Talk:Main Page/Archive index/185

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?

See also 2020 presidential election

We are at a pivotal moment for Black voters

Everyone agrees Democrats cannot win the presidency without Black voters. This almost guarantees Harris' nomination. Blacks at this moment are waking up to the fact that everything they have ben told about Biden by white Democrats, trusted Black Democrats, the media, and the schools, during Obama's presidency and for the previous 50 years, is a bald face lie. Their trust in the party is contingent on them being in control now, since the election of Obama, even though many are not particularly enamored to Obama, especially since Biden's racism is now exposed. Another consequence is a rethinking of all the lies Democrats, schools, and media have told about Republicans for a little more than 50 years.

This is largely a discussion going on among Blacks themselves now. No longer will the automatic reaction to a Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Candace Owens or Kanye West be, "Oh, that's just another Uncle Tom;" They will look at white liberals with a jaundiced eye (the way they look at Sanders, Hillary, or Warren) even more suspiciously than they have in the past. There will be a legitimate debate among Blacks whether slave reparations is just tossing them another bone to ride the back of the buss by house negroes such as Cory Booker, who's not doing so well. Harris's nomination is almost guaranteed right now - just as matter of keeping the Democrat party together - complete with the "Republicans are racists" mantra up to election day November 2020. But truth is, more and more Blacks daily are waking to the fact that this is a lie, and the only hope Black Democrats and their white liberal cracker allies, who they increasingly are disgusted with, have to win.

Even if Harris were to win, don't be fooled by the alleged pride Blacks have in her. Many, many of them have little trust in her and don't feel Harris represents their interests or concerns anymore than Bathroom Barry did. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:18, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

Blacks are realizing even Obama lied to them. And Obama's failure to speak out now in defense of Biden - condemning Harris for an opportunistic, unjust attack - is proof of this. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:24, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

A recent Wall Street Journal poll says the far left (whites) are 50% of the Democrat base, while moderates (minorities) are 40%. With Biden mortally wounded by the Biden-Ukraine scandal (the only way to take Trump down by impeachment is to take Biden down, as well, which the dominant far left seems intent on doing), the question remains is Who will blacks gravitate to? Gabbard, a moderate woman of color, seems most likely. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:51, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
Warren is now at the crossroads. The Blacksphere's reaction puts it thusly:
Warren announced that she would look at failed gubernatorial candidate and scandal-laden Andrew Gillum as a potential VP. I consider this (1) pandering, and (2) the remake of Mandingo.
I get it. A black man can be Warren’s #2, even with all his “angry black man toxic masculinity”. Let’s see how the #MeToo movement sees this. As for black men, understand Warren’s message: you will serve your white master’s woman.
Blacks are very adept at coalition building and coalition politics, much more so than their racist, radical, white liberal allies who have done nothing but betray and burn them in the past.
So let's see how Blacks react to Warren bringing in more illegal immigrants that Blacks get pay for their healthcare, versus Trump who created job opportunities for them by tightening the screws on immigration. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:39, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
Worth a two minute listen. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:50, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

A 2fer

Looks like we got a Two-fer this week - Biden and Sanders got knocked out of the race. Looks like next year may be the Millenials year; time to start scrutinizing Yang, Buttigieg, and Booker closer, in that order. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:10, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

It's a five-way tie for third place: Buttigieg, Sanders, Yang, Harris, Clinton. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 20:17, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Before Sanders heart attack and Biden's trial in the U.S. Senate when Dems try to impeach Trump. This would be the perfect time for a Millenial moderate to emerge, but there are none running. Harris is toast. Booker has a shot this very moment, now or never.
If Clinton entered the fray - either as a candidate or through another backdoor deal, you would see such a mass exodus from the democrat party it would look like an immigrant caravan. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:45, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Thank you, you've provided a lot of food for thought for what I am sure is a grateful conservative community. FYI It's been after ten pm in the U.K. for three hours, but some of them are still awake and include Sanders in the tie. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 21:04, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Bernie could recover in days if it was merely one stent and he had angina and not a heart attack. However, the situation could put a cap on future supporters willing to embrace his candidacy because in politics "perception is reality" is often the case.Wikignome72 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
He's done. He knows it. He can't withstand the rigors of office, let alone campaigning. The warranty has expired. Convention delegates would have a hard time voting for him. In a field of 25, they can't find an alternative to a guy who slipped from 19% to 12%? And Democrats trust his judgement for a successor when they have the opportunity to vote themselves.
The good news is, this put Warren over 50%, unless the Millenial generation stands up now and says enough of this insanity. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:31, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

Bernie will stay in the race until the bitter end. Many of his supporters are very loyal too.

"So, how long does it take to recover after having a stent. The recovery time after having a stent or angioplasty is fast and patients are discharged from the hospital in usually 12-24 hours after the removal of the catheter. In most cases, patients can return to work within a few days to a week after the procedure but never miss on the doctor’s advice on the same."[1].Wikignome72 (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

I think you've counted out Biden too early. Many have experienced his hands-on approach to governance and are the ones moved to admit he has a good feel for the American people. As a candidate he's a little touchy, but one who's known for not hiding his agenda but opening himself up to his team to truly reveal himself as he is. And if you think this is stupid, remember this is the "PG" version. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 07:03, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
He is starting to get tainted by scandal like Hillary. If he campaigns too late in the day, he makes gaffes. Maybe you are right though. Democratic voters may not care too much about scandal and they may want a semi-muddled and gaffe prone candidate who is a more moderate candidate than the lefty alternatives.Wikignome72 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
This is a replay of 2007-2008; you will recall Hillary was "inevitable" in 2007. Then a young upstart nobody ever heard of, Barack Obama, smoked her in Iowa. The scenario is the same: voters were tired of the old regulars and want fresh blood. Booker fits the mold of the Second Coming of the >Messiah Obama. Don't neglect the cultic nature of Democrats over policy positions.
Booker was supposed to fold 3 days ago after the FEC filing deadline; he hasn't yet. Watch to see if Biden and Sanders donors are bailing for Warren, or somebody else. Harris's big money California (Hollywood & Silicon Valley) donors are already bailing (Beto's Hollywood donors jumped ship for Harris months ago). They don't like Gabbard. That leaves Booker, Buttboy, and Yang, in that order at this moment.
Booker should be the obvious choice - less baggage and more DC experience. Democrats aren't ready to follow the Trump precedent and nominate somebody like Yang who never held elective office - that's a prime source of objection to Trump. Trump beats Yang with the experience qualifier among moderate unaffiliated voters. Yang they can paint as "too far left" making Booker appear "centrist". The hicktown mayor Buttigieg also lacks experience, is too controversial, and carries too much baggage. Midwesterners are always at a disadvantage in presidential contests. It increasingly looks like a Warren-Booker contest, with Warren being the oldtime boomer establishment candidate, and Booker being a GenX upstart more appealing to centrists, moderates, and millenials. Gabbard could partner with Weld or Jesse Ventura to lead a Third Party protest vote.
Oh, and remember Bloomberg said he might get back in if Biden folds? He's thinking about it again (meaning he's less than enthusiastic about "the people's choice" Warren). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:52, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
Trying to predict what the Democrats will do is like predicting what a mad man will do next or predicting where a tornado will strike next. There are: competing factions, people with muddled and contradictory thinking and the list goes on.Wikignome72 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
I compared Peter's description of Trump as unpredictable to Henry Adams' description of Napoleon towards Thomas Jefferson here. Those two were much more calculating than the Democratic mob. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 07:07, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Follow the money, not the polls. I've laid out the marketing strategy of Democrat moneymasters in a general election - how to present contrasts with Trump. If age were to be an issue, it'll be put on Trump. Warren has age going against her, and Hillary is rattling her cage now, too. Booker could be the Second, young, clean, African American who speaks English, according to Biden and Harry Reid.
I have a DSA source in San Diego who first alerted me to Booker about 4 years ago, and his and theirs' presidential ambitions with him as an alternative to Hillary and as the Second Coming of Obama (oddly, California radicals have never been enamored to Harris, whose electoral strategy has been to scapegoat 'poor kids' to make herself appear 'centrist' and appealing to California whites). After reading about Booker, I can see why Democratic Socialists and regular Democrats were so excited about him. Booker even has Executive branch experience as a mayor, which Obama did not. In some ways he's smarter than Obama. He just needs to tap into those donor sources who propelled Obama over the aged and decrepit Hillary in 2008, but the money is spread too thin right now among so many candidates. They need to pull together. First they backed Beto. Then Harris. Now they are re-assessing again. But they want a younger candidate, in the mold of JFK, Carter, Clinton, and Obama, who all were at least 10 years younger than their GOP opponent.
Democrats always take youth over experience, Hillary being the exception. They learned from that disaster.
Look at it regionally, as well. Warren, Biden, Sanders, and Booker all hail from the Northeastern radius of about 150 miles. All are popular and respected among their constituents. It's been a competition for rich donors in the Northeastern corridor. The West Coast Hollywood/Silicon Valley donors are 0-2 backing Beto and Harris. They will now put their money on one of the four East Coast liberals. Biden and Sanders are toast. Warren has pee-off the local Wall Street gang. Booker is the obvious choice. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:58, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
An Obama comeback. I can just picture Booker saying: "They're still bitterly clinging to their guns, gods, money and jobs" again. If anything, Obama will have prevented Booker from winning the presidency, unless he wants to make it his full-time job and then maybe ride to the White House on a wave of Obama nostalgia in sixteen years. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 17:49, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Here's Harris summoning the departed spirit of Barack Obama. Translation: "Voters are to stupid to care about issues. They vote on empty slogans." Harris's problem here was, while Biden addressed a serious constitutional issue, Harris appeared drunk. She was reminding him she's available for the VP slot to rally black voters on the trail, after calling him a racist. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:04, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Lol, I asked you if you thought that were possible back on August 6. Took you long enough. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 21:00, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
I had written somewhere earlier, that she got into the race feeling she would get either the one or two spot by default as being black and Obama's heir. When that became obvious, it pretty well doomed her chances at #1 (proven again in the above clip). She's still in the running as #2, but now brings nothing to the table. California will go Democrat with or without her, and everyone knows now she's not really black. Granted, she has more black blood than Warren has Indian, but her "blackness" is more by cultural appropriation than experience.
Blacks fell for this line a rot before with that halfbreed Obama who did nothing for them. Sure, most still take pride in having a black president, but overall there's a feeling of disappointment. He wasn't one of them, and still isn't. Blacks know in their hearts that a vote for Harris or Obama is inherently an anti-white vote, not on the merits of the candidate. And they're ashamed of this. It's always been more of a feeling of "payback time" rather than justice. Obama's legacy is burning down their communities in senseless race riots, and setting back race relations decades. IMO, Booker knows this. Blacks want justice. Neither Harris or Obama ever stood for justice or equality, just more exploitation by white liberal Democrats. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:26, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
I had a dog that I walked around the block, and her usual walkers would never take her down the block over a bridge and then along a kink in the road. She had started pulling that way though over a period of months if not years.
One day I thought I'd give her a treat and let her walk wherever she'd like. At first she didn't know what to do, but she kind of got the hang of the fact that she needed to make a choice. She would also pull and pull when she started her walk, because she wanted to get to the unfamiliar scents further out as quickly as possible, so I made a point of running that day to keep with her and to stop when she stopped.
Well, you can probably guess what happened. She came to that point in her walk, and she turned and ran and ran across the bridge and along that bend in the road as I kept up. (I was pretty young, so I didn't look too ridiculous.)
When we got to the stop sign, we saw a swan on the neighbor's yard, and I unleashed her so she could charge the swan. She had often been tormented by ducks who had flown into the air or the water before she could approach and give them the sniff test seal of approval. I didn't worry about the swan; if our dog had decided she needed to bite someone she'd probably open her mouth and then be confused and not know what to do. This swan flew straight up, then down the street. The swan wasn't homeless; there were miles of roads that surrounded a lake and the swan picked a road parallel to the edge of the lake. But I have to admit I'd never seen a swan travel down the street by flying; it was finally a victory for the dog against the waterfowl.
She thought this intersection was now going to be a good place to hang out with that happy memory associated with it, but I coaxed her turn back, but still letting her lead.
Once we crossed the bridge back to her block, she suddenly turned around and ran all the way back to a few meters behind the stop sign, with me closely following behind. Maybe you can understand why she did this. I thought it was because she figured she had the power to go wherever she wanted but sensed that the power was a temporary granting of her wishes. So the road hadn't changed any, but she was just as happy to go there a second time.
I think another reason was that the event was too perfect, and in the back of her mind wondered if I had caused what happened just to get her to stop pulling to go over the bridge when she got to that place around the block on her walk so I'd never have to take her across there again.
I think a third reason was that she felt like a human would feel if they had found a secret corridor and room in the house that they had lived in a long time without noticing.
But I think the best reason is that she wanted to see if she could count on me to take her wishes seriously if she ever felt she needed to break away from the routine of walking around the block if there were a dog-sized emergent situation, even if she couldn't explain it (an urge to cross the bridge), it seemed arbitrary (going back to the same place), or it looked like a play of the imagination (running back instead of walking).
Maybe blacks, who were made in God's image, voted for a candidate not the best in conventional governance, but whose presence acted to reveal, from the motive of having a lingering apprehension, whether the response to the black civil rights movement was just lip service, or whether blacks would be entrusted with real political power. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 02:43, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
Great analogy. Obama presented a moral dilemma for blacks in 2008, 2012, and now: Is a vote for Obama purely motivated by racism and pride, everything they abhor and in conflict with their sense of justice? I have enough confidence in the moral values and good practical sense of most of my fellow African American Christian brothers and sisters that they will admit, "yes". It doesn't matter if they admit it out loud, only to their own conscience. RobSDe Plorabus Unum
Thank you! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:54, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

Week of Oct. 9

Warren's surge in the twitter following is a default setting and bandwagon effect after the demise of Biden and Sanders, however her steady, uninterrupted, upward trend in other polling is impressive. Sanders surge is a "sympathy vote". Buttigieg has taken a dump in Twitter followers, despite beating Biden in fundraising. Yang can't seem to gain traction. In a Hillary/Biden matchup, Hillary would bloody his other eye and kick him in the groin. A Hillary/Warren cat fight is interesting to contemplate; we'd find out just how much of down and dirty fighter Warren really is. Personally I think Hillary would mall her the way she malled Sanders, but I think forcing democrats to even contemplate a Hillary/Warren contest would create such an anti-Hillary backlash that she couldn't survive. Even blacks would flock to Warren. It maybe Warren's only hope to get blacks on board and solidify their support. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:15, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

To thumbnail it: Biden & Sanders fundraising efforts will dry up in the fourth quarter, make them fight for a showing in early primary states. Warren likely will pick up Sanders financial backers, but her anti-Wall Street rhetoric will keep Biden money backers away. Her challenge is to pick up Biden's black supporters, who see the duplicity of her robbing affirmative action programs to promote her herself. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:57, 11 October 2019 (EDT)

Oct. 14

The only candidate who is "gaining strength" is Buttigieg, albeit pathetically. Warren's lead is slowing, and is by default. Sanders, Yang, and Harris are giving ground. Biden's "bounce back" of half a point is an anti-Trump, pro-impeachment sentiment, reflecting both Biden's weakness and a lack of focus among the pro-impeachment crowd.

All in all, 2020 is shaping up to be a Nixon/McGovern replay, only the misuse of government agencies for illegal political spying is on the Democrat side this go-round. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:43, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

Tonite will be Booty-judge's moment; if he can't pick up the ball and run with it in such a weak field, he's probably headed for the showers sooner or later. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:31, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

Polls

Biden's steadiness in the polls over the past month, since the Ukraine story broke, all it means is even the Democrats are skeptical of the fake news media and manufactured narratives - despite what they may say, and despite the fact we may think Democrats are brainwashed or easily brainwashed. Your seeing not just their ability to lie, but their ability to deceive themselves with their own lies.

Warren's alleged "frontrunner" status was fake news. Democrats are putting all their eggs in the impeachment now, cause they know Elizabeth Warren is a loser and Biden is damaged goods. Warren's poll numbers have in fact gone down since the last debate.

The only ones who have gained since the debate are Sanders, Buttigieg, and Gabbard. Sanders people are essentially returning home since it's obvious Biden and Warren are losers; Buttigieg has the money and is being promoted actively by media; but he's still barely at 6%. He looks likely to unseat Harris for the VP spot, and more likely to generate enthusiasm among Millennials as a VP choice. Gabbard is benefiting from the attacks by Hillary, which inadvertently got around the media blackout on her. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:30, 24 October 2019 (EDT)

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

Conservapedia and it ranking for the Google search: "Ukraine collusion"

CP is an authoritative source on this subject, #9 on Google - Ahead of the New York Times and Wikipedia. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:13, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Wow! Go Rob! Ranking for Biden's age was a Pickett's charge, due to very stiff competition and I never should have attempted it. Oh, well. You win some. You lose some. I should have remembered Sun Tzu (Attack weakness and avoid strength).Wikignome72 (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
You see again the importance of early placement in keyword titling. I'd encourage you to begin a page on reorientation therapy with external links if you can imagine the keywords taking shape 6 months or two years down the road. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:37, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
You were insightful about this matter. I think it is because the early web article gathers more inbound links plus mentions on the internet. Wikignome72 (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
It wouldn't surprise me if Google "grandfathers" in, say, the top 20 or 50 to a keyword term, and after that there's competition for rankings. In the case of "Ukrainian collusion", 2 million results were added in the last 24 hours, up from 10 million to 12 million. CP bounces around between #9 and #11, but holds pretty steady at #9 or #10. Today, for a few hours, BBC knocked it down to #11, but its back to #10 now. Lawfareblog, which is leading the Deep State coup 2.0 charge with its ridiculous, definitive, 'Trump-Ukraine conspiracy hoax timeline', was up to #2 or #3 for a few hours, but is back down behind CP right now. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:32, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
Update: there are now 23 million results and CP has fallen back to #13. It is #1 on DuckDuckGo. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:57, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
Update: There are now 42 million results and CP has fallen back to #15; I need one of the SEO checkers to tweak the page. Anybody got a link ? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:44, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
Update: Back into the Top 10, bumping WaPo's timeline and an Andrew McCarthy interview with Fox. They cropped down the number of results from 43 million to 33 million yesterday, but it's back up to 38 million. This version is having an impact. The problem is, right now I could fill it up with much more detail to shape the narrative, but that would overwhelm the specific points that need to be made. Also, introducing new foreign names into the narrative always has its risks, RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:24, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Update. Back up to #9. It fell to 15 two days ago (worst so far). The page is definitive. And There's more to come. I'm loaded for bear against these insurrectionists. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:03, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Update. Up to #8, the best since #3 when the story broke. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:36, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Update: Holding steady at #9; fallen back a bit to #8 on DuckDuckGo. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:04, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
Update: Hanging tuff at #9 with stiff competition. Also, #34 of 78 million under Biden-Ukraine scandal. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:36, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
Update: Holding at #10; Biden Ukraine scandal up to #20 on Google of 80 million. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:10, 11 October 2019 (EDT)
Update: #6 on Google. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:53, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Update: Back up to #3. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:05, 21 October 2019 (EDT)
Update: #1 on Google. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:44, 26 October 2019 (EDT)

Quid pro quo

Trump has created trouble for himself with his "no quid pro quo" tweets since it seems likely that he did hold up U.S. aid as a way of putting pressure on Ukraine. Foreign policy is all about making deals and quid pro quo, so this is the wrong standard to apply. You can interpret anything that benefits the United States as a benefit to Trump's campaign, so I don't find the "campaign contribution" argument convincing. The question should be, was Trump acting in the wider national interest or for narrow personal gain? John Durham's investigation is an official Department of Justice probe. A treaty concluded in 1999 authorizes cooperation between the U.S. attorney general and the Ukrainian chief prosecutor. Giuliani's involvement has raised eyebrows, but there is a tradition of presidents sending personal friends they can trust to back up official negotiators. The request to investigate Biden is the most problematic part of the affair since it creates a conflict of interest. The president has an obligation under the constitution to "take care that the law be faithfully executed." No one should be able to evade investigation simply by announcing a candidacy. In 2016, numerous Democrats demanded -- and got -- an FBI investigation of Trump. According to the Page-Strzok correspondence, Obama himself met with FBI agents on this matter. PeterKa (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

"Trump has been justly criticized for hiring his daughter and son-in-law at the White House. But at least when he pressures a foreign leader for a favor, it’s to investigate corruption, not to get a prosecutor off his son’s back. Maybe Biden's son was guilty, maybe he was innocent. But it is a fact that Joe Biden held up foreign aid to a desperately needy ally in exchange for their halting prosecution that implicated his son. It's not Trump's fault that Biden is now running for president."—Ann Coulter, September 25, 2019.
Democrats are going to try to re-construct the Mueller investigation as a personal legal issue for Trump instead of 2+ years of abuse and denial of his civil rights, by virtue of his being an office-holder, by the legal system, there being no evidence of the activity that was supposed to have sanctioned it in the first place. Lol, good luck with that. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 16:33, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
NYT: "The Ukrainians weren't made aware that the assistance was being delayed/reviewed until more than one month after the call."
How the impeachment frenzy plays out over the next month can be gauged real easy: watch to see if Biden's slide in polls reverses itself.
If voters say, "A pox on both your houses," What's their alternative? Buttigieg? Warren? Yang? Sanders? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:03, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
Trump has finally turned the tables on Democratic leaders by starting investigations to match theirs, and they have responded with more presidential abuse. Schiff needs to be impeached, and the other ones can’t be removed from office too soon. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 20:01, 12 October 2019 (EDT)
That is incorrect - and a Democrat talking point. Investigations into the criminal activity of Deep Staters and Democrats was ongoing before that bogus "impeachment inquiry" which is a cover to create the illusion that indictments of John Brennan and James Clapper are reprisals and an abuse of power. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:56, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
If it prevents that illusion from happening, I'm willing to wait. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 16:08, 13 October 2019 (EDT)

Conservapedia proven right?

Especially in Green's case, the less you study the liberal sludge involved with his office-holding the better (watch them try to skip the full vote to begin the impeachment inquiry) VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:57, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

Did Pelosi skip holding the vote from the whole Congress to start the House impeachment inquiry? Trump is none too pleased regardless:

The conversation with the new and very good Ukraine President, who told the Fake News, at the United Nations, that HE WAS NOT PRESSURED BY ME IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, should by and of itself bring an end to the new and most recent Witch Hunt. Others ended in ashes!
The Whistleblower’s complaint is completely different and at odds from my actual conversation with the new President of Ukraine. The so-called “Whistleblower” knew practically NOTHING in that those ridiculous charges were far more dramatic & wrong, just like Liddle’ Adam Schiff fraudulently and illegally inserted his made up & tweeted words into my call with the Ukrainian President to make it look like I did something very wrong. He then boldly read those words to Congress and millions of people, defaming & libeling me. He must resign from Congress!
The only people that don’t like my conversation with the new Ukrainian President are those that heard Rep. Adam Schiff read a made up and totally fraudulent statement to the House and public, words that I did not say but that he fabricated (& admitted to this fabrication). Sick! —Donald Trump, September 28, 2019.

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:43, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

Word is, Barr is in Italy right now interviewing Mifsud personally. Mifsud is spilling his guts how Brennan roped him into something bigger than he imagined and he's been in hiding, fearing for life, cause he doesn't want to end up on the Clinton body count. Nadler and Pelosi need to take out Barr before they can take out Trump. Barr's gonna be, shall we say, upset, when he returns, cause he's not just investigating the Democrats anti-democratic election interference from 4 years ago, he sitting right in the middle of another Deep State coup.
Trump, as Commander in Chief, can call out the military against these insurrectionists. But Barr also has the U.S. Marshall Service at his disposal, as well. RobSDe Plorabus Unum
The Drudge Report seems to have gone over to the dark side. It's full of headlines that make it sound like Trump is finished. Trump's net approval is at minus 8.[2] That might not sound good, but that's pretty much as high as he has ever been. Biden is toast, according to the betting markets. Black voters don't respond to Warren. So the path is open to Hillary, according to this article. On the eve of a coup, the coup plotters will engineer a crisis. Then the coup can be portrayed as the resolution of the crisis. Maybe it's not about Hillary's triumphant return to head the Democratic Party. The media and left have financial reasons to feel nostalgic for the Mueller investigation. PeterKa (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
(A) The media wants impeachment to drive ratings; (B) Drudge is limited to sources because of Google censorship; (C) it's a rallying call to wake up voters because of the danger of the moment.
IN the Clinton impeachment, I personally worked on several issues for nearly 5 years; Not until after the House Judiciary passed the Articles (the point at witch Nixon resigned) did most Democrats for the first time ever hear the names Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, were enraged, and circled the wagons. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:13, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
Charlie Kirk isn't having any today:
Barack Obama asked Ukraine to investigate his political rival's campaign manager
3 Democrat senators asked Ukraine to investigate Trump
And the DNC solicited Ukraine's help to dig up dirt on Trump
And the media was silent about all of it.
Why is it that Democrats can spend 32 MILLION dollars investigating election meddling, all in an attempt to destroy their political enemy—the President
...But when they accuse him of doing the same thing—investigating meddling & corruption—they want to impeach him?
VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 15:49, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
America, being a two party system, always views foreign policy in black and white, good and evil. For American readers it needs to be presented as two competing factions - one pro-American, one pro-Russian (ignoring the fact Russians do not regard themselves as anti-American). Both these factions are corrupt beyond imagination. Like Dems and Pubs, one faction serves a few years kissing up to America until its driven from power due to corruption; then the other faction serves trying to strike a balance between the U.S. and Russia, until its driven from power due to corruption.
The grave sin committed here was the attempted brainwashing of Americans by Obama and media that Russia and the U.S. are enemies, and Ukraine is caught in the grip of two competing factions, one pro-American, one pro-Russian.
Christopher Steele aligned himself with anti-Russian Ukrainians and cultivated contacts when he worked for UK intelligence in the 1990s. Ironically, Russians view the Ukrainian nationalists as racist, fascist, antisemitic, anti-multicultural, anti-universal order (legacy of the Soviet times) bigots. These are the groups Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, Richard Dearlove, and the DNC chose to align themselves with, taking up their cause wholeheartedly. Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrianian/American citizen and member of the Democratic National Committee (paid $500,000 since 2004) was the linchpin who wanted to trade corrupt Putin puppets who employed Manafort, for corrupt Ukrainian fascists who employed Hunter Biden.
Chúpala fed her dirt to Steele and Isikoff; Isikoff and Steele fed that garbage to Yahoo News and the FBI, which fed it to the FISC. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:32, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
Actually, the John Birch Society and The New American, even Trevor Loudon, makes it very clear that Russians are indeed still communists, let alone bad guys, and those sources are not for Obama either nor do they shill for him. Also, I'm not sure Obama was against the Russians. I definitely recall Obama during the infamous hot-mike incident specifically stating he has one more election to go and then he'll be wide open to making concessions to the Russians. That doesn't sound like someone who's against Russia in the slightest. More likely than not, Obama cynically used Russia as a scapegoat for the hacked DNC servers to push the narrative that Donald Trump was backed by them. Maybe if the Russians completely give up Communism to such an extent that they even obliterate Soviet symbols and replace them with Tsarist symbols, I'll start believing they've truly reformed from Communism. Pokeria1 (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
The Russians are about as communist as the Chicago City Council. Sure, corruption and communism go hand in hand, coupled with greedy, undemocratic leaders who maintain control in a single party system, but the Russians are neither a nuclear threat to the U.S., a conventional military threat to the U.S. or Western Europe, or a threat to the international global trading system. Their entire economy is dependent on access to that international trading system. Exxon keeps both the Russian government, i.e. civil service, and the Russian military, afloat.
(This of course would lead us to a discussion of the use and effectiveness of targeted sanctions, a sort of microsurgery to cut off key individuals and anyone connected to them by monitoring global banking transactions via sophisticated technology. In the old days, the Germans would just send troops into Belgium or Poland; nowadays leaders have to think twice cause they can't expand their business contacts beyond markets using their own currency, and they eventually have trouble maintaining the cost of their country villa. Even Trump now has come around to the idea of targeted sanctions against Iranian mullahs, rather than a cruise missile attack.
The wisdom of this modern approach to addressing international conflicts rather than sending in troops has yet to play out. It would require another thread to fully explore). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 08:00, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Actually, the Russians right now are about as communist as the Seattle City Council. As bad as Chicago is, I don't think they've gone as far as to retain at least one monument to Marxism or even build a new monument as far as I know, while Seattle's rather infamous for having a statue of Vladimir Lenin in its premises. And the comparison is apt since they still have a monument to Karl Marx in the middle of Moscow's public square instead of doing to it what they did to Stalin and Lenin's statues and toppling it, and they still have Vladimir Lenin's tomb open to the public when, had they truly given up on Communism, they would have bulldozed that tomb and, if they were to do anything to Lenin's corpse, it would be either to bury it in an unmarked grave, or otherwise hang him from a streetlamp to set an example as to what happens if anyone dares try to bring Communism back. That's what I would do if I headed the Russian government or were the Russian people. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Ironically, they keep Lenin's tomb open cause it's a tourist attraction, like the Pyramids. Great Wall, the Louvre, or British Museum. It's a monument to capitalism these days.
We hear much about Russian propaganda and influence in foreign elections, in Europe and America. NBC News worldwide has a budget about three times larger than the Russian Foreign Ministry which dedicates only a fraction of its budget to information and propaganda campaigns. And we haven't counted the impact of CNN, ABC, Fox, etc. yet, either. From the Russian perspective, it's difficult to compete in a world that honors free speech when they are outspent about 60-1 globally. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 08:32, 30 September 2019 (EDT)


You told us a story that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry wanted a photo-op with a rebel leader and a Syrian government official to highlight and secure a peace treaty, and that Putin provided one too and ordered the other killed and secured a peace treaty independently.
To retaliate, Obama broke off diplomatic relations with Russia (or at least at a number of embassies) on some pretext at the end of his administration while staging NATO military exercises at the same time. Trump and Putin were able to secure each other's trust, and nothing came of it except feeding obliquely into the holdover intelligence community's conspiracy to falsely attribute to Trump the pursuit of Russian interests before his own country which failed catastrophically.
Now you're telling us there was an anti-Russian cabal in government that was "aligned" with the Obama administration making things happen.
But the antagonistic tone of the investigation always seemed to be the resentment of the (allegedly intelligent) intelligence community toward a leader not dependent on anyone, and who therefore couldn't be pressured into backing off from scrutinizing their little fiefdom.
How did they think that an anti-Russian sentiment could be evoked from such a clumsy contrivance, when it was clear from the beginning that Obama did not like Russia? I originally thought they were carrying out Obama's sweet revenge, but then I actually believed the Russians were involved, because who would have the mental...inadequacy as to set themselves up for the kind of backlash that would inevitably follow? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 22:44, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
(ec) I don't know where the Kerry reference comes from, but neither Hillary nor Obama had much experience or understanding of foreign policy while in the Senate. True, Hillary had more DC experience in the White House and Senate, but never an indepth interest or understanding of foreign policy until - the formation of the Clinton Foundation.
As Secretary of State, Hillary was more qualified and experienced than Obama, but going back to the Riady's and the Chinagate scandal, their only approach was shaking down international donors for access. Cold War politics and ideology exited American foreign policy with the Clinton's in the 1990s; now it was focused on influence peddling, access to technology, and trade deals.
Ukraine has always been the red-headed stepchild in the Russian sphere, going back to the Czars. The Germans tried to make it part of Germany twice in two World Wars (Hitler was going to make the Crimea the "German Riveria" by extending the autobahn east from Budapest, as the climate is pretty nice there by European standards). Now the Ukrainians want to be part of the EU (i.e. that dream and vision of the Kaisar and Hitler that the rest of the world was adamantly opposed to. Sheesh, the EU can't keep its own house in order right now, let alone expand out to the Black Sea).
So what do the Russians have to say about this 21st Century dream of Hitler and the Kaisers coming true, now?
Then, when you factor in 70 years of multicultural communist integration, making the number of Russians and Ukrainians evenly split at 50%, with halfbreeds of Turks and Slavs everywhere, you think Russia will allow a NATO base at Sevastopol? Will the UK allow a Russian submarine base at Dublin? Will the US allow a Chinese naval base at Acapulco?
I mean, c'mon. Just what have these Democrats been teaching our children the past 40-50 years> RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:26, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
And since I'm asking, why would anti-Russian Hillary negotiate the sale of large amounts of Uranium to Russia? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 23:11, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
Cashola (a brokers fee for the Clintons). The US was bound by previous trade agreements, mainly the Sakhalin I & II projects negotiated by Rex Tillerson in 1996, which allowed Exon to be part owners of the land and resources where they drilled (unlike the deal with Saudi Aramco in 1926 where the Saudis retained exclusive ownership of all land and reserves below ground). As a quid pro quo, Russia was free to buy land and mineral resources in North America. The deal itself was legal, the $500,000 brokerage fee to paid the Clinton family is not. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:32, 29 September 2019 (EDT)

Kerrys and queries

Here is your Kerry reference, Rob:

Trump's moves to take control of the CIA

Trump's authorization to the CIA to expedite drone strikes, that with Pence's statement Julian Assange should be locked up for life, and the firing of Flynn, are the first steps to repair the breach with the Intelligence Community. It is IC's turn to come around, and they can begin by telling McCain & Graham, "False Alarm!" "There's no 'There' there!" RobS (March 14, 2017)

The issuance of authority to CIA for drone strikes without the checkback provisions Obama had is a Win-Win for Trump and the CIA. It gives the CIA authority to do drone strikes on leadership of militias loyal to the Syrian regime while at the same time giving Trump deniability he ordered strikes against Putin and Assad allies.

This is presumably payback for Russian intervention in Syria. In late 2015, John Kerry arranged for Syrian peace talks with Assad and the Russians on one side, and the 'Syrian opposition' and US on the other. However the Russians whacked the 'Syrian opposition leader' the US groomed after talks were agreed on but before the US puppet could get to the table, leaving Assad & Putin in full control and making Kerry & Obama look like the idiots they are. RobS (March 14, 2017)

VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 16:39, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Ok, thanks for digging it out. It took me a minute to regain context and I just noticed this thread her right now. Sorry for the delay. The question is (referring to the present Ukrainian and Russia collusion schemes, I presume):
How did they think that an anti-Russian sentiment could be evoked from such a clumsy contrivance, when it was clear from the beginning that Obama did not like Russia? I originally thought they were carrying out Obama's sweet revenge, but then I actually believed the Russians were involved, because who would have the mental...inadequacy as to set themselves up for the kind of backlash that would inevitably follow?
"They" being IC conspirators presumably, and "clear from the beginning" only refers to "clear from the beginning of the anti-Trump deep state operation, c. mid 2015". Obama obviously was Putin's b*tch since at least August of 2008 (link available) and reiterated it to both Putin and Romney's face on live national television in 2012. So still don't quite understand the question.
Reference point: Statement from Senator Obama on Russia's Decision to Recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Independent States, Chicago, IL | August 26, 2008 (there have been efforts to scrub this statement from the internet). Candidate Obama, who just hired Joe Biden as his foreign policy expert, says:
  • The United States should call for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to condemn Russia's decision in coordination with our European allies.
Obama administration Russian foreign policy experts, 2014. Written on the wall: “Ukraine for Ukrainians.”
Candidate Obama announced to Vladimir Putin and the world:
(A) Dear Vladimir, Please occupy Abkazia and Georgia. Be my guest.
(B) I went to school for International Relations, but don't know a thing about it.
(C) I trust that American voters are too stupid to know Russia has a veto in the UN Security Council and my statement is meaningless.
(D) Also my dear Vladimir, I do not understand a thing about Putin or Russian designs, and neither does anyone on my staff of advisors.
To pretend 5 years later President Obama suddenly awoke to "the Russian threat" after inviting them to occupy Abkhazia, or his staff of experts and advisers are knowledgeable, or even concerned, about Russian activities in Syria or Crimea is a joke and farce.
The DNC, through Alexandra Chalupa, and the Obama administration and Clinton campaigns, got in bed with Banderists, i.e. xenophobic Russophobic Ukrainians, and turned over U.S. Russia and NATO foreign policy expertise and relations to Banderists, through Crowdstrike and the Atlantic Council, because of the Obama administration, DNC, and Clinton campaign's own lack of expertise and understanding. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:46, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

A favorite lie (corrected Oct. 15)

Sen. Warren and some of the other Democratic candidates appeared at a homosexual/transexual candidate forum in Iowa, where they met a single question about what government goodies they and their cohorts could expect to receive with them as President.

When it came to be Warren's turn, she read a list of names:

The auditorium fell silent as the litany of names continued. “… Bee Love Slater, Ja’Leyah-Jamar: Eighteen trans women of color who have been killed so far this year,” she said. “It is time for a president of the United States of America to say their names.”

Journalist Andy Ngo debunked this claim of the number of men trying to act like women targetted for violence, with hate as a motive, months ago by means of taking a strange course of action for a journalist of today—he investigated the claims of the purported targets and reported what he found.

[Of the 26 transsexuals murdered in 2018, including white people, male or female, h]e found at least [2] of them were actually targets of domestic violence, [5 involved in prostitution] with spouses or clients who presumably already knew they were born men, and therefore couldn't simultaneously be very tolerant of the practice of alternate gendering and also engaged in attacking them with a motivation of hatred for the practice.

[1 was involved in criminal activity, and at least 8 others were also not believed by police to be involved in bias crimes.]

It's not as if Andy Ngo is not a public figure; he has a large Twitter presence, appears on national news shows and recently gained notoriety by being violently assaulted by Antifa members causing him neurological injuries.

To Warren, all Trump has to do is say their names one! last! time!, or it proves he's afraid! The plan's already been set, and everyone's busy, so we can't change the number of people purportedly targeted by hate based on this new information, nor pass around some kind of update on the numbers.

But we promise we won't use any recital of Trump's to write news stories with us claiming he's been inattentive to their plight (all [ten or less] of them in a nation of 320,000,000) and has suddenly demonstrated it by the lengthiness of the recital made with his very own words, and because of this surprising and unexpected angle that no one thought of, insist Trump will need to say one! last! time! he supports even more draconian federal hate-crimes legislation. It would be easy for Trump to do. So if he doesn't do it, it proves he's afraid!

Meanwhile persons dying of heart disease per year number in the 700,000 range.

So why don't the Democrats provide every American with counseling about the dangers of and remedies for heart disease instead? Answer: Because who would believe them? They have abused their power to affect the government so often and to such an extent that they've lost all credibility to persuade about nearly everything. Not to mention even the smaller journalists whose reputations are unwillingly caught up in their colleagues' abuse and lowered standards who actually seek the truth rather than shun it. It's too late for them. Journalistically speaking, the Democrats have poisoned the well!

[I regret the enumeration errors I made working from memory. Andy Ngo adds: "Trans homocides are underrepresented compared to non-trans groups."]

VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 15:58, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

Did you miss the big story coming out of the conference? Biden wants men to be able to choose to go to women's prisons. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:04, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
It's all just a blur of bad ideas that even doctrinaire egalitarian Chinese communists have enough common sense to avoid. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 21:10, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
Gotta love it. A year from now when Democrats try walking all this back, pretending to be moderates, saying "We didn't really mean it." The more insanity we can make a record of now, the more they have to walkbalk later.RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:59, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
Dissuade you from your own chosen strategy of marshalling the relevant facts into informed, comprehensive accounts of American (if not worldwide) political professions and undertakings of today in hopes of fostering the growth of its remaining political sanity for tomorrow? I'd sooner attempt to shave a lion. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 00:20, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
More than half, a majority, or 57.7% to be precise of trangender murders are non-hate crimes. It's not like we didn't know (or surmise) this. It might be a surprise to the liberal left/communist MSM crack heads, though. I'm sure it'll be covered up or explained away. The pressure of transgender discrimination among straights causes their alleged spouses to beat them, I suppose. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:42, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

Why are Conservative Girls So Attractive and Liberal Girls So Ugly?

Have you ever seen Scandinavian women? Very beautiful and very liberal.--Chewy Suarez (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Really? Why do the religious Filipinas dominate the world's beauty contests? See: Religious Philippines winning streak in the major international beauty pageants
"Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize?" - The Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:24.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
So you do not find blond haired blue eyed women attractive?--Chewy Suarez (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
By the way, the English anthropologist Edward Dutton indicates that using right-wing politics as a proxy for religiosity, there is evidence that atheists are less attractive and he pointed out that right-wing politicians are more likely to have symmetrical faces according to a study.[3]
There you have it. Both science and the world's beauty contests point to conservative, religious girls being far more pretty - especially with their long, flowing locks of luscious hair! "But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering." - The Apostle Paul.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Blond, blued eyed? We all know Swedish, angry, feminists die their short, butch, hair blue! [4]Wikignome72 (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Take a look at this gallery [5] Do you find them attractive?--Chewy Suarez (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Science and the world's beauty contests trumps your anecdotal "evidence". Conservative, religious girls are prettier - on the inside and the outside!Wikignome72 (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

What science? Do you have a link of reference to a respected scientific article that can confirm this?--Chewy Suarez (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

By the way, slim, Indian, girls are far prettier than secular, European cows![6] See: Secular Europe and obesity.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Notice how slim the Christian, Filipina/Indian girls are compared to their rivals - namely, the secular, European cows:World obesity prevalence among females.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Once again, the conservative, religious girls win hands down.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Obesity set to balloon across Sweden by 2030. Is there anything more fragile than beauty among women in a liberal nation? Eggs or vases perhaps? No doubt the liberal, Swedish lesbians will contribute to growing obesity problem in Sweden. See: Lesbianism and obesity.Wikignome72 (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Most young people in Sweden are eating too little fruit and veg and too much meat, candy, and soda, according to a new study.. Last time I checked, most beauty contests involve young women.
Is this one of the reasons why Filipinas are triumphing over Nordic ladies in the world's beauty contests?Wikignome72 (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Irreligious mutants will never be prettier or more handsome than the religious who will inherit the earth! See: Atheists and genetic mutations and Desecularization.Wikignome72 (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Look, guys, I can't speak for whether Filipino women or Nordic women are more beautiful, since ultimately, it's down to personal taste. I will make this much clear, however: Being religious doesn't necessarily mean one is beautiful. Look at Mother Teresa. She was very deeply religious, yet last I checked, she would never win a beauty contest. Also, considering several beauty contests right now are little more than left-wing talking platforms right now, I really wouldn't use them as a basis (and for goodness sakes, did you just imply that being vegetarian allows for being beauty. Last I checked, vegetarianism isn't really a hallmark of conservativism, especially when we've got far too many liberals who adhere to that line of thinking. Also, I thought we created Conservapedia to get rid of the leftist bias that was prevalent on Wikipedia, so using Wikipedia as a source isn't good.). Also, we don't know if those Swedish people in those photo galleries are even liberal. For all we know, they could just as easily be closet conservatives. We can't use the photo galleries, or for that matter, beauty contests, as an actual objective measure on beauty and politics (otherwise, we'd have to cite Miss Spain and Miss Polonia as examples of liberal women being more beautiful than conservative women just because leftist women won those contests, one of whom is a practicing lesbian). Sorry, I just get very annoyed by this kind of talk. I do agree on one thing, though: Ultimately, Christianity WILL dominate the Earth, with God as ruler. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the founder of American Atheists.

As you can see above, she was far less pretty than Sarah, the wife of Abraham.

Abraham is often called the "father of faith".

The book of Romans say about Abraham: "That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." - Romans 4:16

Wikipedia, a website founded by an atheist and agnostic, says about Abraham's wife Sarah: "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all depict her character similarly, as that of a pious woman, renowned for her hospitality and beauty, the wife of Abraham, and the mother of Isaac."[7]Wikignome72 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Let's take a look what the fairer sex says about atheists since many ladies are often concerned about beauty and fashion and are therefore experts in this area: All atheists are ugly.
There you have it. An expert in beauty saying "all atheists are ugly".Wikignome72 (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Pokeria, you wrote: "Look, guys, I can't speak for whether Filipino women or Nordic women are more beautiful, since ultimately, it's down to personal taste."
Absolutely not! Since objective beauty exists and beauty is not merely subjective in nature (see: Argument from beauty).
God and the religious Filipinas who win the international beauty contests are all objectively better looking than Madalyn Murray O'Hair was.
"One thing I have asked from the LORD, that I shall seek: That I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, To behold the beauty of the LORD And to meditate in His temple." - Psalm 27:4Wikignome72 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
I never said anything about whether the Filipinos were prettier than O'Hair. Yes, the Filipinos were most certainly better looking, objectively speaking, than O'Hair. However, to be fair, even the Swedish women in that gallery that Chewy Suarez posted, most of them on at least the first page anyways, actually DID objectively look better than O'Hair, as well, so that really doesn't mean much. Besides, technically, Mother Teresa is objectively ugly on the outside, yet she's very pious and more likely than not beautiful on the inside. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Chewy is rather silent now.
Evidently, Chewy could not handle all the proof and evidence I rained down on him showing him that conservative, religious women are prettier than secular, leftist women!
"By sheer weight of fire, morale is lowered. Observation and movement hindered. Control disrupted. And weapons become less effective... These are the neutralizing effects of artillery."[8]Wikignome72 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
To be fair, we really don't know the political affiliation of those Swedish women in those galleries that Chewy posted. For all we know, they could have just as easily been conservative. After all, France is generally considered a very secular and leftist country (about as far left and secular as Sweden, as a matter of fact), yet even THAT has a conservative segment of the population (not to mention the May 1968 riots participations being exaggerated as I myself verified with a French family at my parish a couple years back). Pokeria1 (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

In 2011, only 2 of the 50 Miss USA contestants thought evolution should be taught in schools.[9] Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists or agnostics (see: Evolution).Wikignome72 (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

How about that other theory of evolution—the one that does not employ methodological naturalism? Are its defenders agnostics too? I have attempted, many many times, to teach the Cons people about the correct grammatical use of nonrestrictive clauses. I can't be bothered to look those lectures up; I'd suggest you ask the Cons people about them. Your writing style seems rather similar to that of the Cons people—including choice of topics, stylistic approach to those topics, utter insanity of positions (conservative girls are attractive and liberal girls ugly????), and intensity of editing. It's almost enough to make me think you are a sockpuppet. I can't be bothered to check your footnoting style. SamHB (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
True, but then again, Miss America went far left recently thanks to Gretchen Carlson (herself a former Miss America winner) demanding they emphasize philosophy. And besides, Miss Spain and Miss Polonia weren't exactly conservative either, the former being an open lesbian, and the latter basically describing as her ideal man a bunch of polish political leftists. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ was blocked. Apparently, he thought it was a sign of mental illness to talk about whether secular leftists were less physically attractive. That is rather ironic considering that both science and international beauty contests indicate that the religious are more beautiful that their mutant, secular leftist counterparts. This is yet another case of secular leftists hating science! Futhermore, atheism has been tied to mental illness (see: Atheism and mental illness).
Another irony is that Edward Dutton, who goes by the name the "jolly heretic", is the main proponent of the mututant/ugly atheist theory and he appears to be a fellow British atheist/evolutionist.[10]
Nuxated iron.jpg
The topic appears to get under the skin of some atheists and a NZ atheist even tried to convince me that he resembles James Dean. The topic also appears to be one of the more popular items I have written about and the atheists and physical attractiveness article gets about 25,000 page views a year. So in 10 years, the article will have obtained about 250,000 page views.
My all time favorite atheist is Edward Dutton. He is rather funny and entertaining. Eric Kaufmann is my favorite agnostic.Wikignome72 (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
Oh, I agree that atheists tend to be hideous (just look at Jean-Paul Sartre, for example). That said, Mother Teresa certainly wouldn't be the type to be able to win a beauty pageant even if she wanted to, and she's pious and devout to Christianity, so I really am not fond of saying all Christians are beautiful due to it being inaccurate (if all of them were physically beautiful, then what does that make Mother Teresa?). Pokeria1 (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

Conservative proven right

I thought I knew the health and beauty benefits of luxated iron on proud American women, and that was all there was to say. But look, it also produces "strong, sturdy men" here in America too! VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:21, 5 October 2019 (EDT)


Trump declares Mar-a-lago "sanctuary resort", seeks refuge

A beleaguered President Trump, tired of "impeachment nonsense" has moved his operations to Mar-a-lago, his resort in Florida this weekend.

"I'm seeking refuge here. If city councils can do it for illegals, why not me? They say nobody is above the law. But then they get a better coverage than I do—is that above? Nobody should be below the law, either," Trump said.

"People can still visit the resort—they just may have to watch their step for the transmission cables for the White House TV production set."

"I said that's it—the people in this country want us to do our jobs to Keep America Great!" referring to his updated slogan for the 2020 presidential race. "I just declared myself immune. And if they don't like it, they can clear out the sanctuary cities and states, first. Then we'll talk."

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi expressed surprise when she heard the news. "He's got us there. Wow. I didn't think... Even if we impeach him, we won't be able to remove him from office—he's in a sanctuary. I'm flummoxed."

Constitutional scholars have been poring over U.S. law, seeking an end to the standoff.

"Trump is right when he suggests he has more legal standing than an illegal immigrant to seek sanctuary," said one expert. "But hey, when was the last time the Constitution stopped the U.S. Government from doing anything?"

"Like every time they hold a press conference to launch a government program that expands the government's purview into yet another lighting fixture!" continued the cynical expert, who probably needed a vacation himself. "Funny how they're always in a rush acting like they're in the middle of something and don't have time to show that little "constitutionality" part of the law—constitutional scholars gotta eat too, you know!" VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 09:47, 6 October 2019 (EDT)

Too "on the nose"

No matter how much Dems and the MSM lie to you,

It is not illegal for a POTUS to request mutual legal assistance from another nation in an evidence based investigation

What is illegal is weaponizing allied IC services to spy on Americans then fabricating evidence. —John Cardillo

VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 19:46, 6 October 2019 (EDT)

This guff is getting zero traction beyond the base. Trump will be impeached. That much is certain now.
Whilst it's still anyone's guess what happens in the Senate, I think it's safe to say there are plenty of GOP senators who, absent electoral anxieties, would dearly love to pull the trigger.
How many True ConservativesTM can you lot come up with who'll stick with Trump no matter what? JohnZ (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
I would recommend a little less gloating. We all have a pretty good idea (well, at least you and I do) how this is going to turn out. I'm sure you've seen the signs in zoos, on the cages of dangerous animals: "Do not annoy, tease, or harass the animals", or words to that effect. The creatures you are taunting, while they can't maul you to death, have block powers and aren't afraid to use them. Gloating simply gets you a 3 day rest, which slows you down.
> How many True ConservativesTM can you lot come up with who'll stick with Trump no matter what?
Well, I can suggest the person who has made thousands of edits to the "Donald Trump Achievements" articles. Whether he's actually a conservative I can't tell, because I don't read those articles.
The nation is going through difficult times. But it will get better. SamHB (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
I think the Commander in Chief should just declare Martial Law and end this insurgency. RobSDe Plorabus Unum

JohnZ it is time for you to get out of leftist La La Land and come back to reality. Trump has a 90% approval rate among Republican voters. The Senate is not going to impeach Trump. Even Nancy Pelosi is afraid to bring it to a vote due to Trump winning in the districts of 31 Democratic congressmen back in 2016. The GOP will win back Congress if Pelosi goes forward with impeachment and she knows this.Wikignome72 (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

It's a shame to see the First Woman Speaker of the House end such a storied legacy so pathetically. What an inspiration for young women to follow! And we thought Biden was the only one losing his mind. Hey girls! This is what you should strive for! Promoting hate, division, and corruption, only to end in failure. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:40, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
Barr needs to appoint a Special Prosecutor to look into the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Obama administration's collusion with foreign governments and meddling in elections. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:59, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
Barr needs to practise his Nuremberg defence. It's obviously not his fault if Trump orders him to investigate thoroughly-debunked nonsense, and - if you squint really hard - not his place to question whether Trump's motives are corrupt. (Note also that Sessions refused to touch the DNC / Ukraine collusion guff with a bargepole).
I'll ask again: name the True ConservativeTM GOP senators who'll stick with Trump no matter what. Fabulous prizes to be won if you can get to 34! JohnZ (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
"The media seems to think that if it just says the magic words often enough, the problem goes away. We already know that Creepy Joe lied. We already know that his adulterous, crackhead son who banged his brother's widow was being paid ludicrous sums of money for doing nothing by the Ukrainians.
The word "debunked" clearly no longer means what it used to mean. But what level of truth can you reasonably expect from people who also claim that "man" means "woman", "cat" means "dog", and the number six means "purple"." - Vox DayWikignome72 (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
Can't see any GOP senators in there, like. Maybe you missed a bit in your copy/paste. JohnZ (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ, Thoroughly debunked nonsense? Like what?
  1. That Mifsud was a KGB agent working for Putin?
  2. That John Brennan told James Comey that Papadopoulos was having contact with Joseph Mifsud, a KGB agent so the FBI could start a counterintelligence investigation?
  3. That Russian's hacked the DNC?
John, gimme a cite where all this nonsense was debunked? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:02, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
Try this for starters. Trump would do well to (but almost certainly won't) heed his former Homeland Security Advisor.
Still waiting on those GOP senators. JohnZ (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
HAHAHA! NBC News see Shawn Henry (coming soon). And Atlantic Council for CrowdStrike. Why was the founder of CrowdStrike tweeting Fancy Bear (a Ukrainian hacker group that hacked the DNC)? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:38, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ is right. We need to answer his question which presupposes arguments whose refutation he entirely ignored one! last! time!, or it proves that we're afraid! Check the British odds-makers about the odds of Trump being removed. The odds are exactly the same since one week ago. JohnZ is just here (in a section that I originated) to make noise and try to move the needle—which he clownishly failed to do. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 16:52, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

An example how to use Sorcha Faal

Today's Sorcha Faal entry is a good example how to use the website.

The January 11, 2017 Politico article, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire, which exposed the Ukrainian collusion scandal, presently remains at the top of Google results, providing a factual counter-narrative to the impeachment inquiry. (IOWs, a nearly four year old article is drowning out the impeachment spin). The article became obscured by Trump-Russia and the Mueller probe.

Sorcha Faal provides context, and this underlying link: Biden to meet with Poroshenko in Ukraine on Jan. 15, dated the next day, January 12, 2017. Factual evidence investigators can use to demand the substance of those discussions between Biden and Poroshenko after the Politico leak.

The Gatewaypundit article, citing the same January 12 Kiev Post article, provides no evidence for the claims made in the headline. Context is more important than sensationalism. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:37, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

United States fiscal year 2019 ended

On September 30, 2019 the United States fiscal year 2019 ended. About that time, the advance GDP (gross domestic product) and national debt figures were released:

For FY 2019 beginning October 1, 2018 and ending September 30, 2019, the United States production that was consumed this fiscal year (called gross domestic product or GDP) increased by about $858 billion, adding up to a total of about $21.2 trillion GDP for the year. On the other hand the national debt increased by about $1,203 billion.

The new $1,203 billion debt divided by the total GDP (GDP also being what is the United States' yearly income, in a way) for this year (the total GDP including the $858 billion increase) is about 5.7% (called the new debt per GDP ratio).

But comparing the new debt to total GDP doesn't show the most important effects of the United States governments' total debt. As far as measuring debt increases goes: firstly, the new debt per GDP ratio is like comparing the price of the car you bought to your total household income for the year—if you already owe a lot of money, your new debt proportion will still change more than someone who doesn't have a lot of debt, so it won't show your ability to borrow more, and secondly, nor will it show comparisons well to changes in new income.

Comparing GDP total to total national debt includes those important effects every year it is applied, so taking increases after this ratio is applied, one year upon the other, one can get a more accurate picture of the change in debt burden.

Recent ratios of totals of U.S. federal debt to totals of GDP and trade deficits, trillions
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
China trade
Defic. (prelim.)
-$0.27 $-0.24 -0.26 -0.29 -0.31 -0.32 -0.34 -0.36 -0.35 $-0.37 -0.41
Business
debt
$10.55 $10.30 10.05 10.20 10.65 11.15 11.80 12.60 13.30 $14.15 15.10
Household
debt
$14.15 $14.00 13.80 13.65 13.60 13.70 13.90 14.10 14.50 $15.00 15.50
incr. or decr. GDP 0.45 $-0.30 0.40 0.55 0.65 0.55 0.75 0.75 0.45 $0.75 1.05 0.85
Total GDP $14.75 $14.45 14.85 15.40 16.05 16.60 17.35 18.10 18.55 $19.30 20.35 21.20
Intra-gov. $4.25 $4.40 $4.60 $4.65 $4.85 $4.80 $5.10 $5.10 $5.40 $5.55 $5.85 $6.00
public-held $5.85 $7.50 $9.00 $10.05 $11.30 $11.95 $12.80 $13.05 $14.15 $14.65 $15.75 $16.80
total public debt,
trillions
$10.00 $11.90 13.55 14.80 16.05 16.75 17.80 18.15 19.55 $20.25 21.50 22.70
Fed. debt
to GDP ratio
68.0% 82.5% 91.4% 96.0% 100.1% 100.8% 102.8% 100.3% 105.5% 105.0% 105.8% 107.2%
Bus. ratio 71.4% 71.2% 67.7% 66.3% 66.4% 67.0% 68.0% 69.5% 71.7% 73.4% 74.1%
Hous. ratio 95.9% 96.8% 92.9% 88.5% 84.7% 82.5% 80.2% 78.0% 78.1% 77.7% 76.1%

VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 04:51, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

Thank you. Now give us figures for exported wealth to
  • China;
  • the EU (Germany specifically)
  • Mexico
i.e. Trade Deficit figures to give the National debt some context.
Quick observations: the doubling of "total debt" between 2009 and 2017, from $10.05 to $20.25 is basically Obamacare; (Sure, some might say "No, that included Stimulus and the TARP program." While that was true from 2009-2010, it was a one-time cost, whereas Obamacare is a continuing obligation ad infinitum).
Overall, the picture looks healthy. While GDP (the ability to produce) has increased more than one-third from $14.5 to $19.3, the debt to GDP ratio has increased less than one-quarter (82.5% to 105% = about 22%). And "total debt" is now being offset by "income" from tariffs (similar to "retained earnings" in a corporation).
IOWs, our ability to produce (thanks to Trump's deregulation) is growing faster than our debt burden. And the debt burden is being offset by (a) Chinese tariffs, and (b) rescinding the communist/socialist slave burden of the Obama employer and employee mandates which were a drag on the economy, producing poverty, misery and unemployment. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:39, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
Soooo....let's give it some MAGAnomic context:
  • GDP increased by about $858 billion;
  • China trade deficit $568 billion;
  • Net retained earnings after subtracting US wealth exported to China, $858 - 568 = $290 billion (still have to factor in US wealth exported to Mexico and the EU from this $290 billion figure).
  • No wonder multinational globalists invested in "emerging markets" hate Trump.
  • By reducing the export of American wealth, smelly Walmart shoppers no longer have to cling to guns, God, and gays, opioids, suicide, and unemployment. Yes We Can! Hope Renewed! Hope Restored! RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:37, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
I'd take a second look.
The debt to GDP ratio is the result of dividing two real-world observations, not a data point itself.
If the debt to GDP ratio is increasing from one year to another, it means debt is growing faster than GDP. If the debt to GDP ratio is decreasing from one year to another, in means GDP is growing faster than the debt.
It also shows our ability to pay it back, where 100% = 1 year, 200% = 2 years.
And finally the new incomes you explained show up better with the total debt/total GDP ratio because it allows both types of observations to determine the ratio, while the yearly changes of the new debt/GDP ratio is almost entirely determined by the new debt dividend rather than that dividend being able to share the determination with the total GDP divisor. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 14:59, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
The debt ratio is the result of two factors: (1) private transactions that will be repaid; and (2) government entitlement spending which represents personal consumption expenditures - unfunded government debt rolled forward on future generations. It has to be broken down between public and private debt. In itself the figure can be deceptive and mean nothing misleading.
Related to this discussion, I'd encourage Europeans to watch this George Friedman video in its entirety, all 41 minutes, to understand America. It's timely, from December 2018. Few have been able to explain America and the American system as it exists today as George Friedman does. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:19, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
Lol. What did you think you were looking at when you saw the debt figures? Sure, I'll break it down by public and private. Then you can breathe on it, and it will educate all of us. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:51, 8 October 2019 (EDT). Okay, you corrected yourself somewhat. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 16:07, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
Good! Thanks. Remember, 2018-2019 represents a transitional period from (a) the termination of Obamacare as longterm contributor to the debt ratio; (b) income from tariffs which are only temporary until a larger scale redeployment of capital and resources elsewhere, including some returning to the United States. No conclusions can be drawn from a transitionary phase, only observations about the direction of change. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:03, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

The point I'm making is, that's why so many people, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservative, often get their panties in a bunch over the federal deficit (public debt), because of the impact on the the debt to GDP ratio (which affects interest rates, or the ability of the private sector grow and produce).

In macroeconomic theory, Socialists have a habit of discounting the importance of private debt, because they do not recognize private property rights, and look at the debt to GDP ratio as some overriding "data point", to use your term. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:16, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

I guess there's two kinds of trolls: The dumb kind that says Trump's deficits are "up" when the ratio's barely moved and the slightly less dumb kind, Democrats who pose as "budget experts" and use that data to throw off budget scoring when talking to the public, except reluctantly when they are under oath. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 17:06, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
While we can draw conclusions now of the impact of Obamacare (which is somewhat defunct) on the debt to GDP ratio, we can't draw conclusion in a transitionary phase away from widening trade deficits.
By analogy, look at Reagan's defense spending (public debt) with only marginal cuts in entitlements; it increased the debt to GDP ratio and interest rates, but still didn't limit GDP growth, as Obamacare did. MAGAnomics is all focused on private sector growth with no demands on increasing public debt (unlike Reagan and Obama).
All the personal income gains in workers paychecks are coming directly from reductions in the trade deficit with China (that, and continuing GDP growth). Only rising interest rates are a threat, but as the period from 1982 - onward shows, the U.S. can have guns and butter, too. And Trump is not proposing massive increases in the defense budget to keep the commies at bay, or increases in permanent social entitlement spending like Obamacare. He wants to keep U.S. GDP gains at home in the U.S., rather than exporting U.S. wealth to China, Mexico, and NATO countries. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:06, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
Greta Thunberg seems to be the only one who would rather have us all die of starvation and disease by limiting economic growth, rather than wait for the climate apocalypse and fry from rising temperatures, choke on methane, or drown from rising oceans. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:31, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
Now, alternatively something like this may happen: raise the interest rate on the purchase of new gas powered vehicles to say, 25% or more (kinda like "targeted sanctions" on foreign leaders rather than full scale war between nations back in the day). The impact on auto manufacturing, fossil fuel, steel industries, jobs, and state budgets might be devastating. But it could save the planet for climate refugees coming to Europe and America. The service sector will only lose 1.5 to 2.5 jobs for every manufacturing job lost in the developed world, but climate refugees will be made to feel right at home. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:40, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
Doubts about climate refugees: the increased carbon dioxide in our air has caused plants to grow all over the world. Something like 16% growth. I've heard that the present carbon dioxide levels are the highest in modern time. But maybe those plants were hungry for carbon dioxide, and the various plant species are used to having higher levels of it. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 15:29, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
So is there any relationship between the increase in plant life which feed on carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, and the increase in human populations who need oxygen to survive? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:24, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
That's a very good question: in what fraction of the air does oxygen subsist at its optimal level for human life? VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 20:00, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

Public v. private debt

Cursory analysis: So we see private debt holding steady at $5 trillion since Obamacare took effect (2013), then begins to increase to $6 trillion after 2017.

From 2008 until 2019, private debt increased from $4 trillion to $6 trillion, (it shrank somewhat in 2010 and 2013 due to Stimulus, Tarp, and Obamacare - the "crowding out" effect); meanwhile public debt has tripled from $5 trillion to over $15 trillion (Obamacare, retiring babyboomers, etc.)

Here's the flaw in Marxist use of aggregate statistics and misunderstanding of macroeconomic theory: not all debt is evil.

Private debt drives the economy, be it business lending or consumer spending. Public debt represents a total consumption of resources. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:08, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

Wait a minute. Are you talking about private debt or household debt, like what the Federal Reserve measures? The Treasury Department calls "private debt" intra-governmental. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 13:40, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
I'd need a link to understand that.
The chart show in 2008, public debt was 50% of all debt; in 2019 it is 75%. We are coming up against the "crowding out" effect, private borrowers "crowded out" of the market due to high interests rates. They can't outbid the government.
Even the Communist Chinese understand this: "Guo jin, min tui"
Private debt, which is homes, cars, consumer goods, business lending, business expansion, business operations and payrolls etc., creates jobs in both the retail and manufacturing sectors. Public debt is Social Security checks spent on government subsidized food products, government subsidized housing, dope, casinos, etc., and does little to create new jobs and new wealth in either manufacturing or the service sector. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:18, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
There must be two meanings of the word "private" (see titles), because the U.S. Treasury uses it to mean the securities (bonds), held intergovernmentally, that it issues between Departments to run the government.
Strangely, that shouldn't be too unexpected as in the U.K. they call "public schools" what Americans mean by "private schools". VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 14:43, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
Okay, no one calls intergovernmental debt private except me. I meant it as privately-held by the U.S. government, like the opposite of publicly held. So what do you want me to do with the breakdown of the two? And then I'll do household and business (?) debt. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 15:01, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
Well, the first to understand is that private debt fuels economic growth, and public debt consumes economic growth. To the extent that public debt consumes all total debt is the figure that you need to keep an eye on.
Programs such as Obamacare, Medicare for All, and Social Security are permanent spending programs, meaning the government pledges to spend on them whether or not the private sector is producing at all. Additionally, there is no way to forecast today, accurately at least, demographic trends 10, 20 30, 50 years out, such as population booms or busts, wars, mass death from epidemics and what age group it might affect, the median level or quality of education, the impact of mass immigration or emigration, life expectancy, the ratio of manufacturing to service sector jobs, etc.. These programs are all funded by debt, with the assumption that today's demographics, and younger voters being too stupid to understand, are constants.
But in examining these figures you see that a little private sector debt goes a long way. It is the private sector debt that fuels the economy, that makes possible these high-minded vote buying schemes whose cost is ultimately put on future, yet unborn, voters. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:36, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

We may have been working with the wrong figures

Ok, we may have been working with the wrong figures. But let's not scratch the basic theories outlined, yet.
Intragovernmental borrowing is one governmental agency working with another. The General Services Administration, or Government Printing Office, for example, provide fleet vehicles and printing services for all agencies and departments. Everybody has to account for spending, so when the FBI gets a car from the GSA, it doesn't rent it for cash; its accounted for as intergovernmental borrowing. State governments also have reserve funds invested in U.S. Treasury bonds and bills, etc.
The National Debt figures presented here I assume is the total amount of Treasury bonds and bills issued every year (it kinda doesn't matter if private holders, foreign holders, or government agencies holding these debt notes for this discussion). What these figures do not represent, evidently, is private business and consumer debt, and foreign debt (i.e. trade balance).
So we are somewhat straying into Monetary theory, the impact of public debt (the issuance of T-bills and bonds) on private sector borrowing and interest rates. Guo jin, min tui, when public borrowing saps up all funds available for lending (i.e. the national savings rate) it strangles the private sector with high interest rates and the country goes into recession. Under Keynesian theory, which was applied in the TARP program, you simply enlarge the aggregate base and issue more T-bills and bonds. The Fed then buys theses treasury notes. In the past, the Fed bought them with Federal Reserve Notes and pumped currency onto the streets through the banking network; in the TARP program, the FED bought junk mortgages and pumped T-bills and bonds into the banking network, which all ended up in the stock market on Wall Street. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:46, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
<As an aside, let me tell a funny story: In my town, the Fed and FDIC took possession of building under construction with condos selling for $169,000 a piece that caused a bank in Kansas City to fail. The homeless moved in and striped it all of its copper wire and imported Italian crystal. After two years, the mayor threatened to declare the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as slum landlords and seize the property under its nuisance abatement ordinance. All this, I suppose, moved the building into the category of "intra-governmental borrowing" and off the list as a private sector mortgage.> RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:01, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

Question: By Household, is that total accumulated debt of just debt added to Household debt that year? Everybody holds a mortgage, but not everybody buys a new mortgage every year. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:18, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

It's labelled "debt outstanding". And I think your commentary deserves a second look if not many [for its positive qualities]. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 19:21, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
Well thank you. I still get tangled up when discussing monetary theory and the TARP program; there's much detail there I still don't quite understand. The drastic expansion of the money supply did not resolve itself into cash in people's pockets, which is how the theory has worked since 1935 when Keynes first wrote his General Theory. But the 2009 bailout has buoyed the stock market for 10 years now.
In the global economy the old rules don't apply. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:12, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

New discussion

Ok, let's clarify: All these figures are in Trillions. For example, GDP would represented as 21.2 and year-over-year growth would be .858; the Chinese trade deficit would be .568. Correct?

For space sake we'll have to use this notation. But ordinarily we'd put the decimal point between billions and hundreds of millions. Aggregate GDP growth be 858, and total GDP would 21,200. So a heads up to readers and followers when you have re-translate this all back to what you read from other sources.

These figures I call "hard aggregates" or "strong aggregates". Business and Household debt numbers are basically, for the most part, mortgages or long term debt. However the information we're most interested are the growth rates - year over year changes. The chart shows Household debt in recession from 2008 to 2016.

Let's not make this a political argument - I'll say it one time, The mortgage crisis caused a recession, and Obamacare hindered recovery. Politicians were smart enough not to put the cost of recovery on businesses, cause that would destroy the whole economy's ability to recover. But they did put the cost on households.

And let's dispose of one other question: Some people will say, Isn't a reduction in Household debt a good thing? Without getting into a discussion on morals, in today's consumer society, that TV and car you want, that prosperity you pursue, is funded by debt. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 07:15, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

The trade deficits haven't arrived yet. I provided the private debt in households and businesses, like you suggested, and kept the split of federal debt between held by public and intergovernmental holdings. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 09:10, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Good. Good. So the overall national recession is defined by a contraction in GDP in 2008-2009 ($14.75 $14.45); in Keynesian theory, public borrowing is required for Stimulus, reflected in chart. The Business cycle contraction, or recession, lasted lasted from 2010-2012 ($10.55 $10.30 10.05 10.20); the consumer or household recession lasted from 2008-2016 ($14.15 $14.00 13.80 13.65 13.60 13.70 13.90 14.10 14.50).
You can see trickle down theory at work from the expansion of public debt from 2008-2011 ($5.80 $7.55 9.00 10.15) where it nearly doubled, with nary on impact on business expansion ("bailouts"), keeping it stable, but an eventual trickle down to households, which bore the brunt of both the recession and the Stimulus. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:39, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

Trade deficit in relation to GDP growth

Would it be possible to lay trade deficit beside year-to-year aggregate totals of GDP growth (for example +.858 -.410)? That's the heart and sole of MAGAnomics. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:25, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

To illustrate my point: In the recession year of 2009, GDP declined $300 billion ($14.75 - 14.45 = .300); net outflow of U.S. produced wealth to China alone that same year was $240 billion, which you could add to the loss of American wealth. Stimulus borrowing increased $1.75 trillion ($5.80 to $7.55). IOWs, .24 of 1.75 went directly to China, leaving only $1.51 of the congressional mandated increase in public debt inside the United States to stimulate the economy (unadjusted for payouts to other countries).

(These two combined - the loss of GDP and China trade deficit, represent $540 billion in goods and services either not produced or exported directly to China, and morethan a third of the Stimulus).

The China trade deficit nearly equaled the loss of GDP. The total trade deficit surpassed it. Not only did Americans lose productivity in 2009 and immediately afterwards, the rest of the planet was sucking us dry while Obamacare hindered household recovery. Our own Congress did this to us. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:20, 13 October 2019 (EDT)

IOWs, the size of Stimulus package is determined by two factors: (1) to keep business expansion at least stable and from contracting, and (2) enough to cover the current account foreign trade deficit. The trade deficit was essentially transferred from consumers to the National Debt, and the cost of salvaging businesses from collapsing further also put on households. Both costs were stretched out over many years.

So, some might say (like Trump), Why do we need a Stimulus and further expansion of the National Debt, when the stimulus money can be gained by eliminating the trade deficit? Instead, Congress chose to further stimulate the Chinese economy (and aid Chinese defense spending) by expanding the National Debt and put the cost on U.S. Households. As Trump said, "Our leaders are stupid." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:10, 13 October 2019 (EDT)

You mean Porkulus; and (3) the amount of pork Democrats could get away with ladling out to their large contributors and crony capitalists (see Solyndra) through agents of gatekeeper gangster government. I'm not done seriously thinking about this; I just couldn't resist. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 15:15, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
I hope we've clarified the meaning of Rahm Emanuel's immortal words, You never want a crisis to go to waste. Totalitarian fascist Democrats couldn't pass up the opportunity to enslave middle class households. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:30, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
Did you see Rand Paul yesterday say, "We're borrowing money from China to defend the Kurds"? That is the same macroeconomic observation that portions of the 2009 Stimulus went to stimulate the Chinese economy and fund the Chinese military, while only floating U.S. business expansion and dumping the cost on U.S. Households. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:31, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

Syrian withdrawal

Let's be frank, time for some serious talking points. Trump just did to the Kurds what Ford did to the South Vietnamese, Carter to the Iranian people, and Obama did to the Iraqis, leaving a former American ally to subjugation, enslavement, and death. The analogy is Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon in February 1984 (which strengthened the Assad regime and Iranian mullahs), or Obama's withdrawal from Iraq in December 2011, to take the issue off the table for the 2020 election and present the withdrawal as an achievement. Of course, we all know another ISIS regime, Cambodian holocaust, or Iranian mullahs will arise in the power vacuum. The idea is kicking the can down the road til after the November 2020 elections which can be done with cruise missiles on an interim basis. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:47, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

I'm 100% onboard with abandoning the Kurds. I stopped supporting them after I learned late last year that they are so desperate for independence, that they are willing to allow the Gulf States to deploy troops onto their territory as part of the larger neocon effort at regime change in Turkey. If these guys had any understanding of geopolitics, they would know that this latest neocon "adventure" could very well start World War III. The Kurds may have been our allies against ISIS, but they are not worth starting a world war over.
That being said, if Turkey does invade Syria, such an act would be a grievous act of aggression, that could and hopefully would prompt a Russo-Iranian military response. I personally find the current Turkish regime to be so rotten that a Russo-Iranian puppet regime would be preferable to the status quo. Meanwhile, let's dissolve NATO, so the US and Europe have no legal obligation to protect Turkey in the event of war with Russia and Iran. If Erdogan wants to start a war, let him start a war he can't possibly win. --Geopolitician (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
What about the recent Turkish purchase of Russian equipment? And the larger issues seems to be, NATO is only a facade kept alive to bamboozle the American people, feed the military industrial complex, and promote anti-Trump hate. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:15, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
I would not blame Vietnam on Ford. After the peace treaty was signed in January 1973, Nixon gave a speech in which he warned the Communists that he would resume bombing if the treaty was violated. This proposal was hugely unpopular and no one thought Nixon had the political capital to go ahead with it. At the time, the joint chiefs were sure that South Vietnam could not survive without American bombers. Congress reduced aid to South Vietnam just before Ford became president in August 1974. If Nixon couldn't credibly threaten to bomb right after being reelected, what was unelected Ford supposed to do? Despite being abandoned by Washington, the South Vietnamese army held up on the battlefield until Phuoc Long in January 1975. PeterKa (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
The point: It doesn't matter if Gerald Ford or Adolf Hitler withdrew the troops after the Democrat congress cut off funds (in violation of the Peace Agreement that Nixon negotiated); a power vacuum ensued and more than 3 million people were either enslaved or exterminated. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:21, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

Call this, "Learning to think like a Democrat" --> Trump can expect some criticism from Armenian (and Kurdish) voters, but they're a tiny minority so, Who cares? Democrats will argue, "Republicans don't care at all about the Kurds. At least we pretended to care." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:31, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

Let's just hope Trump at least has a plan in place to ensure the Kurds retain their ability to defend themselves, like Nixon's piece-by-piece, one-by-one plan for the South Vietnamese during what was supposed to be our and South Vietnam's victory before the newly-elected Democrat congress supermajority broke that promise after Watergate, and even forced in that amendment preventing us from supplying arms to anyone outside the country even if they were on our side, because I'm not liking the bit about our essentially leaving them to die at the hands of the Turks. Heck, I'm still wary about our rushing out regardless even if we won, largely because we went out after Afghanistan drove the Soviets out, and they in turn "repaid" us by trying to do terror attacks (though to be fair, al Qaeda was never funded by us, as they received their own funding, but we could have at least done something to ensure the Taliban didn't backstab us like that). I'll still vote for him in the 2020 election, although only because he's pretty much our best shot at ending Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood for good, if not our only shot. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Well, you won't see helicopters taking off from the roof or re-education camps til after the November elections. Here's where a Putin-Trump pipeline is vital. Meantime, the U.S. and Russia (with Turkey's newly purchased Russian missile defense system) will have the opportunity to test out in real time under live combat conditions the effectiveness of Russian missile defense systems against U.S. cruise missiles.
The immediate political problem is firing a cruise missile at a NATO ally who just purchased a Russian missile defense system; here Putin plays a big role. He has to convince his new customer for Russian military hardware to find a proxy to attack the Kurds with, like Assad or Iranian militias. This forces Turkey to come to some sort of temporary arrangement with the Assad regime.
In the end, this further's Putin and Trump's (and Gen. Michael Flynn's) overall objective to keep Muslim's killing each other, rather than Christians and Jews.
One further observation: If the above scenario plays out, it's indicative of Trump also coming to terms in a temporary arrangement with his biggest enemies - the military industrial complex. They get their live fire real time combat exercise, requiring more research, development, upgrades, and funding afterwards, and Trump gets the political benefit of being the peace candidate who brought the boys home before the election. (We'll leave aside the re-deployment to Saudi Arabia for upgrades in its missile defense system after the oil refinery attack. Troops are not there for a direct combat role - although a attack on them could happen. They are there to provide upgrades to the Saudi missile defense system. Russia is pouring in their own experts now to gauge the effectiveness of their systems in Turkish hands for an attack from the U.S. which seems inevitable now). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:27, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
You're all complete [redacted] [redacted]. I hope ISIS finds you before anyone stops them. KaraYouNeedTherapy (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Where's your liberal compassion? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:20, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

What a joke

To hear communists, Democrats, and the MSM suddenly concerned about Syrian Christians. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:49, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

No kidding. For goodness sakes, communists have never felt concerned for the well being of any Christians, heck, ANY religious group for that matter, let alone Syrian Christians. It actually would be more in-character if they congratulated Trump in a gloating manner for dooming the Syrian Christians and doing their job for them, sort of like those anti-Ossoff ads where Californians were singing praises for Nancy Pelosi's policies, and by extension Jon Ossoff's policies. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2019 (EDT)


Iranian media implies that the Deep State was behind the Syrian withdrawal

Okay. I don't know if you're familiar with Press TV. It's an Iranian government-controlled news site that is often linked to by activists on both the extreme left and the extreme right. Anything that comes from that site should always be treated with suspicion, but a few days ago it made a wild claim that should be given some thought.

The claim is that the Trump betrayed the Kurds because he wants to create a situation which allows ISIS prisoners to escape and regroup. That way, ISIS can "come back from the dead" and start attacking Iranian-linked forces in Syria and Iraq.

If that claim is true (and I certainly hope it isn't), then Trump has given into the Deep State. He is apparently trying to bring back the Obama-era policy of inciting the Sunnis (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, ISIS) to attack the Shiites (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah) to satisfy Deep State interests in the region. Such a policy would require betraying the Kurds, so Turkey would invade Northern Syria and then be forced to make amends with Saudi Arabia as all hopes of an alliance with Iran go up in smoke.

However, if that happens to be the case (and again, I certainly hope it isn't), then the plan is backfiring. Saudi Arabia has condemned the invasion just like Iran has. If Saudi Arabia had any interest in reconciling with Turkey, it wouldn't have done so. Now, Turkey has become a pariah. Almost the entire region has turned against it. The only countries in the region that have not condemned it are the Palestinian territories (which has expressed neutrality) and Qatar (which supports the invasion).

But then again, another possibility (that the Press TV article does not explore) is that Trump expected a backlash of this scale to occur, and withdrew troops from northern Syria to set up a trap for Erdogan. In that case, Erdogan has taken the bait, and he's paying for it dearly. Now that would be a slimy but smart move.--Geopolitician (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2019 (EDT)

There are too many assumptions here. The first being that, the withdrawal is permanent. It can be re-imposed the day after election, 13 months from now. Experience being a guide, Turkey would wait til about August, when the American system is paralyzed due to its upcoming election, before beginning any wholesale slaughter. That forces candidates to take stances one way or the other, or forces the incumbent to take most likely an unpopular position of re-engaging troops. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:24, 21 October 2019 (EDT)

Take it to the chalkboard

This is by far the best and most buttoned up presentation about what the Bidens have done in Ukraine. Of course it goes way beyond that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuvfYE7ZdL0 Progressingamerica (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

I started watching it twice and fell asleep twice, but agree with it 100%. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:09, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

Whistle-blower's attorney worked previously as probable soft coup ringleader James Clapper's attorney

Not only that, but s/he worked for an unnamed 2020 U.S presidential candidate's campaign.

Not only that, but Intelligence Committee member, allegedly intelligent, Adam Schiff remarked that s/he was receiving death threats. But how is that possible if s/he is anonymous? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 01:45, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

We'll have the answer to that in 2 or 3 years when nobody cares and she's forgotten. This is how Washington works.RobSDe Plorabus Unum 06:43, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
When there is an eclipse of the sun, it can become so dark that the brightest stars can be seen at noon. Likewise, when Trump is eclipsed by the prospects of impeachment, his presence is darkened so much that the brightest stars can be seen. In Trump's situation, the brightest stars are the prominent details of the case which are the only lights that can guide us through the event. In such a case every prominent detail comes to the forefront and bears significance beyond what is the natural order, as the constellations play their role to inform, or misinform, the mind.
That doesn't mean it's Trump's fault, but it's like him having a broken arm.VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 08:40, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Nixon and Clinton were impeached in their second terms. Andrew Johnson (like Ford) was never elected and never ran for re-election after impeachment. I guess that's the strategy, impeach Trump and have him exonerated in the Senate, and force Trump to make history as the first impeached President to run for re-election. Even if he's re-elected, divisions in the country would continue in the second term.
Pelosi's thinking is the GOP impeachment created divisions in 1998, but the Republicans rebounded in 2000 by taking control of "all three branches" of government, House Senate, and White House. Alternatively, the 1998 midterms went against history when the out of power party lost seats in the House, and anger toward Democrats could linger beyond a Trump second term.
If Trump's exonerated in the Senate, then Democrats (like Joy Behar) can complain about how the Senate is "gerrymandered" as an issue in 2020. The smart thing to his delay the vote till after the 2020 conventions, and make a trial in the Senate an issue for a lame duck Congress (like in 1998-99). So again it all comes down to when the House votes.
Past precedent required 2 votes, one to open an inquiry and empower committees with subpoena power, and secondly to ratify Articles of Impeachment. The strategy thus far was to have only one vote - subpoena the administration with phoney subpoenas, and then write an Article based on obstructing the alleged "impeachment inquiry" for the full House vote. Trump called their bluff, but they still could go through with it. It's a PR game. Again, it comes down to when a vote will be held.
The FISA abuse report is scheduled out a week from Friday, and it will be twice as big as the Mueller report; this whole impeachment nonsense is intended to obscure the facts of Obama administration's, Nixon-style illegal opposition political spying, go on the offensive, and make the Durham, Barr, and Ukrainian investigations appear as politically motivated harassment of innocent, God-fearing, Patriotic Democrats. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:54, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Vargas, I have to tell you something. You were born [redacted], and your mother dropped you on your head. No wonder you're a flaming [redacted]. She was too ashamed to say it, so I am now. KaraYouNeedTherapy (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Sorry, I had to censor you liberal hate speech. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:21, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

Whisleblower is a Biden man

It turns out that the whisleblower worked closely with Biden when he was vice president.[11] If the complaint is an effort to advance Biden's campaign, that certainly makes it harder to justify granting anonymity or whistleblower status to the complainant. I had assumed whisleblower was a Warren supporter. It's hard to see how the complaint helps Biden. All the same, Biden is back on top today with his pre-whisleblower 28 percent restored in all it's glory, according to the RCP average. PeterKa (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2019 (EDT)

RCP polls are meaningless. Biden's in forth place in fundraising and trailing in early primary states. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:50, 11 October 2019 (EDT)
The national polls are taken a lot more often, so the can be used to gauge the effect specific news events. PeterKa (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2019 (EDT)
Some are weekly, some biweekly, some are monthly, some are random and sporadic. It's a flawed statistical method to derive a composite. It more resembles a moving average, although again none follow the same methodology. Many are not even national polls.
And the big difference is between a poll of "adults", and a poll of "registered voters". Rasmussen is the only company that polls registered voters 24/7/365/ over four years. A poll of registered voters is much more expensive and time consuming. Polls of Adults are unadjusted by participation rates in various states, let alone age and demographic groups. The big name polling companies only poll registered voters when they are commissioned to do so, which only occurs in primary season in limited states, or after September 2020 on a national level.
IMO, it's fraudulent to promote these polls as having any semblance of validity; when the polling company does not have a commission and is spending its own money to conduct a poll, it's simply a promotional gimmick to keep their name out front and advertise for a buyer to pay them to conduct a poll of qualified registered voters. Polls of adults include felons, illegals, and other unqualified voters. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:20, 13 October 2019 (EDT)

By the way...

The two whistle-blowers knew two members of Schiff's Congressional staff. Someone (maybe Trump) asked whether the reason they reported it twelve days later was that they needed to run it by Schiff, first. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 07:45, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

None dare call it conspiracy. 10:30, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

Jane Fonda arrested

Jane Fonda and a no-name left-wing spacy climate group she supported were arrested while making noise at our nation's capital.

The group of 20 were being a nuisance, and they were all shipped off to jail. Fonda has vacillated from communist agitation to inaction since the 1960s. VargasMilan via Drudge Report. Friday, October 11, 2019

Ok. Now somebody connect the dots how running up a rap sheet at the cop shop stops global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius? If there is any hope for humanity, there has got to be some logical reasoning or argument behind filling up jails with repeat misdemeanor offenders and stopping the oceans from rising. And please, PLEASE, don't say, "calling attention to (fill in the blank)".
First she fought for North Vietnam's right to pollute, now she wants to send them back to the Stone Age. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:15, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
Ann Coulter: Makes sense. She couldn't get arrested in Hollywood. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 09:16, 14 October 2019 (EDT)
Just deport her back to Hanoi. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:31, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

FISA abuse

  • Report expected out Friday October 18, 2019.
  • It appears the Mueller team abused the FISA database between May 17, 2017 and March 2018.
  • This explains the high turnover of Trump administration personal.
  • Will the Mueller team be held accountable for violations of law?
  • The DNC colluded with the government of Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump;
  • Ukrainian intelligence hackers (Fancy Bear), which the DNC hired, hacked the DNC. (In fact, they may have been given passwords by Alexandra Chalupa and Hillary Clinton research staffers who still held State Department security clearances).
  • Also, there was more than one hack, and some WikiLeaks info came from internal whistleblowers who knew of DNC/Ukrainian collusion and efforts to sabotage Bernie Sanders.
  • The Obama administration had been abusing the FISA database since June 2012, during Obama's re-election bid, to harass, intimidate, and destroy its political opponents.
  • The U.S. intelligence community interfered in the 2016 elections, in violation of the 1947 National Security Act.

RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:53, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

IG Report delayed; Anti-Trump riots scheduled for this weekend. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:10, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

Adjectives

Identical, same, similar, diverse, different, opposite. If liberals didn't uphold these adjectives in rigid forms against their enemies and leniently toward their friends, they'd have nothing. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 07:29, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

MPR misspell

Raucus for raucous. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 07:32, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

Easy to remember: raucus circus. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:02, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
No, don't remember that! It's wrong! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:09, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
Fixed mistake on MPR.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

Global warming article

I believe elite opinion on anthropogenic global warming goes beyond mere credulity and represents verbal abuse in the form of fraud.

And I believe that Jpatt's 2008 clumsy summary he placed in the article goes closer to that than we'd like to think. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 16:18, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

Please. This young woman did a better job than we did in cultivating chief defensive arguments against global warming fakery. And it's us that should be protecting her! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 18:58, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

They are not the elites. Trump is richer and outsmarted them. He's president and they are not.Wikignome72 (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2019 (EDT)
What about the United Nations, Wikignome? VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 21:16, 16 October 2019 (EDT)

Buttigieg now represents the Democrats center

Buttigieg role moving forward is to posture as centrist and mainstream, criticizing all the lunatic far left positions beginning with Medicare for All and gun seizure. Gay marriage is no longer far left but rather the centrist and mainstream position of the Democrat party. Warren has become the de facto establishment pick, albeit not willingly. Biden's refusal to bow out, and obstinacy at staying in, is hurting the party and their chances to win. Biden's reputation and legacy is tired to impeachment outcome, and the longer he stays in, the more damage to party he does.

Sanders, God bless him, owes his presence there on the stage to the fossil fuel industry that helped rush him to the hospital after his recent heart attack, and the pharmaceutical industry which is aiding his recovery.

So there you have it. The dysfunctional Democrat family. A gay married, cop hating friend of abortionists with 2,200 skeletons in the closet as the voice of reason and moderation, and a woman who reminds us why medical science used to practice hysterectomies as a fairly routine common procedure. So the two with parry back and forth for the next 6 or 7 months on the merits of socialism vs. communism, with son of Antonio Gramsci being the voice of moderation and capitalism (after his own long march through the institutions to get gay married). With the dominant far left gaining the upper hand over wisdom, moderation, and experience represented by Biden. If the debate remains civil, and Buttigieg can build a sizable following among centrist (the inverse of the 2016 Democrat primaries), Buttigieg could make his way onto the ticket. He afterall, represents the future.

That's the Democrat party as of this moment: a dysfunctional family led by a woman who is confused over who she is, and her Gay married son. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:21, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

New Trump obstruction talking points

Trump learned too late that "diversity" means diversity from starting with common sense American liberty, not through it.

  • Trump conveys indifference about value of strategically-chosen cultural Marxism trends we'd like to emphasize.
  • When a rough-edged communicator like him outsmarts us, like he does on Twitter, it makes us look bad.
  • If he's not hesitant to criticize us and praise others, he makes it look like we're not all indispensable.
  • Everybody's a fascist who's not an international socialist to the rank and file, but we can't tell if Trump rejects international socialism or is just someone who ought to know about it. Usually, when someone outsmarts us is the time we stop trying to find out.

Hey, wait a minute...what wiki is this? Why is there an American flag? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 09:26, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

Sad news

I read today with sadness that it seems our fellow Americans are becoming less and less religious by the day. It's a shame - just when we should praying more. --JanW (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

Funny how these surveys, even though they are long on analysis, never address the fact that many Christians don't like to call their personal relationship with Jesus Christ a "religion". Again, if liberals weren't able to equivocate upon the words identical, same, similar, diverse, different and opposite, they would have nothing. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 13:28, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
Ouch. Paging Dr. Ben Le Wire ... would Dr. Ben Le Wire please make his way to Talk:Main Page ... we need several thousand words on the inevitable triumph of conservative Christianity, stat! JohnZ (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
One of Conservapedia's editors, Pokeria, made that specific assertion as an aside, many days before the "Sad news" described in this section was written, in the course of an earlier conversation in which he took part. What would make you think he wouldn't be able defend that conclusion, other than a possession by you of a chronic case of lazy skepticism that is never directed towards itself nor the comfortable sufferer afflicted with it? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 14:57, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
I move in Christian circles daily, and don't know many at all who would describe themselves as 'religious'. "Religious' has been made like the N-word by the communist media, entertainment industry, and cultural Marxists.
If you ever want to see a prime example of hate-filled Communist propaganda by mainstream film makers, watch Red State. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:28, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
Fun fact: these surveys aren't asking if people describe themselves as "religious". They ask what their religion is, and their frequency of churchgoing. JohnZ (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
So? Many Christians (a) do not believe in religion, and (b) emphatically reject religion.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Tuff language, and to the point on Jesus' attitude toward religion. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:49, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
It's precisely for such occasions that lolwut? was invented. "Hi! I'm a Christian. I don't believe in religion!" I know you have an oft-rocky relationship with reality, but seriously... JohnZ (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
Tread carefully, JohnZ, you just got off a one-week block. Your ridicule of Christianity and Christians and of conservatism and conservatives (and your continued attacks on the other editors and admins here) with your posts, using less-than-credible sources to bolster your argument, doesn't make your case either. Northwest (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ, Why did the religious folks string Jesus up on tree? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 06:44, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
Look, I'm not fond of JohnZ by any stretch, especially when it's far too clear he's only hear to try and take down Conservapedia with his edits, but I do disagree with your notion that us Christians don't view Christianity as a religion or hate to be viewed as such. I'm Christian myself, Catholic more specifically, and I have admittedly... disturbing views of God, but even I realize Christianity as a whole (ie, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or even any of the Protestant religions) is a religion (we worship a deity, believe in supernatural powers, and an afterlife, that's a religion last I checked). Besides, you are aware that if Jesus truly had distaste for religion, he wouldn't have even formed Christianity in the first place, right? In fact, if anything, he would have made sure his own followers died like dogs, rather having that than having them inevitably turn out like the Pharisees. If anything, him having distaste for religion yet forming one himself (even telling Peter that the latter will "be the rock that will found my church") would make Jesus himself into an even bigger hypocrite than even the Pharisees. See the problem with what you're arguing? Pokeria1 (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
All my friends are bloodwashed born again Christians. We walk in the spirit. I can't think of a one who considers themselves religious or bound to a religion. We are married to Christ, not religion or a religion. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 07:50, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
Except the problem is Jesus would not have founded a church if he didn't want a religion. I know I wouldn't have in his shoes if I didn't want a religion, and if anything I would have just ensured my followers died/ascended into heaven with me without even a trace rather than make ANY attempt at establishing any church at all. That's the whole problem with that line of thinking. And it runs contrary to the Bible, specifically Matthew 16:18, where Jesus specifically says, and I quote, “You are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.” By building his church, he established his religion, it's that simple. And you really need to address that Matthew 16:18 verse to Born Again Christians and see how they respond to that, because I'm doubtful they'll be able to explain that inherent contradiction. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
Jesus brought salvation. Period. He did not come to start a church or create a religion. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:22, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
If that were truly the case, then why the heck does Matthew 16:18 even exist in the New Testament in the first place, which has Jesus, wait for it, specifically stating he'll have Peter be the foundational rock for his church. If he didn't come to create a religion, he would never have bothered to have that passage written in the first place, and if anything would have slaughtered his followers specifically to ENSURE no religion came about as a result. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
Jesus also said, Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God; the verse you cite some have used as a nullification of Jesus's word, calling it "The Great Commission," and making a man the final arbiter of God's word. "The Great Commission" is a "doctrine of men," Jesus cites In the chapter earlier. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:01, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
You will recall, the first church was Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:38). And it was a man, Jethro, Moses's father-in-law, who organized it (Captains of hundreds, captains of 50s, captains of 10s). God had nothing to do with that churches organization. In fact, God specifically did not organize it along those lines. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:08, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
There is no commandment that Christians worship on Sunday - that is entirely church tradition, and a rejection of the religion of the Jews. So also there is no commandment to pray before eating - Deuteronomy in fact commanded to pray after eating. Again, we have a rejection of religion by early Christians, which became tradition, which some now call "religion". But early Christians also got many things wrong (see Acts 1:6 for instance; Jesus' most devoted followers still were naive about Christ's mission and purpose, and still viewed God's word through a carnal lens). They also "held everything in common", becoming prodigals. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:17, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
If that were the case, Matthew 16:18 would never have happened, and if anything, Jesus would have screamed at Peter that only Jesus and his father alone have any control over humanity, and that Peter and his followers ought to die, not leave behind any legacy, before melting them into nothingness, in fact, act like Master Albert did when about to kill Grey in the first phase of the final battle against Albert in Mega Man ZX Advent. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
To make Matt. 16:8 more than what it was is doctrine of men. My kingdom is not of this world. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:26, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
1. It's pretty clear that Jesus even ALLOWING it into the New Testament in the first place meant he approved of it. If he didn't, he would have slaughtered his own followers. That's what I would have done in Jesus's place, slaughtered all of my followers specifically to ensure no religion is ever created, not wanting a religion made in my image, and even go as far as to completely genocide the entire human race specifically to ensure it, and that my kingdom is not of Earth would have been all the MORE reason to just blow it up with a smile on my face. 2. The Great Commission that you refer to was AFTER that verse, specifically in Matthew 28:16-20:
"16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”" Last I checked, that points to Jesus authoring the Great Commission, NOT man, and certainly didn't nullify it either (how can Matthew 16:18 nullify it when it occurs before Matthew 28:16-20?). Pokeria1 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
The Good News (Gospel) is, we are free of dead religion once we are born of the spirit, immersed (or baptized) in the spirit. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:39, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
Then why did Jesus specifically make Peter his rock for the foundation of his church? He would have just killed everyone specifically to ensure that no religion is formed, "freed" all of humanity from "dead religion" by slaughtering them. That's what I would have done in his situation, essentially end all of existence, laughing as I do so, all with my father cheering me on in exterminating the planet and "freeing" humanity. No, he definitely wanted a church created. There would have been no point to that passage even being ALLOWED to exist if Jesus didn't want that, let alone Jesus even commanding Peter to form his church. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
I don't know; ask God about it. It seems pretty obvious a doctrine of men transferred God's power, authority, and sovereignty from Jesus to men, as you are arguing. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:49, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
So, since we are getting away from Jesus's mission and the doctrine of grace, answer me this: What takes precedence, God's law or Church law? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:54, 18 October 2019 (EDT)


You don't know how the questions were phrased, and Gallup was in no hurry to present that information. Maybe Gallup is good with some kind of polling, but there's no use wasting time with a method of theirs that is so out of touch with the American religious scene—or faith scene to some. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 17:22, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
You can have a lolwut? n' all. From JanW's link: "...as part of the demographic battery of questions that ask respondents about their age, race, educational attainment and other background characteristics, each of these political polls also include one basic question about religious identity – “What is your present religion, if any? Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox such as Greek or Russian Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, something else, or nothing in particular?” JohnZ (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
"Additionally, most of these political polls include a question about religious attendance – “Aside from weddings and funerals, how often do you attend religious services? More than once a week, once a week, once or twice a month, a few times a year, seldom, or never?” Taken together, these two questions (one about religious identity, the other about religious attendance) can help shed light on religious trends in the U.S." JohnZ (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

4 points:

1. Church attendance is higher today than in Colonial America.

"In 1776, only about 17 percent of the country were church members, compared to about 65 percent today, said Stark, who has tallied church membership as a percentage of the population over the past 250 years using church records and census figures."[12]

"Colonial America was not as church-bound and church-moved as he suggests. He does better with the 19th century, when religious practice did take hold not only among Catholic newcomers but also revived Protestants.

So how were things in the good old days? A consensus questioned by a few serious scholars – Patricia Bonomi among them – is that fewer than 20 percent of the colonial citizens were active in churches.

Change came after 1776, so that, in one common estimate, church participation jumped from 17 percent to 34 percent between 1776 and 1850.

A better past, more illuminating for comparison in present concerns, is between the early 1960s, when participation crested, and today."[13]

2. "Among Protestants, Gallup has found weekly churchgoing to be consistent. In 2017, 45 percent attended at least once a week. In 1955, it was 42 percent."[14]

3." First of all, religious belief is still very powerful and widespread, and there is nothing inevitable about its decline. In fact, the proportion of people who say they believe in God actually ticked modestly upward, from 86 percent to 89 percent, since Gallup last asked the question in 2014". See: American atheism for details.

4. Even secular scholars admit that the secular population will peak before 2043 in the USA[15] and then a period of desecularization will arise in the USA (See: United States, irreligion vs. religion and demographics).Wikignome72 (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

Two messages for JohnZ. First, I read the Book of Revelation. We win at the end. 2) Listen to THIS short video.Wikignome72 (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
Attaboy, Ben. No retreat, no surrender. FWIW, Revelation is my favourite bit of the Bible by miles (though I'm reliably informed John never dared eat mushrooms again). Have some Dennis Brown. JohnZ (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
This is an amazing bit of rationalization going on. Or maybe it should be called "moving the goalposts" or perhaps "sour grapes". A survey says that religion is on the decline, and some people come here and say "Well, the reason for that is that Christians don't call Christianity a religion, or say that they are religious. Christians are actually on the increase, but Christianity isn't a religion, so that's why the survey came out that way." Really???? There's a lot of talk about religion on this page, apparently by people who aren't religious. And spare me the inane youtube videos, both of you. SamHB (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
My apologies if Christians don't live up to your bigoted expectations. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:09, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

First off, Conservative is right that God will win and has already won (see Revelation, for example). Christians can be confident because of that. Also, the reason why the number of Christians is declining in the U.S. is really that all the nominal Catholics and mainline Protestants have decided it's not worth it identifying as such. The much smaller subset of Bible-believing, evangelical Christians is still growing, and around the world, it's growing even quicker. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2019 (EDT)

"So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." - Jesus, Book of Revelation, Rev 3:16. Those nominal Catholics and liberal, mainline Protestants didn't leave Christianity. They were never in it! Wikignome72 (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
By 2025 or sooner, not only will the global percentage of atheists be less in the world, but the actual number of atheists in the world will be less too.[16]Wikignome72 (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
It's all about the locusts, man. What's not to love about divine retribution being meted out by locusts with *checks notes* men's faces, women's hair, lions' teeth, wearing gold crowns and iron breastplates, and packing scorpion tails to boot?! Go big or go home, that's what I say. JohnZ (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
You're not supposed to understand. There are extended allegories for those attributes to warn the faithful who study their Old Testament lessons and preparedness even for the faithful who haven't but are willing to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt. But scoffers won't learn
"Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged,
until the Lord has sent everyone far away and the land is utterly forsaken.
And though a tenth remains in the land, it will again be laid waste.
But as the terebinth and oak
leave stumps when they are cut down,
so the holy seed will be the stump in the land.”
VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 14:11, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
Sounds like a religious argument.
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Jesus didn't care much for religion. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:30, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
What did he think of seven-headed leopard beasts with bears' paws? JohnZ (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17
"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." Romans 3:19-20
Scripture pertaining to the Law by itself is helpful to believers, possibly helpful for seekers but not itself necessary for salvation. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 15:58, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
Amen, bro. Now you got. That's how O.J. Simpson can rip his wife's neck out with a knife ( jealousy is the rage of a man, and he will not spare in the day of vengeance) and still ask God for forgiveness. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:42, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ expressed surprise at the hidden Gallup question that he located, but he doesn't seem to realize that its content proved our point rather than supported his. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 17:47, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Truth is, Jesus was indeed a revolutionary, and the Spirit of Christ is carried on by revolution against established religion and dead ritual. Let the dead bury the dead. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:13, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
Let's go a bit farther: Now we are alive in Christ (Eph. 2:5). Or Matthew 12:1-7, God created the Sabbath for man's benefit, not God's own. Or Matthew 12:2. And the big kicker, when Jesus purged the temple. Originally, when a man sinned, he was to bring a sheep to the door of the temple. As Israel and Jerusalem became urbanized, city dwellers didn't have flocks. So the priests rented space for a farmers market at the door of the temple. The more the people sinned, the more sheep were sold. Jesus told the religious leaders they had it all wrong, and backwards. Their job was to induce the people to stop sinning, not profit off the people's sin. It was a specific condemnation of religious leaders and religious practices. Even the spirit of this teaching from the Gospel has been been twisted by modern religious leaders to condemn the profit motive among people in general, having it exactly wrong, and backward again. (None of this was new, Is. 3:12 they which lead you cause you to err.)
We are to serve in newness of spirit, not the oldness of the letter. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:51, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

Here's an interesting tweet thread that shows that evangelical Christianity is remaining stable while the share of nominal Christians is falling: [17] --1990'sguy (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2019 (EDT)

I found this article to be illuminating: Is America Becoming an Atheist Nation?. They need to design their surveys better so nondeniminational Christians don't put "none".Wikignome72 (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2019 (EDT)

Out of the loop

machismo
The atheist movement has been skewered! Even atheists have admitted that the atheist movement is dead/dying (see: Decline of the atheist movement). Olé! Olé! Olé!

Sometimes I’ve seen references here, not very many, to a website called RW. It turns out it stands for “Rohypnol Wiki”. Their tag-line is: “We love America the way a date-rapist loves his date-rape drug.” VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 07:31, 9 December 2019 (EST)

The denizens off RW either jokingly or seriously believe I set out to "destroy atheism on the internet".
While it is true that the atheist movement in the Western World is dead/dying as notable Western atheists have admitted (see: Decline of the atheist movement), I never set out to "destroy atheism on the internet". Atheism has existed since King David.
And although I will probably see atheism continue to lose global market share in terms of adherents and eventually see atheists actually decline in the number of adherents in the world (see: Global atheism statistics), I don't believe I will ever see atheism completely disappear in the world. Of course, should the second coming of Christ happen in my lifetime, I will certain see atheism disappear.
About the only thing I ever said is that I had "skewered" atheism! Olé! Olé! Olé! :) Conservative (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2019 (EST)
P.S. I am presently working on Operation Super Fortresses. :) Conservative (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2019 (EST)
How much do you want to bet that in real life RW is already crawling with undercover CIA agents trying to attract leftists to work in the United States to keep an eye on them and steer their ideologies into agitations that only benefit what they themselves would consider rival colonial-minded powers?
And then cosplay Return of the Trump Foe Alliance with John Z. Hernia during their off-hours? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 19:08, 9 December 2019 (EST)
"...dealing with the Wikipedians is like walking into a mental hospital: the floors are carpeted, the walls are nicely padded, but you know there’s a pretty good chance at any given moment one of the inmates will pick up a knife.” - quote from a New York Times article on Wikipedia written by the journalist and author Judith Newman
There are a lot of Wikipedians who hold dysfunctional worldviews. But RW takes holding dysfunctional worldviews to a whole new level! Wikignome72 (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2019 (EST)
That site is operated by admitted trolls and people who have literally admitted to having serious mental conditions in which they have "episodes" where they go crazy on the site. Why are we even discussing them here? This kind of stuff feeds the trolls. DMorris (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2019 (EST)

DMorris, you wrote: "...and people who have literally admitted to having serious mental conditions in which they have "episodes" where they go crazy on the site."

I wasn't aware of this.Conservative (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2019 (EST)