reform for 40 years, and was always shot down by "the third rail" of politics. It's an insult to Seniors' intelligence to try and even discuss this communist punk nonsense with them. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:52, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

Week of Sept. 23[edit]

Warren and Yang appear as the two strongest. Sanders is melting away. Biden's support is a "wait and see" approach of moderate, primarily black voters who withstood criticisms of Obama, so this isn't difficult for them, but nowhere near as passionate or emotional. It still signifies the lack of minority support for Warren and others. Yang owes his growing success to Trump who blazed the trail for a businessman who never held elected office.

Warren most importantly represents a healing of the wounds and divisions from the 2016 Hillary/Bernie contest, which will be complete when Bernie drops out. Blacks need to speak up now to regain a leadership role; sticking with a mortally wounded candidate like Biden means DNC leadership has effectively "put them back in their place" after the Obama fiasco. Booker, Harris and Beto are toast. Gabbard is determined to fight despite the media blackout.

And Buttigieg. What can I say? His support and money appears to be growing, but he carries more baggage than Yang. Only blacks could save him in the long run, which isn't likely. This particular segment of psychotic Democrats will ultimately support any line of crap Democrat leadership comes up with eventually, so no tears will be shed when he meets his ultimate destiny. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:36, 24 September 2019 (EDT)

The comedians took Electable Joe to task for the story of his poolside showdown with Corn Pop, He's now 7 points ahead of Warren in the RCP average as opposed to 11 points pre-Corn Pop. I thought the video of Biden struggling to remember Obama's name was even funnier than the image of him chasing a gang member with a pool chain, but that hasn't gone mainstream yet. Biden's support has actually been pretty steady. It's Warren whose support goes up and down. She hasn't been doing anything exciting lately, so I have to wonder why. In contrast, who can keep up with all the Biden news? I didn't even get to Hunter Biden's narrow escape from prosecutor Shokin in Ukraine or the disturbing image of Joe's eye going bloody on stage. PeterKa (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
Warren, Yang, and Buttigieg in that order come February. Should impeachment come to a floor vote, it would be a test of Gabbard's strength. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:41, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
FiveThirtyEight has collected polls that suggest that Warren is everyone's second choice. So as the minor candidates drop out, I expect her to gain. In the last few days, the liberal establishment has turned on Biden, judging from the Corn Pop and Ukraine episodes. An even better indication of establishment thinking is the raft of news stories that claim that Warren has already surged past Biden. (We have one of these stories on MPR.) The RCP averages don't support this claim. My thinking is that the "left-wing lane" in Democratic Party is somewhat larger than Biden's moderate lane. Biden's percentage of the vote will of course rise as the minor candidate drop out. But his current 28 percent could be pretty close to his top. In short, I think Warren will get it in the end, albeit at a more stately pace than the impatient media is demanding. PeterKa (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

We gave up on impeachment as "he's not worth it" long ago, but impeachment is on the table[edit]

Biden and Ukraine[edit]

How did Hunter Biden get a $50,000 a month job at a Ukrainian natural gas company, despite his lack of energy-related experience or expertise?[1] Was this job offer in any way related to the fact that his dad was supervising American policy toward Ukraine at this time? Not only does the mainstream media think that such questions are out of bounds, they demand that Trump be impeached for asking the government of Ukraine to investigate them. To anyone who can remember the 2016 campaign, the idea that this type of request is taboo strains credulity. Andrew Napolitano reported that the Obama administration asked the British to investigate Trump. The Brits got Napolitano fired from Fox News for this. That's hardly the reaction you would expect if the original report was simply in error. Napolitano was reinstated a few months later, and he has never retracted his claims. Under the "Five Eyes" intelligence cooperation program, the type of cooperation Napolitano was describing should be routine.
According to this Guardian story, the British started passing intelligence about Trump to the U.S. in "late 2015." The article doesn't admit that the U.S. requested anything, but this is around the time that Dem leaders started worrying about Trump as a presidential candidate. Either way, it undermines the Mueller Report's claim that the investigation of Trump started with Papadopoulos and Mifsud.
The Five Eyes program makes it all too easy for a president to evade laws against domestic spying. According to Napolitano's original report: “So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this." The U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have access to the Five Eyes database. All they have to do is ask one of the other nations in the alliance to access the database on their behalf and it becomes international intelligence rather than domestic spying. PeterKa (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

See Biden-Ukraine collusion scandal. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:54, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
As the Romans would say, Cui bono, who gains? The answer is Warren, who can leverage this scandal against both Biden and Trump. Ukraine is far from the only country that paid off Biden by making a sweetheart deal with one his sons. The dam has been breached and there is a reservoir of Biden corruption ready to pour out. Real whistleblowers provide first-hand evidence of irregularities. The whistleblower system is not supposed to allow partisan hacks to anonymously dish on the president. This "whistleblower" is obviously connected. If so, he represents the Deep State and he is telling Biden, "Take a hint, buddy."
This incident reminds me of another example of Obamunist skullduggery: The leak of Clinton's irregular email setup to the New York Times by Obama aide Valerie Jarrett. I assume that this hit was intended to take Hillary out of the 2016 race and make Warren the nominee. PeterKa (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
They fake news media has it exactly backwards: The government of Ukraine has been trying to get in touch with the U.S. government for several years to expose the pressure that the Obama administration, and the Clinton campaign, put on the government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 elections. Ukrainian officials have been denied entry visas by the Kiev embassy to visit the United States. An attorney was hired to hand deliver the documentary evidence to the US Justice Department in New York. The evidence was never relayed to Washington.
The new Ukrainian presidential administration took the non-response from their overtures as a sign of a diplomatic crisis - that the US was very angry with the government of Ukraine for colluding with Obama and Hillary to interfere in the 2016 election. Eventually, the U.S. State Department asked Rudy Giuliani to act as an emissary, respond to their overtures, and meet with Ukrainian officials.
When phone call was made, the supposed "whistleblower" was unaware of the background. The alleged "whistleblower" heard of the call by hearsay.
The current IC inspector general is up to his eyeballs in the FISA abuse scandal, as well, having served as chief legal counsel for John Carlin and Mary McCord (DOJ) when the Carter Page FISA application was used to hoax the FISA court. His name in Michael Atkinson, and it was Atkinson who granted "whistleblower" status to a non-witness by hearsay evidence.
We will know more details when the FISA abuse report comes, if Atkinson's name is redacted. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:08, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
The Democrats' accusations against Trump are projection. The Dems have been applying screws to the Ukrainians for a long time. Manafort was forced to resign from the Trump campaign because of material released by a Ukrainian prosecutor. The timing was so convenient for the Dems that it is hard to imagine how this could have happened without White House pressure. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has openly bragged of bullying Ukraine out of cooperating with Trump. This is no doubt why Trump's pestering of Zelensky went nowhere. See "Let's get real: Democrats were first to enlist Ukraine in US elections." PeterKa (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
The argument in defense of Biden is, "Well, people all over the world were complaining about the prosecutor" Well, yah. Soros employs people all over the world with business dealings in Ukraine. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:25, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

Trump to Ukraine president: "I would like you to do us a favor, though..."[edit]

A quote for the ages, right there. MAGA! x JohnZ (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

So 'splain to me the difference in nuance between "I'd like you to do us a favor" and "fire that SOB or else"? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:34, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Elizabeth Warren is closing the gap. And the frequently, barely coherent and gaffe prone Sleepy Joe Biden would be ripped to sheds in a debate with Trump. Furthermore, he could not deal with the rigor of full blow presidential campaign in full swing and some of his supporters/advisors suggested not having him speak later in the day when he is more gaffe prone.
Biden is so old news.
And don't forget that Hillary Clinton first brought up the Ukraine/Biden situation to scare Biden out of the race.Wikignome72 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Trump to Ukraine President: "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible."
JohnZ, did you see Robert Mueller during the recent public hearing? Deny that Mueller was incompetent and lose all credibility!Wikignome72 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." - King Solomon, Proverbs 25:2Wikignome72 (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Mueller looked old and tired, for sure. What's your point?
Trump & Rudy have already admitted the substance of this (asking Zelensky for an investigation into Biden). That's impeachable. It's now simply a case of trying to persuade people their motives were pure, and impeachment would therefore be disproportionate.
I obviously wish them the very best of luck with that. JohnZ (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
I don't think you have a clue what your talking about. Rooting out international criminal conspiracies is what both men, and the new Ukrainian parliament, were elected to do. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:10, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
A bunch of Western governments and NGOs had been calling for Shokin's head, and it had nothing to do with Hunter Biden being on the board of Burisma. I'm sure that won't dissuade you from producing thousands of words of nonsense to the contrary, though. JohnZ (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
See above. A bunch of Soros stooges called for Shokin's head, of course.
Wait, wait, wait.....Isn't calling for the firing of a prosecutor obstruction of justice? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:29, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
This guff only flies in the right-wing fever swamps, Rob. Most GOP senators, for all their faults, still have at least one foot in the real world. JohnZ (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
You may be confused from the reporting of events. The first investigation of Trump was to investigate collusion. But collusion is not illegal. So the purpose of the investigation must not have been collusion, but election irregularities and possible election crimes, connected with the collusion.
It was called a "collusion investigation", but we can't prevent news networks from describing it that way. Anyway the Mueller Report was forced to conclude there weren't even any collusion to begin with, much less surrounding criminality.
Now Trump is colluding with the President of the Ukraine. But yet again, collusion isn't illegal. So what are the Democrats going to do? Say we want a second investigation? All the circumstances that might have been illegal surrounding the non-existent collusion have already been investigated.
They've made it so Trump is free to collude all he wants, and even on the surface, we won't hear of a second trial because Democrats have so tarnished the name of collusion that Trump had to sit on his hands throughout the investigation even if there were an opportunity to make use of our allies' support or intelligence in that way.
Now that it was proven to be a fake inquiry [no evidence of collusion to begin with], the rest of us reckon he feels the need to make up for lost time, having for two years lost that particular tool of managing foreign affairs, which is the President's duty. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 12:40, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
You're leaving out some facts; the current chief prosecutor in Ukraine is colluding with AG Barr and John Durham investigating Crowdstrike, who are in possession of the DNC servers allegedly hacked by Putin. Zelenskyy said, "First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:01, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Is the prosecutor the same one whom Biden extorted the Ukraine government into firing? I hope so (payback time!). Of course, if the ongoing collusion is no longer secret, it's doubtful if it be collusion any longer. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 14:57, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
I don't know; but it appears the Barr/Durham team is in contact with the new Ukrainian administration (we'll have to wait for Hunter Biden's extradition request, I guess).
There are two elements Barr/Durham are investigating to find the original probable cause to begin Crossfire Hurricane:
  1. the status of Joseph Mifsud, and
  2. the evidence Crowdstrike claimed to have alleging Russian hacking of the DNC.
CrowdStrike itself has extensive Ukrainian connections - it was founded by a Ukrainian and contracts with the Ukrainian military. CrowdStrike is also an FBI contractor - so there is your foreign collusion right there. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:49, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
Just to clarify, when I say collusion isn't illegal, I mean collusion per se. Different actions where collusion plays a part may be unlawful. Some were saying, but really only speculationg, Trump's conversation with the president of Ukraine involved a quid pro quo where information about the Bidens was sought in exchange for maintaining current foreign policy towards Ukraine.
Secretly moving to discontinue U.S. aid by the president to Ukraine would be an attempt to thwart U.S. policy, but the transcript of the phone call where it supposedly happened put the lie to that, as did the public remarks of the Ukrainian president. But no such explanation can be offered for Joe Biden's public admission many years back that he extorted Ukraine to remove a prosecutor from legally pursuing his son. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 15:39, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
  • maintaining current foreign policy towards Ukraine.
The United States does not support corrupt regimes. Judging from the context, Trump "faithfully executing the laws of the United States." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:43, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
Yes, but diplomatic relations are being maintained, like with Egypt, in hope for a change (sometimes in increments). VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 07:27, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

JohnZ, you wrote: "Mueller looked old and tired, for sure. What's your point?"

I clearly and strongly implied Mueller looked incompetent during the hearing. Being a secular leftist, it appears your bar is so exceedingly low for competence, that Mueller easily cleared it!Wikignome72 (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

Trump to Ukraine president: "I would like you to do us a favor, though..." - continued[edit]

  • I must say that Ukraine is an odd hill for the Democrats to plant their flag on. First, off there is a history of the Dems bullying Ukraine on these same issues. That the Ukrainians protect Hunter Biden while backstabbing Paul Manafort shows that they are more afraid of congressional Democrats voting against aid for Ukraine than they are of Trump. Impeachment will go nowhere in the Senate. Poll after poll shows that the idea is unpopular with the public. This incident also publicizes Biden's longstanding practice of using his sons as conduits for foreign money, although Biden's reign as frontrunner was just about up anyway. PeterKa (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Go nowhere in the Senate? It's going nowhere in the House.
There is not one thing different from today than yesterday, except the optics and new language to help the media hype something that doesn’t exist. Speaker Pelosi did not announce her intent to hold a house vote to authorize an impeachment investigation; she didn’t even mention the word vote at all. In essence what Speaker Pelosi has done is just satiate her base of Democrats with the fancy optics of something that doesn’t exist.

What’s the difference from Nadler’s “impeachment inquiry” yesterday, and Pelosi’s “official impeachment inquiry” today?… Nothing.

The constitution provides for the formal process to initiate articles of impeachment for a sitting president. The constitutional process begins with a vote in the House of Representatives to launch an impeachment investigation by House Committees. However, Pelosi doesn’t want to hold a vote to start the process…. so she’s just modifying the language of the status quo and instead of the House voting to authorize an “impeachment investigation”, Pelosi announces an arbitrary “impeachment inquiry” by fiat.

It’s silly.

It’s the goofiest thing in modern politics....
RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:47, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

BTW, object of the investigation Trump requested of Ukraine—it wasn't Biden's son![edit]

Trump said "do all that you can possibly do". "I would like you to do us a favor, etc."

This had nothing to do with Biden's son. It was about Trump's search for information that caused the Mueller investigation against him to start, and start with no evidence of collusion by the U.S. president in the first place, even though that was the pretext of the investigation. The absence couldn't be hidden because no evidence of collusion turned up during the investigation, either. It was later in the conversation that Trump mentioned Biden's son. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 15:18, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

  • Statement of Viktor Shokin on September 4, 2019; [2] (definitely relevant to the Biden case);
  • “A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said Wednesday (September 25, 2019). [3]
Background: A forgotten article, Politico, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire, January 11, 2017 -- the same day BuzzFeed released the pee-pee memo, i.e. beginning of the "insurance policy" or Deep State coup, to coverup FISA abuse and Ukrainian collusion.
Impeachment 2.0 is an attempt to neutralize:
  1. Information about to come out in the Flynn trial;
  2. Information coming out in the Roger Stone trial;
  3. Information coming out in the Trump declassification order;
  4. Horowitz FISA abuse report;
  5. Durham indictments.
All this will play out up to Election day. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:51, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
As we're awaiting declassification one thing is becoming obvious: William Barr is protecting Rod Rosenstein. There is no doubt that Rosenstein was a willing participant in the coup attempt. However, because Mueller kicked back the decision to prosecute in Book II on the obstruction charge, Barr said he and Rosenstein made the joint decision that there was no obstruction of justice. Therefore, Rosenstein can't go down, cause if he does, that calls into the question the decision on Trump's fate.
This makes sense. McCabe so far appears to be the designated fall guy. Brennan's fate is in Durham's hands. And people in the Obama White House so far are skating. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:36, 28 September 2019 (EDT)


Trumpism, aka MAGAnomics is simple to understand. We Americans have something very valuable to sell, that the rest of the world wants to buy into - access to our consumer market. We are among, if not the largest, richest, consumer market in the world (the EU in size rivals, but it appears to be an artificial structure that is falling apart). The question is, At what price are we willing to sell?

The argument to give Mexico and China a hand up by selling access cheap is over. Russia is not passing out AK-47s to the poor, downtrodden, and dispossessed like church groups do with coffee and donuts to the homeless. These countries can stand on their own. We don't need anything from the rest of the world. We are self sufficient. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:03, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

"Professor Mifsud, I presume."[edit]

Attorney General Barr is headed for Italy to meet the thought-to-be-lost Professor Mifsud and hear his account of a CIA plot against then-presidential-candidate Trump, including a deposition he made after Trump won the election and before he went into hiding.

Ranking Democrats feel Mifsud's story is so ridiculous that Barr needs to recuse himself immediately—I guess because his revealing the falsifying perpetrators of the 2+ year Russian collusion investigation will cause too many Democrat allies in the intelligence community to laugh themselves into criminal indictments. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 13:20, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

Sorry, I thought this was fact. Actually he's already there, and George Papadopoulos on belief thinks it's to meet Mifsud, as do nervous Democrat legislators. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 14:04, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
That's why the Impeachment inquiry - the poop is about to hit the fan and Democrats want to put Republicans on the defensive. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:09, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

Ukraine investigates Biden's favorite prosecutor[edit]

Lutsenko, the chief prosecutor Joe Biden bullied Ukraine into appointing back in 2016, made the media rounds last week as Biden's star character witness. Lutsenko has no law degree and the parliament had to modify Ukrainian law so that a non-lawyer could be chief prosecutor. Here is Joe and Cokehead Hunter looking real happy when Lutsenko cleared Burisma (Hunter's company) back in May. Zelensky, who was elected president in April, has reopened the case against Burisma. Now Ukraine has opened an investigation of Lutsenko for “abuse of power and facilitating illegal gambling businesses."[4] PeterKa (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2019 (EDT)

Thank you for having provided this timely information. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 01:01, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

Step 1: Call Ukraine. Step 2: Call Australia[edit]

Halper and Downer, along with Mifsud, were recruited by John Brennan to frame Papadopoulos and Carter Page. Richard Dearlove, the head of UK's MI6 also worked closely with Brennan. They didn't like Trump's talk of making NATO allies pay more for their own defense. The future of the military industrial complex was at stake

Like I said, Biden's son was a less important issue to Trump than Ukranian collusion. Now it seems the phone calls were a one-two punch against the FBI and their fig leaves of stories as to why exactly the FBI felt the need to mobilize against Trump as if it were a four-alarm fire.

In fact, the Biden angle now looks like nothing more than a distraction. If Trump finds out why the Australians pretended to be shocked at George Papadopoulos stale news that Hillary's emails were reported to be in the Russians' possession, it will be seen together with the fact that when the DNC emails were hacked, the DNC refused to let the FBI investigate, but instead hired CrowdStrike, the Ukrainian company.

If the FBI wanted to investigate George Papadopoulos and his environs so badly that it was all hands on deck (scores of agents), why didn't they at least suggest to the DNC that they examine their server? Isn't the physical evidence of the secret being taken as important as the circumstances of the person who knew the secret?

Especially when the so-called "secret" was a newsstory and not private information? And when the FBI found out it was a newsstory the FBI...did what? Stopped the investigation of George Papadopoulos, released the agents and halted the surveillance? Does this make any sense to you [that they actually didn't do any of those things]?

Likewise, why deify the Ukraine "whistle-blower" if the event he whistled at is a matter of recorded history and renders his account unnecessary? By the very means of the Democrats' frenetic camouflage efforts, this informer's irrelevance is teaching us, and the American people who pay attention, lessons about how to receive the Australians' evidence explaining their over-attachment to George Papadopoulos and his story, should they provide it, with the right kind of critical eye and ear with which to view and audit the perpetrators (reacting or pretending to react unnecessarily)? Ouch, that's gotta hurt. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 19:51, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

John Brennan and Richard Dearlove set it up.
Halper and Alexander Downer were in on it. So was Mifsud, albeit he may have been used unscrupulously without his knowing by Dearlove & Brennan.
Downer has deniability, passed off to Erika Thompson, as the Mueller Report says. However, Downer did not follow channels of reporting back to Canberra for proper vetting, who then would share it with the CIA if the information was any good, but rather passed off the information to Clinton stooges in the U.S. Embassy in London, who sent it back to Clinton stooges at the DC State Department, who gave it to the FBI conspirators. It was outside the official Five Eyes process for intelligence vetting necessary to open a counterintelligence investigation on a U.S. citizen. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:29, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Most American's don't understand who Alexander Downer is; by American standards, he would be something like the grandson of George Washington. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:33, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Hunter Biden is on the board of a Chinese company[edit]

It's high time somebody who knows how to read Chinese business records took a look at the Biden in China story. South China Morning Post was not able the substantiate the claim that Hunter Biden got $1 billion from the Bank of China. That always seemed like a wildly improbable amount. However, Hunter is listed in China's National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System as a board member of BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Company, an investment firm backed by the Chinese government. It all sounds suspiciously similar to the deal he got from Burisma in Ukraine. See "Joe Biden’s son listed as director at China-backed equity firm, government filings show" and "‘Sleepy Joe’ Biden is one of the few US politicians who’s wide awake about China." PeterKa (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2019 (EDT)

On the Chinese government records lacking a record of this matter: "Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus he is master of his enemy's fate." - Sun Tzu.Wikignome72 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
Follow the link to the NYPost article for more on BHR - Bohai Harvest RST (Rosemont Seneca Trust) from here: Hunter_Biden#China. Chris Heinz, of the Heinz family fortune and John Kerry's stepson, had enough to sense to bail, pulling out RST and leaving the deal to the Biden and Bulger families, i.e. Mueller informant Whitey Bulger's nephew.
Whitey Bulger is suspected of 52 murders while a Mueller and Bill Weld informant in the 1980s and '90s. John Durham was called in to investigate the whole mess and clean it up.
Mueller was promoted to head the FBI for covering up corruption in the Boston FBI field office. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:13, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
I misspoke; The "T" in Bohai Harvest RST is for "Thornton", which is the Bulger family. RST is the merger of Rosemont Seneca (Heinz family fortune) with Bulger interests (Thornton). After Chris Heinz bailed, it became simply Bohai Harvest - a Chinese military operation which Hunter Biden sits on the board. Whitey Bulger's nephew was recently convicted in some $60 million Wall Street scam (meaning he's available to testify). Looks like Hunter and PRA (Peoples Revolution Army) are all alone in this now, along with Uncle Joe. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:34, 5 October 2019 (EDT)

Bolton out[edit]

Saudi Arabia[edit]

We are joined at the hip because the neocons want to keep the (unconstitutional) petrodollar scam going. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has been using that as leverage to hold our economy hostage. Either we do what they say, or they devalue the dollar and destroy the US economy. And if we really get them mad, they unleash their al-Qaeda and ISIS "bad cops" to bring us to our knees through sheer terror. We must not tolerate these acts of geopolitical blackmail. It's time for a (very nasty) break-up.--Geopolitician (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
Nah. You gotta look at the bigger picture. We didn't build up the third largest defense establishment to have it used against us. Only liberals and Democrats would make such a stupid argument. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:24, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
[promoted by VM] I am looking at the bigger picture. The petrodollar agreement was an illegal trade deal orchestrated by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger which replaced the gold standard with an oil standard controlled by the Saudi-dominated OPEC through oil price manipulation. Almost everything that has gone wrong with our foreign policy since then can be traced back to that deal. The deal is also partly to blame for our inbility to balance the budget, because it established the dollar as a global reserve currency, which means we have to keep printing money indefinitely in order to avoid a global recession. The petrodollar deal has brought us to our knees, and the Saudis know it. But unlike other countries, the Saudis aren’t willing to re-negotiate this deal. Any re-negotiation would destroy its quest for a global caliphate. No, they would rather sponsor assassinations, unleash terrorists on the whole world, and start major wars to keep the status quo. We have no reason to treat them as anything but a mortal enemy. They have the blood of thousands of Americans on their hands. --Geopolitician (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
Without doing a deep dive into specifics, I'd say you just put your finger on a big reason why we're joined at the hip (since fracking, the balance has shifted much more toward the U.S., who now can dictate to the Saudi's what the world oil price should be). However, you seem to follow the school of thought that the Saudi government and bureaucracy functions, or has power and control, analogous to Western nations. Saudi oligarchs, and others in the Gulf, have an amazing degree of freedom and independence to act on the world stage apart from the Saudi government and policy of the Saudi ruling regime. This comes from its base law - Shariah - which does not recognize man made regimes (same is true in virtually all Islamic Republics; only the most secular regimes are run by tyrants who follow Western models of a modern police or administrative state).
The Saudi ruling clan are basically the first among equals, whom the other tribal leaders defer to in the area of foreign policy since that is what brought them such prosperity. However, many of these other oligarchs and tribal chiefs still can have their own foreign policy, arm terrorists outside their borders, etc., which is really just an issue of Saudi domestic politics. If the ruling clan blanketly tried to restrain them, that would be a rejection of their own legitimacy under Shariah as guardians of the Holy Places.
When you speak of "sponsor assassinations, unleash terrorists", etc., yes, you are referring to what we in the West call "Saudi citizens" or "Saudi organizations" or "Saudi companies" etc. But they are not executing the policy of the Saudi ruling clan, i.e., the "Saudi government" ("There is one God but Allah, and Mohammad is his Prophet;" Islam does not teach government by men, so the Saudis walk a fine line holding any legitimacy over the territory of the Arabian Peninsula, or as Keepers of the Shrines in the Islamic world. And don't tell me, "Screw their Islamic traditions, we should create a power vacuum and impose a Western style secular or Christian regime over the Islamic Holy Places"). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:39, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
First off, you seem to believe that it's only certain tribes that support terrorism. That's not true. The central government itself has sponsored terrorism in the past, and it continues to do so today. And even if it didn't, the fact that it even allows other tribes to sponsor terrorism (with the help of princes acting on their own accord) without consequence is a sign of tacit approval. The US and the Saudi system of government in its current form cannot peacefully co-exist. If we want Wahhabi terrorism to stop, we must give the Saudis an ultimatum: Either break ties with the rogue tribes and shut down all terrorist-supporting institutions such as the Muslim World League, or we ally with Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and other anti-Saudi countries in the region and we jointly pursue a policy of containment against you.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
[promoted bt VM] Again, look at the bigger picture. Why did the Pentagon clone itself in a country with a population smaller than California? And the Pentagon didn't do this on its own - it was the State Department and Congress. The Pentagon functions in the Middle East, dba Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia recruits and hires for its armed services and mercenary groups from all over he Arab and Islamic world (typically Egyptians, with vast manpower reserves attracted by high wages). The U/S/ and Saudi Arabia jointly do training. It's better than sending Americans to die in some stupid war.
Some ideological vetting occurs depending on the mission. Iran remains the bad guy until it gives up its anti-American, anti-Israeli, and anti-Saudi views. This is probably a long way off, since the older generation which is dying off now, was schooled in war from its earliest existence (1980-1988).
I agree wholeheartedly - the Iranian people and the U.S. are natural allies. But you can thank idiot Democrats in the Carter years for this mess they left as their legacy. And I see no indication, whatsoever, that idiot Democrats who speak on foreign policy today have learned a thing from their mistakes. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:14, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
You seem to be abiding by the premise that Iran is the bad guy. Iran is not the bad guy. It may be a bad guy, but it's not the bad guy. The Saudis are the bad guys. They are the ones who need to be contained, not Iran. At this point, I would be more than happy to ally with Iran, even if the current regime is in power and even if it's still anti-Israel (I'm starting to become anti-Israel myself because it's actively participating in a propaganda campaign falsely portraying Iran as the cause of all terrorism and smearing those who don't fall for it as being anti-Semitic). --Geopolitician (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
The Iranian government is the bad guy; the Saudi government is an American stooge regime that does nothing on its own. All it's actions are directed by the U.S. intelligence community. When it created ISIS, it was at the behest and direction of President Obama and John Brennan, the record has borne out. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:56, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
[promoted by VM] So in other words, you agree with me that the Saudis and the Deep State are tied at the hip. But you disagree with the premise that the Saudis are willing collaborators. When you start with the premise that they are puppets rather than willing collaborators, you're in a whole different world. If that premise is correct, then not only did the government know about 9/11 in advance (which I believe), but it (probably) also helped carry out or even ordered 9/11 (which I don't believe). Do you believe that?--Geopolitician (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
IMO, you're barking up the wrong tree again. I'm intimately familiar with all the events in Sudan, in Afghanistan, in Saudi Arabia, and in the White House leading up to 9/11, from about 1989 onwards. You're falling into the trap, again, of labeling Saudi oligarchs and Saudi citizens as "the Saudi government'. The Saudi government in fact cooperated extensively with CIA in the pre-9/11 period. The Saudi government itself attempted an assassination of bin Laden in Sudan (1996?) causing him to flee to Afghanistan (the CIA wanted to do it themselves, but the Saudi regime moreless talked them out of it and convinced the CIA of the wisdom of letting the Saudis do it).
Bin Laden signed onto the Iranian, anti-Saudi Muslim Unity Movement. There were other oligarchs in the Arabian Peninsula, which Western media repeatedly mislabels as "Saudis", but while they are (a) holders of Saudi passports, in fact (b) support the overthrow of the Saudi regime.
Iran is complicit with Al Qaeda, not the Saudi government. [5] As Iran was complicit in the Khobar Towers attack. Iran allowed the 9/11 hijackers to pass through Iran on forged passports.
The notion that the government of Saudi Arabia is complicit in 9/11 is liberal Democrat BS. Even such a seditious traitor as John Brennan (a man in the know - CIA Station Chief in Saudi Arabia in 1996) would never espouse such dangerous, bigoted and xenophobic crap. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:00, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
The 28 pages withheld from the 9/11 report detail what I alluded to above:
The Saudi ruling clan are basically the first among equals, whom the other tribal leaders defer to in the area of foreign policy since that is what brought them such prosperity. However, many of these other oligarchs and tribal chiefs still can have their own foreign policy, arm terrorists outside their borders, etc., which is really just an issue of Saudi domestic politics. If the ruling clan blanketly tried to restrain them, that would be a rejection of their own legitimacy..."
It is a difference of cultural idiom which Western and American (idiot) journalists are incapable of comprehending, and would only promote anti-Arab xenophobia. Until these basic misconceptions surrounding Saudi Arabia as a "nation state" akin to Western concepts of the nation state are corrected, those 28 pages will remain classified. Those pages do not point a finger at the Saudi government; they detail complicity of rich holders of "Saudi passports" and "Saudi citizenship" who, under Shariah law which grants the Saudi government legitimacy, the Saudi government is incapable of taking action against.
The name "Saudi Arabia' itself tells you as much; while a consensus existed in 1925 to give the new nation state the name "Saudi Arabia," a consensus lacked over its legitimacy to use the territory's proper name - Arabia or the Arabian Peninsula. It would be like renaming Arkansas, "Clinton Arkansas", or New York "Trump New York". RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:17, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
So in other words, what you are saying is that Saudi Arabia shouldn't be treated as a coherent entity. Okay, then. Then here's how Saudi Arabia can redeem itself. Become a coherent entity. Become a nation-state. Don't give a crap about what the other tribes think. If they want to rebel, crush them. Settle this nationalist vs. de facto autonomy conflict the way Lincoln did here in the US. Then the American people will finally take MbS' reforms seriously and get of Saudi Arabia's case. I'll admit MbS has taken steps in the right direction, but his lack of overall progress plus his jingoistic behavior towards other countries in the region make me greatly distrust him and have extremely strong doubts regarding his true intentions. Meanwhile, let's get out of the petrodollar system anyway. It's illegal to begin with. --Geopolitician (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
[promoted by VM] I think you need a better understanding of Islamic law and the extent of the Muslim world. Without Shariah, the Saudi ruling clan wouldn't exist. You're just calling for a power vacuum, chaos, and more needless bloodshed.
There have been proposals to create an international zone for Mecca and Medina. But even that has its own problems. Islam doesn't recognize, and is at war with, the concept of "global order" (unless, of coarse, it's under Allah and the Koran).
The Saudi king appoints the Grand Mufti of Medina, who is somewhat analogous to the Pope in Christiandom, albeit with less secular and more spiritual power (Warning: these are rough analogies I'm drawing here; a Muslim kid posted on Facebook his understanding that Donald Trump was the Pope of Christianity). Structurally, it's like the President appointing a Supreme Court Chief Justice. In fact, this system is controversial; in Iran the Supreme Council (akin to the Supreme Court) elects their supreme leader as Head of State - the Ayatollah. So you see there are two competing systems there. Sunnis, 90% of Muslims globally, tend to support the Saudi system, however there are violent dissenters from this system. While many oppose Shia Islam and Iran, some feel the Iranian system is closer to what the Prophet intended. Other violent dissenters don't.
Simply labeling people as bogeymen - the Saudis, MBS, the Ayatollah, bin Laden, etc etc etc - doesn't address any of these structural flaws that the successors of Mohammad have been grappling with for 1,500 years. Those types of criticisms are just liberal claptrap. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:31, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
Oh, I fully understand the role of Sunni-style Sharia in the existence of the Saudi "state." Although I do appreciate the level of detail in your reply. But regardless, if the House of Saud expects the status quo to remain forever, it's totally delusional. At this point, it has three choices: (A) Become a coherent nation state and actually start acting like a civilized government; (B) Dissolve the country USSR-style and be content with having less land to control while the other tribes wither away and kill each other; or (C) Take an extremely high-risk gamble and try to maintain the status quo indefinitely, a move that likely will eventually cause the entire rest of the region to rise up against it and tear the country to pieces in an imperialist scramble that may well start another world war. There's no escape from those options. That possibility ended years ago. --Geopolitician (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2019 (EDT)

The recent troop deployment to Saudi Arabia is like a service warranty; for all the equipment the U.S. has sold them. A few micky-mouse drones got through and wiped out half of Saudi Arabia's oil output. Now some sort of lower level radar has to be installed, with a missile defense system to knock out a midget drone. The missile defense systems developed and operational thus far are for larger type missiles.

Another problem is swarms of drones. If 50 long range cruise missile's were inbound, we know we could wipe out 60%+ of them; if a 1,000 small drones were launched just over the horizon, flying not much above tree-top level, that presents a new defensive problem that has not been combat tested yet. (Eventually these types of drones with the ability to pinpoint target we'll see launched from Gaza, rather than the old-fashioned bottle rocket type missiles being launched).

The U.S. military presence is basically there to install the advanced prototype systems - radar and missile defense - we've developed thus far, and train locals how to operate and maintain them.

It's a revolving door. The U.S. possesses technology that can likely deal with drone attacks like the one that just occurred; however, once that technology is shared with foreign allies, there is no way to keep it out of the hands of Iran, China, and Russia, which will eventually copy it, making it obsolete, paving the way for the next generation of weapons development. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:16, 23 September 2019 (EDT)


[promoted by VM]As long as there is Iran-China cooperation (which is why Trump is courting Iran right now - evidenced by the firing of Bolton), there will remain U.S.-Saudi cooperation. Russia is the wildcard that plays both against each other, or sides with the winner. Russia definitely favors siding with the U.S. over China - more evidence of the disastrous failure of Obama's global vision. We have virtually a universal consensus now even among 25 Democrat presidential candidates and members of both parties in Congress, that China, not Russia or Islamic terrorism, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "is the focus of evil in the modern world." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:18, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
What you just mentioned reminds me a lot of John Xenakis' "Generational Dynamics" prediction, which had major influence on the development of Steve Bannon's ideology. If you're not familiar with Xenakis, he's been predicting (since 2003) a "Clash of Civilizations" World War that pits the US, Europe, Russia, India, Japan, Iran, and Israel against China and the Sunni Muslim countries. Now, I'm not entirely convinced that this exact alignment is going to happen, because I do believe some European countries will side with China. I also believe some Sunni countries will side with the US because of existing tensions with other Sunni countries (specifically, some Arabian tribes will side with the US to protect themselves from other Arabian tribes and especially Turkey, the latter who I believe will be -- along with Pakistan -- among China's main partners in the Muslim world). In that event, keeping Russia and Iran on our side would be absolutely critical, because if either of them side with China or fall to the pro-Chinese alliance, then China will have a "land bridge" of allies that would allow it to deploy troops to Europe without having to deal with American naval superiority. Such an event would cause the US to face its most serious national security crisis since 1991, if not since 1945.--Geopolitician (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
To keep things sane, most people (emphasis on most) understand that a war would be over in 15 minutes. Let's assume that modern warfare is fought out in trade deals and between trading alliances. China, at the moment, has a huge advantage in Africa which is rich in material and human resources.
I don't see a consensus in the Arab world to improve their material lot through trading alliances with non-Muslims, so that's a situation they will have to fight out and settle among themselves.
As to China, it grew too big too fast, economically. it's a manufacturing-export economy, and has skipped a lot of internal economic development. It's basically a house of cards - and a very big one at that. The question is, will its communist leadership accept the fact that it's days of rapid growth are past, that it no longer has the get-rich-quick access to the American consumer market, and focus on developing an internal service sector with lower revenues from exports? As corrupt and evil as their leaders may be, I think there are still sensible, and will chose that path.
As to the EU, assuming it survives, its leaders also have to learn something from the current crisis. There's no going back to its pipe dreams of John Lennon's Imagine. The German economy is on the verge of recession because Chinese orders for manufactured goods are not coming in because of China isn't making the money they were off the American market. We, the U.S., don't need any of them - the EU, Russia, or China - for manufactured goods or raw resources. We don't need oil from abroad. We're self-contained. We're holding all the cards. We've done our part in giving them all a hand up for 70 years. We're tired of playing policeman of the world, paying for European socialists defense and having them spit in our faces how they can afford free healthcare for their people and somehow we're cruel because we don't. It's a new age, and Trump is leading the world into it. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:00, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
[promoted by VM] One thing that I will never accept is the idea that if two nuclear-armed great powers go to war, the conflict will immediately escalate into an apocalyptic-scale nuclear conflict. When you go to war, the goal is to win. If there's a chance the war can be won without using nukes, that chance will always be taken first. Sure, there probably will be some limited nuclear weapons usage, but I don't see any of the nuclear powers (except perhaps Pakistan) being stupid enough to launch all their nukes at once unless they are absolutely certain that's the only option left.
As to the Arab world, its time as a major player is running out. Its failure to unite around a single, all-powerful tribe leaves it at the mercy of Turkey and Iran, both which are centered around eons-old civilizations that united, well, eons ago.These two countries, along with Israel and possibly Egypt, will be the major (non-great power) players in the region in the foreseeable future.
As to China, its economic woes are only part of the long-term problems it faces. There are also growing tensions among the many ethno-religious groups in the country, and the CCP is growing increasingly worried that there may be a rebellion or even a civil war. This is far from the first time the internal situation in China has reached this point, China faced similar crises (which more often than not exploded into extremely bloody uprisings) in the 1920s-40s (Chinese Civil War/Second Sino-Japanese War), in the 1850-60s (Taiping rebellion), and in the 1790s-1800s (White Lotus rebellion), and many other such crises in the centuries before those. This in my opinion makes a major war involving China and another great power even more likely.
As to Europe, how would you envision a post-EU continent. What factions do you think would rise?--Geopolitician (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
I'm agreement with much you said. Expanding on the Arab world: it's probably because Arab's view the nation state as a social construct counter to the teachings of the Koran. As to China, there is some danger there; historically they are averse to messing around outside their borders. However, the trade relationship that was built up from 1972 onward was because Nixon didn't want any more unwinnable wars like Korea or Vietnam. That's their "trump card" now, if you will: if the U.S. doesn't accept trade on their terms, we could expect a return to endless, unwinnable wars with Chinese proxies. How the North Korean negotiations turn out will give us some sense of the direction.
There's still a lot to play out in Europe. Some demographic shifts are permanent, which will affect its future policy. The global elitists have overreached, and many haven't realized it yet. But take Germany, for instance: I don't see it being a member of NATO in 20-40 years when its troops would rather swear allegiance to a caliphate than to democracy. Alternatively, it could follow the Russian model of 40% troop strength of secular, anti-fundamentalist Muslims who are willing to fight to keep their independence from religious imams. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:41, 12 September 2019 (EDT)


Happy days, everyone! He’s finally gone. Hopefully he’ll be prosecuted for his seditous behavior later on. --Geopolitician (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

Never happen. Just look for Trump and the Ayatollah singing Kumbaya (like Trump and Kim) by election day. What happens after that is anyone's guess.
It should be further noted, this has nothing to do with the canceled Camp David meeting with the Taliban. This is the result of Trump making nice with the globalist Macron at the recent G8 Summit. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:37, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
No, it was the result of many months of Bolton's seditious, borderline treasonous conduct. He will go down as one of the worst, if not the worst NSC in our history.--Geopolitician (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
He was needed at the time to pose a tuff line in tearing up the Iran nuke deal (JCPOA). That being done, he outived his usefulness. Trump is free to start over and negotiate his own deal. Trump and Macron already appear to be on the same page. BoJo too (assuming he survives) will go along with whatever approach Macron and Trump come up with (BoJo has much to make amends for, considering he had oversight of UK intelligence at the time of Brennan and Dearlove hatched the plot to destroy Trump. He's now deeply indebted to Trump, particularly Trump's offer of much needed trade deals after Brexit is completed). Merkel (on her deathbed) and the Germans will go along with the Macron/Trump proposal, with some input from Putin. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:18, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

Can we put on the "In the News" section a link to this article, which is evidence that Bolton is Deep State?--Geopolitician (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

What really matters isn't that Bolton is gone, but who will replace him. Like him or not, he wasn't even close to being the worst person in the White House. At least he supported national sovereignty (including Brexit) and rejected supranational organizations. People like Mike Pompeo, Jared Kushner, and Steven Mnuchin, who are generally just as globalist/hawkish, but who also emphasize a "moral obligation" to be interventionist, are still in the White House. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

My guess: Pompeao will make the choice. Probably one of Pompeao's chief flunkies who he regularly communicates with and knows Pompeao's thinking.
The position of NSA has been downgraded from a policymaking role under Trump. The NSA is just a messenger boy between Trump and the National Security community. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:28, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
Trump is a very independent person and not a neocon. I never thought for one second that Bolton was going to influence Trump to go to war. Maybe Trump just wanted a "devil's advocate" or a cabinet/team of rivals like Abraham Lincoln. Maybe he just wanted to play good cop/bad cop with North Korea, China and Iran (and maybe even Russia).Conservative (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
Bolton did a good job. His job was to kill Obama's nuke deal. Time to move on.
Three candidates listed here (about 5:00 mins in). Gen. Keith Kellogg, Brian Hook, and Rick Waddell. Kellogg already served as interim between Flynn and McMaster (Trump took McMaster on Kelly and Mathis advice); Hook fits the bill perfectly; Waddell sounds like a bureaucrat who pays attention to process,
The whole goal now is to have a Kumbaya moment with the Ayatollah between the convention and election day. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:43, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
I almost want the Iran deal brought back. We're just may need Iran as an ally if we expect to defeat Wahhabi terrorism once and for all.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
Even Macron wants a new deal. He wasn't among the culprits and criminals who negotiated the last one. France rejoined NATO after 40 years because of fear of Iran, not Russia (more simple evidence of the farce of Russiagate). it's Macron's opportunity to put his own stamp on what every Frenchmen knows is a big issue, and possibly salvage his legacy. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:42, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
Don't you see the irony here? France dropped out of NATO in 1967 claiming the Russian bogeyman was BS; they harbored the Ayatollah Khomeini as a human rights activist up to 1979; in 2004 France rejoined NATO claiming they were right all along since 1967, that Russia was not a threat to Western Europe, but they had made a mistake in 1979 by harboring the Ayatollah Khomeini. Now their goodwill gesture resulted in a grave threat to their own national security. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:23, 11 September 2019 (EDT)


How do you believe Bolton's firing will affect relations with Israel, if at all?--Geopolitician (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2019 (EDT)

Personally, I believe in the short term it will cause a period of deep distrust between Trump and Netanyahu, and perhaps even cause the US-Israel relationship to deteriorate until either Netanyahu changes his foreign policy or Israel elects a new PM. I cannot see any attempts at detente with Iran sitting well with Israel at this time. During the aforementioned period of distrust, I expect to see anti-Israeli sentiment rising within the GOP, and some hardcore Israel supporters defecting to the Never Trump camp. Whether that adds fuel to the fire is yet to be seen. But nonetheless, I believe that the US-Israel special relationship is in trouble, at least in the short term. In the long term I expect relations to rebound as Israel shifts its focus to the Balkanization of the Arab world and perhaps even tries its own attempts at normalizing relations with Iran.--Geopolitician (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
Eewww, tuff question. Israel (Netanyahu) has a direct pipeline to the Oval Office (Jared). Bolton basically was advocating the Israeli hardline against Iran. Israel has always shown a willingness to negotiate with Iran, however. With Bolton gone, I don't really see any substantive changes, unless Netanyahu were to become openly critical of the Macron/Trump process. That would be indicative of a marital break-up.
As to the Palestinians, no substantive changes.
Bolton's anti-Russian neocon approach to Syria appears to be in the dumpster. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:49, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
By direct line I mean that literally; Netanyahu used to visit the Kushner's home to get campaign donations from Jared's father when he was still alive and before Jared took over managing the family business. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 06:29, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
All I have to say is that Israel better not pull off any stupid stunts in the interim. I'm very disturbed by the allegations (I say they are allegations because the claims originated from a POLTICO report whose accuracy is being contested by the White House) that Israel was placing spying devices extremely close to the White House. What if Israel was trying to put them inside the White House? That would be a major scandal, and it would give Trump a good reason to turn against Israel completely. --Geopolitician (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
Yah <shock, horror> Israel is spying on an ally (again). We can't rule out the possibility it is a bunch of Ilhan Omar aligned anti-Semite Democrats and media trying to frame and smear the Jews, again. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:38, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Who's in control?[edit]

Bolton lost his influence in the White House after Trump blamed him for Venezuela back in May.[6] Now it's all Trump and his instincts. Who advised Trump to meet with the Taliban at Camp David? That's the guy who should be fired. Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis recently came out with a great book bashing Obama's foreign policy. When Mattis and Tillerson were in the cabinet, I had the sense someone who knew what they were doing was in charge. PeterKa (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
"Mike Pompeo Is Bigger Than the Pentagon: In the nine months since Jim Mattis resigned as defense secretary, one man has become the public leader of President Trump’s national security policy: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo." Whren Trump took office, he relied heavily on Pentagon personal (Flynn, Mathis, Kelly, etc) and didn't trust the State Department and CIA who he was at war with and were actively engaged in a coup against him. Pompeo has brought both under control. The DOJ remains rogue, and the Pentagon itself has some internal problems. But its taken more than two years to gain control over the swamp, which is still far from being complete.
Pompeo is Trump's Dick Cheney now in foreign policy and national security. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:01, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Trump comments on Bolton[edit]

It should be noted, Trump's unusual open criticism of Bolton is not being addressed to the American public or media. Trump is speaking directly to Iran, Venezuela, Macron and EU counterparts, etc., clearing the table for a reset on new negotiations. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:57, 12 September 2019 (EDT)

Bolton's post-firing temper tantrum[edit]

Perhaps as a final "eff you" to his former boss, not only is Bolton now publicly trashing him, but there's speculation that he may have leaked information to the anonymous whistleblower on the way out.[7][8] --Geopolitician (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2019 (EDT)

Getting around Google algorithms[edit]

We all know Google has algorithms it is manipulating to limit the availability of conservative thought, and until we can get changes made to CDA 230 that won't change. However, not all algorithms are created equal or have the same goals. One of the most draconian algorithms in this respect that Google employs is the Google News one. Almost all news from conservative sites is disallowed as the Google news queue is built. There is an opportunity here for conservapedia.

The page Top Conservative news websites is now the #3 item if that title is searched. Didn't really take much effort to get the page there either. However, Thoughtco is #2 and has huge traffic numbers, and of course nobody beats Wikipedia's traffic save for Google themselves. So we have realistically gotten as high as we can with it. Here is the point: Having this Top Conservative news websites page exposed so highly exposes many of our other internally linked pages.

For example, we don't currently have a page for The Federalist, so there is no internal Conservapedia page to link to. But for pages that do have an internal page, it is highly exposed and if we built these pages up we could get more traffic from it. I'll eventually get to it, but if anybody is interested in an "all hands on deck" effort we could get this done somewhat quickly. Just throwing it out there. Even if no changes are made, it would probably be good to discuss the differences in algorithms.

If anybody wants to help me out with this let me know. Progressingamerica (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2019 (EDT)

Two suggestions: 1) Have each of the 60 website articles listed in Top Conservative news websites, link back to the Top Conservative news websites in their "see also" sections. For example, have the Gateway Pundit article link to Top Conservative news websites in its "see also" section. 2) When applicable, lengthen the articles listed in the list so they are more than stub/short articles. For example, expand the Gateway Pundit article. Wisdomcriesout (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2019 (EDT)
Another suggestion: Move RedState down the list or possibly remove it. This is due to Eric Erickson's former Never Trumper stance and his present weak endorsement of Donald Trump. Wisdomcriesout (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2019 (EDT)
The main thing that is needed is to make the pages bigger. The wikipedia page for Gateway Pundit has 34,488 bytes of information currently, ours has 706 bytes. The wiki page is absolutely horrendous, but multiply this by the sixty in our list and it's a huge task a single person. It really depends on how much others are interested. So far, doesn't seem to be much interest. Progressingamerica (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
That's the difference between liberals and conservatives: conservatives don't organize well, while liberals are masters at it. I suppose that would be evidence for the fodder that liberals are more pragmatic and willing to sacrifice on behalf of others, while conservatives are more ideological, self-centered, and stubborn.
Another observation: conservatives won't honor their commitment to a role in a collective, organized plan as soon as they get bored, whereas liberals will fight to the bitter end, including being tear-gassed and jailed for a wrongheaded objective. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:38, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
You seem pretty committed. So how about it? Progressingamerica (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
On news sources? I endorse it wholeheartedly. Right now, I'm expecting the FISA abuse report (said to be massive) and other key documents to round out and finish my massive chronicle of Obama era corruption. The new bogus Ukrainian Impeachment 2.0 doesn't help. I got my hands full, but can help out where I can. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:54, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

Greta Thunberg and mental illness[edit]

Greta Thunberg suffers from various disorders of the mind, including Asperger's, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, eating disorders, anxiety attacks, and high-functioning autism. That much doesn't seem to be in dispute. But if you call her "mentally ill," that's a totally different kettle of fish, as Michael Knowles recently discovered. See "Fox News Won't Book Guest Again After "Disgraceful" Comments About Greta Thunberg." The holy child and her climate nonsense are apparently above criticism. Kids should go to school. Thunberg is telling them to leave the classroom and march for some political cause they don't understand like Red Guards in 1960s China. PeterKa (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2019 (EDT)

Aussie broadcaster Alan Jones takes the "virtue signaling little turds" down better than I can: “To all the school kids going on strike for climate change, you’re the first generation who have required air conditioning in every room. You want TV in every room, and your classes are all computerized. You spend all day and night on electronic devices. More than ever, you don’t walk or ride bikes to school, but you arrive in caravans of private cars that choke suburban roads and worsen rush hour traffic.” PeterKa (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
Although Fox News has been buffaloed, Australia's Sky News is on a hot streak. This is the best summation of the Thunberg matter that I have seen and it belongs on MPR: "Thunberg is 'not the messiah, she is an extremely anxious girl'". Make it plain, Andrew Bolt! PeterKa (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
Speaking as a high-functioning autistic person who did nearly end up brainwashed by the leftists in academia, I somewhat sympathize with her, due to nearly turning out like her. Of course, unlike her, my parents at least made sure to have dinner conversations and even make sure I knew that what the teacher taught was not necessarily the truth (I was one of those few kids who actually STATED what I learned at school each day). From what I heard, she didn't even get that, she instead got parents who if anything made sure she was relentlessly assaulted with climate change agendas specifically to make sure she was parroting them by 16 years of age. Talk about sick... Pokeria1 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
I watched a bit of Greta's UN speech. Her shtick is to hold her own mental health hostage. The implied message is "Believe and panic or I'll go nuts." It's a celebration of mental illness and a throwback to the Middle Ages when one man's demonic possession was another's saintly ecstasy. PeterKa (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Greta needs to start naming names and pronto, so we can know towards which high-ranking government officials we should lob hysterical climate shrieks next. You know, co-ordination? A good way to make them nervous is to sit in on televised committee hearings and dress like a protester but only erupt in small-sized groups at key moments, because you know, no prior restraint? On the other hand does that mesh well with prior restraint campaigns against conservatives that might begin on social media? Worth checking out. Wait...what wiki is this? VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 06:45, 4 October 2019 (EDT)

There has been virtually no MSM coverage of Trump's speech at the UN denouncing globalism due to the Dems making a query of impeachment against Trump, just thought that's worth mentioning Real45fan (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

There is no impeachment inquiry. Congress has to vote to authorize the Judiciary Committee to do so. There is no vote scheduled. Pelosi did not announce a vote. It's fake news. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:56, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Pelosi's son boarded recently on an oil company called Viscoil that did business in the Ukraine.
She was in a YouTube ad they ran too! Maybe she wants to stave off the company being included in an investigation that Trump suggested to the President of the Ukraine, and that's why she can't "find" the votes, at least until she gets re-elected. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 06:45, 4 October 2019 (EDT)

Two-front war?[edit]

Everybody hates Hitler. Except the Left chooses to hate him because he turned his National Socialism against Stalin's international socialism, not because he tried to conquer western Europe with Mussolini.

Hitler's "second front" was already being menaced by Stalin since the beginning of the war. Stalin would never stop relieving the troops stationed near Hitler's only access to a regular supply of petroleum fuels. And Stalin's delay in invading Poland was just long enough after Hitler did to insure Hitler would be held responsible for starting a European war.

You'll notice just before Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico by Soviet agents. Trotsky was in a position to know Stalin's war plans and had outlived his usefulness as a show of toleration for dissenters.

In his propaganda press, Stalin held up the European war as an example of a war-mongering that was an inevitable result of imperial and capitalist countries. Then he shifted and talked about the virtue of war bravery.

In his propaganda press, Stalin talked about the virtue of war bravery. Then on May 6, 1941, Pravda disavowed the war, stating "The whole weight of its incalculable misfortunes is laid on the shoulders of the workers. The people do not want war. Their gazes are fixed on the countries of socialism which are reaping the fruits of peaceful labor."

You can't say Hitler didn't make rapid progress in his second-front invasion of the Soviet Union. So how could Stalin's war measures have been that inept? A milder winter could have had the Soviet regime fatally decapitated. A question that might be worth asking is: how much did Stalin spend for war preparations and how (or where) were they applied? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 12:37, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

You might be interested in this.
Soviet unpreparedness was the result of Trotsyite purges of 1938, where Stalin executed the top leadership he feared was loyal to Trotsky. Trotsky was No.1 on the execution list, and they got to him eventually.
The rest of your questions I'd direct you to Victor Suvorov's Icebreaker; ignore what Western critics say about it until after you become familiar how Russian's themselves have reacted to it. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:24, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
The Stalinist purges of Trortskyism cannot be underestimated in the scheme of things (even the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact has to be seen in this light); in America, it was the murder of Juliet Poyntz that caused Whittaker Chambers to defect, rat out Alger Hiss, and the rise of Richard Nixon. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:32, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
In the period of September 1, 1939 to June 22, 1941, Hitler and the Nazis were praised and hailed by communists {Stalinists) as heroes of the Revolution, taking on and taking out French and British Imperialism, paving the way for the establishment of the Socialist world order.
The Crimes Against Peace charged at Nuremberg included a violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (the USSR was not a signatory to the original Versailles Treaty), thus imposing de facto recognition of its validity on the Western Powers; this became quite a sticking point throughout the Cold War as the U.S. never recognized Soviet Annexation of the Baltic States. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:39, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Oh, and Mussolini tried to conquer Western Europe? That's news to me. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:01, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Hitler did...with Mussolini as an ally who tied down many Mediterranean nations. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 15:14, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
The Mediterranean is Southern Europe, not Western European. You're the victim of Hollywood propaganda, fake news, public school education and brainwashing. How's it feel now being called a fascist for pointing out obvious facts? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:11, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Rob, France and England were big powers! And Southern Europe is relevant because English protectorates and allies there like Greece whether occupied by Germany or Italy couldn't render support.
And how am I supposed to believe these accounts of Polish atrocities against Germans? National Review Online said nothing about them! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 16:46, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
"allies" and "tied down" are not really apt descriptions. Hitler and Mussolini were not "allies" in the sense that FDR & Churchill were, co-coordinating strategy and actions together such as the Manhattan Project or Operation Overlord. Mussolini and Hitler did not act or coordinate together. In fact, Hitler blamed the loss of the War on Mussolini, claiming Mussolini's failed invasion of the Balkans delayed Operation Barbarossa by several weeks, and the Germans didn't reach Moscow until the snows started to fall.
But it was convenient to link Mussolini and Hitler together for propaganda purposes. Mussolini's granddaughter ran for the Italian parliament, and some idiot American reporter started asking her about anti-Semitism and the holocaust. That's how brainwashed and ignorant of history Americans are. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:01, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Did I ever mention, I met Herman Goering's daughter here in New Mexico? I went on a sales call to her house in a remote area up in the mountains. She was living under her maiden name. I didn't ask at the time, but my suspicions were confirmed when I saw the film, Hitler's Children. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:19, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
I suppose we may encounter members of famous families more often than we think. But only the observant, like yourself, are the ones who are treated to the surprise of noticing. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 18:27, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
This place was so remote, and I never met or seen anyone with the name before, I joked to myself on the drive out there that if a Goering was looking for a place to hide out, this certainly would be the spot. I'll give you a clue: it's a little north of Jeffrey Epstein's 10.000 acre ranch. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:10, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Please remain in those larger states, Rob, where it's more difficult for the enemies of conservatism to zero in on you. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 23:17, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

The Conservapedia "Causes of World War II" article isn't very helpful. The article leads the reader to induce that since Germany sought lebensraum, and Germany invaded Poland, that invading Poland was part of Germany's seeking of lebensraum. Worse, it doesn't mention that Russia reneged on their planned simultaneous invasion, or the claim that Lord Halifax? was intent on destroying Germany. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 18:45, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

Or whether Poland was influenced or not by Germany's treatment of Czechoslavakia. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 18:49, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

It's an incomplete article from the early days of CP. Historians now are beginning to date the War from 1930 - 1945, which in my opinion is more accurate. It's an age-old debate; typically the answers have been ranked as follows:
  • What caused WWII?
  1. Adolf Hitler.
  2. Treaty of Versailles.
  3. Great Depression.
The politically correct answer has always been #1, but in recent decades historians have been moving away from that. Those who vocalize it risk being called fascists. OTOH, judging from the reaction of students who hear this answer, and given the effects on the world we live in, the answer can seem simplistic, which then has the opposite and negative effect of evoking skepticism.
Churchill called it "The Unnecessary War," which barring Hitler, is true. But that again only speaks to British experience, reduces and leaves out the whole Chinese experience of the War, which in this "Global Age" China is having none of it. So it does seem kinda racist to ignore China and sell the Angelocentric version to the whole world. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:27, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Thank you for your considered opinions, Rob. I had prepared a number of my own as well, but this has to be a really depressing subject for some, so your versatile question-fielding notwithstanding, I'd like to take this up at another time when I'm capable of dealing with it in a more measured conversational approach. You almost have to be an expert to talk about certain types of things, and I think this is one of them. We've had some disturbances in our family, and this sort of thing takes my mind off of it, but I realize not necessarily in a way that is helpful to anyone else. But thank you again. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 23:17, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Evolutionism played a key role as far as the cause of WWI and WWII. See: World War I and Darwinism and Darwinism and World War One and Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust and Social effects of evolutionary ideology.
Darwinism, WWI and WWII all weakened Britain which lead to the decline of British empire.Wikignome72 (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
If evolutionism/atheism didn't weaken Russia and the geographic area of the Soviet Union, maybe Germany would have been reluctant to attack the area. See: What happened when Stalin read Darwin?.Wikignome72 (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Vargas, sorry to hear, but when ever your ready let me know. The article you cited definitely needs some improving.
WG, Yes, most definitely. While atheism and evolution played a big role going back a lifetime (1914 = 1848 = 65 years) leading up to WWI, WWII was the same unresolved issues on bigger scale. I discovered this as a student of history trying to understand the Cold War, which had its roots in WWII, which had its roots in WWI, which had its roots in the second half of the 19th century. As a high schooler during the Vietnam War draft, I figured if I was gonna get killed, I should at least know why. I started studying then and haven't stopped since. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:36, 1 October 2019 (EDT)

Glory to Hong Kong[edit]

On October 1, the first serious injury in three months of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong occurred. A high school student was shot in the chest at point blank range by a police officer. Listen to "Glory to Hong Kong," the anthem of the city's protest movement. Christians are the vanguard. There are prayer rings before each protest with black clad youths psyching each other up before going into action against the police. PeterKa (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

How did Amber's key even work on the guy's room?[edit]


I don't think this question was ever asked, so forgive me if I am mistaken about thinking it wasn't asked during the trial, but... how on earth did Amber's key work on a room that wasn't even hers? My parents and I went to hotels with card keys, and they're usually reserved strictly for the room we're assigned to. It seems odd for her key to work in a room that wasn't even supposed to be hers. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

Guyjer brought in two witnesses who both said they had also accidentally parked on the wrong attached parking level and walked down the hall to the wrong apartment; one witness said she was at home one time when a homeless guy let himself in with a card key. She chased him out, and said he just opened another apartment down the hall.
The complex evidently is a real hellhole, with homeless people sleeping in stairwells, etc. The places are easy to break into by attached balconies. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:34, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
I read the account in the Daily Mail, and it said she noticed that the door was unlocked (thinking it was her apartment)—and if true, it's understandable if she expected an ambush. But Conservapedia Main Page Right has a point, The Daily Mail could be promoting an abusive leniency toward majoritarians, in this case men's larger membership in conservative groups than women. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 07:26, 4 October 2019 (EDT)