Talk:Main Page/Archive index/186

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


Trump's legitimate quid pro quo[edit]

It's already been shown by President Donald Trump's transcript, or rather, actually reading the transcript, that there was no quid pro quo offered for information about Joe Biden's family, but it wasn't always clear whether there was one offered for information about collusion on the part of business and government entities from the Ukraine that was applied weeks after Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president. It was already established that President Obama, the DNC and some Democratic Senators asked the Ukraine to investigate Trump.

Kimberly Strassel pointed out, however, that Trump's actual requests to the Ukrainian president together with whomever had part in delaying aid, is questionable only when seen in the context of "moving the goalposts". Digging up dirt on an opponent is one thing, but Ukrainian entities colluding with members of the U.S. government is a legitimate concern having to do with national security [about which] the U.S. president has a right to know, and the request for which is legitimately susceptible to the application of quid pro quo leverage.

This week the liberal press has been trying to blur the lines between the two requests, not to mention never mentioning the similar requests of high-ranking Democrats. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 17:15, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

"It was a perfect phone call. Everybody knows it." - Donald Trump.[2]
"If that perfect phone call with the President of Ukraine Isn’t considered appropriate, then no future President can EVER again speak to another foreign leader!" - Donald Trump.[3]Wikignome72 (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Perfect. I hope this clarifies things.Wikignome72 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
The purpose of the impeachment inquiry, begun with a anonymous source who now Schiff will not call to testify, is to discredit the Barr/Durham investigation. This is the same pattern the same deep staters and the same media sockpuppets used with the Steele dossier. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:22, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Yes, it's all of a piece. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 22:20, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

Warren's 3½ month climb comes to an end[edit]

Some people have said that Elizabeth Warren's campaign has been perfect. Okay, in reality, nobody did. But it looks like this week she will fall from grace with a 3% decrease!

Never trust the Democrats—they always lose one way or another and leave you holding the bag. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 21:54, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

Dick Morris says if Hillary has a pulse, she's running for president. A month ago news reports were Hillary was the mastermind behind then Warren's rise; then Hillary was advising both Biden and Warren, which explains Biden's downfall. Warren is too stupid to severe all ties with Clinton, which will be her downfall. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:46, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
The parallels between Humphrey and McGovern, Clinton and Warren, 1972 and 2020 are too powerful to ignore. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:50, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

Warren's odds plummet 10½%[edit]

Don't say RobS didn't warn you, folks. He didn't even mention Kamala Harris, but she's similar to Hillary too, and the DNC and the donors had been grooming her for the Presidential role. Notwithstanding, she was a precursor to Warren's precipitous plummet, a front-runner having dropped to 2%. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 23:14, 4 November 2019 (EST)

Yep. As Harris herself says, those racist and sexist Democrats aren't ready for black woman president.
Things are setting up pretty good for a wildcard, a dark horse, maybe even a third party candidate. Otherwise we're looking a Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg is hard to get excited about. OTOH, Biden hasn't suffered much, he's holding steady with his black base. It's hard to imagine blacks jumping from Biden to Buttigieg, Warren, or Sanders. Polls show Trump has a 42% approval among black males. If that holds, it won't matter who the Democrats nominate. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:34, 4 November 2019 (EST)
It's bizarre to see Biden leading the pack again.[4] This is a man with no discernible principles or talent beyond raking in all that dirty money from Ukraine, China, Romania, etc. etc. This video of Biden forgetting Obama's name has to be seen to be believed: "He's saying that it was President [long pause with blank expression] my boss." PeterKa (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2019 (EST)
Blacks are sticking with a moderate they know. It demonstrates that blacks are not particularly excited or happy about the radical left turn the rest of the party has taken. Remember blacks are pro-God, pro-family, pro-entrepreneurial capitalism, pro-gun rights for self defense (after their experience with the KKK and Democrats), anti-crime, anti-bad schools, anti-illegal immigration, and anti-stupidity.
Blacks who don't support Biden support Trump. [5] We're seeing the long awaited break up of the Democratic behemoth. Blacks know instinctively if they don't stop voting Democrat, it will be another 150 years before a black man is ever elected President after the experience of Obama. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:09, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Popular government[edit]

The United States may not be a democracy, but James Madison called it a popular government. He also said:

[I]n a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representives and agents...
[M]ost of the popular governments of antiquity were of the democratic species; and even in modern Europe, to which we owe the great principle of representation, no example is seen of a government wholly popular, and founded, at the same time, wholly on that principle. If Europe has the merit of discovering this great mechanical power in government, by the simple agency of which the will of the largest political body may be concentrated, and its force directed to any object which the public good requires, America can claim the merit of making the discovery the basis of unmixed and extensive republics. (Federalist Papers, no. 14, 1787)

VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 02:01, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

The word that has crept into the American political vocabulary via Hillary Clinton no less is stakeholder. It's still common now in State Department press releases, usually about negotiations with foreign "stakeholders" while ignoring popular sentiment in various countries. Mexico, Egypt, and Turkey are all considered "democratic" in American parlance, while really being governed by "stakeholders", similar to the British House of Lords prior to the 1990s reforms. Brexit and Trumpism are struggles between populism and established "stakeholders", i.e. multinational corporate globalists. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:02, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

Response to unimportant remarks[edit]

Some self-proclaimed watchdogs of truth here are in reality Big Babies for their liberal cause. What is this uproar among the nations? Why are the pagans devising a vain thing? The Lord and His anointed scoff at them. Then he speaks to them with anger: "I have established thee a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

Strangely, SamHB wasn't convinced by my clear statement that there is a movement, especially among non-denominational church-goers, of not calling their relationship with Jesus Christ a religion. He also seems completely unaware that it has been that way for over thirty years.

Nor did he notice the different strains of arguments along those same lines, clearly committed to memory after passages of time, that only could have been independently developed, among Christian Conservapedians, nor did he stop to think that the basis for rejecting the reports of the Gallup poll results presupposed that custom, rather than it being suggested as a matter for dispute, nor did he look to see it was actually shown to be the case after JohnZ repeated the poll question.

Nor did he search the internet to look for other examples to see if he could confirm or deny the doubt he expressed, nor was he paying attention when I repeated one of the same arguments to User:Conservative three years ago when he queried his fellow editors [about compiling a {Conservapedia mainspace} article from {many} different polls {{}having to do with Christian population rates{}} after {in an unintentional coincidence} having just posted a {reference} notice {edit, within} a relevant {and also recent then but different Conservapedia} mainspace {article partly concerning itself}] about a poll[, earlier,] from Baylor University{—the linked-to article with the poll mentioning the argument}, and of course Sam's lazy skeptic behavior is just the personality type people like the most.

I only dealt with one crybaby in this section, so why did I omit others? Maybe I'll get to them later. It's not as if disputing these slack-handed objections are pressing or significant. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 23:35, 20 October 2019 (EDT) VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 13:57, 15 December 2019 (EST) VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 03:05, 18 December 2019 (EST)

Golden Fleece Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2016 dinner guests[edit]

John Brennan
Susan Rice
Eric Ciaramella knew John Brennan, Susan Rice, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, was 1st whistle-blower
Joe Biden
Nancy Pelosi
John Kerry
Loretta Lynch
John Podesta
Tony Podesta
Valerie Jarrett
Samantha Power
Leonardo DiCaprio
James Clapper
James Comey
Matteo Renzi helped Brennan, Comey spy on Trump, possible target of Bill Barr and John Durham
Charles Kupchan, Eric Ciaramella's boss. Worked at NSC

The White House
Washington D.C.
1:00 pm
Formal attire

[it writes itself] Roast Trump

Diane Feinstein liked China together with Joe Biden
Sean Misko Second whistle-blower, recruited by Adam Schiff, August 2019
Abigail Grace Schiff employee, recruited February 2019

VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 01:56, 21 October 2019 (EDT)

O’Sullivan’s First Law[edit]

Pew polls Democrat divergence 1994-2017.jpg

It's not your imagination.

Wow, those graphs really illustrate the point.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2019 (EDT)


...should probably read Bill Taylor's opening statement. Your boy just got deep-sixed. Best to start the grieving process now so you're all ready to rally round the flag for Pence 2020. JohnZ (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2019 (EDT)

*Yawn* A State Department official (one of the most liberal of the various government agencies, which says a lot) said something bad about Trump. This is old news and has been for the past three years. It's happened countless times. I recommend you read/watch this: [6] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2019 (EDT)
That's the spirit. Denial's the first stage. Get it all out. JohnZ (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2019 (EDT)
Exactly -- this is probably the 20th time you've posted something on this talk page essentially saying: "look at this--Trump's going down big time and you're all going to weep." Well, we're still waiting. He won't be removed from office, he won't resign, and there's a good chance he'll win re-election next year. The media's been making predictions of Trump resigning since 2017. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2019 (EDT)
Did the media ever object to any investigation of Trump? The Obama FBI thoroughly investigated him when he was a candidate -- and came up with nothing. At least that's what the NYT reported at the time. Hunter Biden got $83,000 a month from Burisma and never even went to Ukraine. It was probably all because of his unique skill set and had nothing at all to do with the fact that his dad was Obama's "point man" on Ukraine. All the same, I don't see any harm in asking the Ukrainian government to check it out. PeterKa (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Bill Taylor is a Russian asset. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:10, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

Trump is not only resilient, he is anti-fragile. What do I mean by that? I mean not only are these illegitimate attacks and threats of impeachment not harming Trump, but they are making him stronger. When the Democrates shout impeachment, Trump's reelection team sounds out campaign donation requests and the money is flooding in. Please see: Trump's record-breaking cash haul reportedly rattling Dems.Wikignome72 (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

Antifragile?! Trump is going to pieces so fast, most of his people have abandoned their posts to avoid the smouldering orange shrapnel. There's no way we would've seen the Syria or Doral disasters if he still had a functioning WH/legal team (or competent Congressional allies) determined to see him through to 2020.
This is the ugly twisting in the wind stage while McConnell tries to figure out how to pull the trigger and still save the Senate. Expect Bolton and Romney to play prominent roles, with Pence as the clean-hands conservative for the base to rally round afterwards. JohnZ (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
I think we should dig up all your past predictions of Trump's imminent doom. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
You mean the Syrian cease-fire???? (This is my impression of SamHB's unnecessary punctuation manoeuvre, where he tries to stun readers into abandoning rational thought. Only this time, the question is based on something relevant. And yes, I know I'm replying to JohnZ—SamHB does it too.) VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 17:16, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Knock yourself out, man. It's almost certainly of greater historical utility than chronicling Trump's "achievements". JohnZ (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Yet, you won't comment on the cease-fire. Coward. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 17:41, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
The withdrawal / "cease-fire" looks like a rotten deal for the Kurds. It's also hard to see how it advances US interests in the region. See if the Israelis are happy about it. JohnZ (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Jake Sullivan to Hillary Clinton, Feb. 12, 2012, "Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria." The Guardian reported on July 30, 2012, “[Al-Qaida’s] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state.” [1]
Yah. Real leadership. First you arm al Qaeda. When al Qaeda morphs into ISIS and starts beheading people, then you arm the Kurds to fight the monster you created. The Kurds take the arms you give them and commit terrorist attacks against a NATO ally.
Why don't you go die for Obamunism and Clintonism if its such a glorious cause. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:15, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Man, I love it when you try and do history. You'll never have the stones to admit it, but you were cheering bin Laden, the mujahideen and the CIA every inch of the way when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.
And as far as the current situation in Syria goes, there's a whole bunch of GOP senators who've just witnessed Trump get pantsed by Erdogan and Putin. Bear that in mind when you're running the odds on his Senate trial. JohnZ (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
No, we did not cheer on or, heck, have any involvement in bin Laden or al Qaeda's actions in Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan War. He got his own form of training and supplies. The 9/11 Commission Report made that VERY clear. Now, the mujahideen was in fact backed by us, but on the other hand, the mujahideen also attempted to aid us in taking out Osama bin Laden during the Clinton years (just watch Path to 9/11, or more specifically the deleted footage). As far as GOP senators, give names (besides Mitch McConnell, I mean). Pokeria1 (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Eh? Who's this "we" you're talking about? You weren't even born when the Soviets withdrew. And if you think bin Laden wasn't elbow deep in the wider mujahideen effort - and coordinating extensively with other US-backed proxies - then you've got yourself some serious lernin' to do.
As for GOP senators, there's currently a grand total of seven who've come out explicitly against impeachment. JohnZ (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
46 Republican Senators are on the record condemning the unconstitutional Pelosi/Schiff impeachment process: 1.Graham 2.McConnell 3.Grassley 4.Thune 5.Blunt 6.Shelby 7.Inhofe 8.Roberts 9.Crapo 10.Cornyn 11.Burr 12.Barrasso 13.Wicker 14.Risch 15.Boozman 16.Moran 17.Toomey 18.Rubio 19.Paul 20.Hoeven 21.Lee 22.Johnson 23.Scott (SC) 24.Fischer 25.Cruz 26.Capito 27.Cassidy 28.Lankford 29.Cotton 30.Daines 31.Perdue 32.Ernst 33.Tillis 34.Rounds 35.Sasse 36.Young 37.Kennedy 38.Hyde-Smith 39.Blackburn 40.Cramer 41.McSally 42.Braun 43.Hawley 44.Scott (FL) 45.Portman and 46.Sullivan. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:30, 24 October 2019 (EDT)

<--- Well, it's much more measured in tone than the Cipollone letter, but it's just as constitutionally illiterate. Trump will get all the rich creamy justice and due process he can handle in his Senate trial. In the meantime, the House gets to set the rules and there's no requirement to hold a vote on starting an impeachment inquiry. Graham and McConnell know this, of course, but they're hoping the rubes and loons in the base will swallow it as a sincere and suitably forceful act of protest.

Don Jr. and allies have already condemned it as weak sauce process / precedent bluster (which it obviously is), and apparently want Graham to start holding parallel hearings in the Senate. Lindsey's none too enthusiastic about that, though... JohnZ (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2019 (EDT)

This is a tempest in a teapot. Barr/Durham will start raining down the artillery of prosecution on some of the Democrats. The Senate will vote not to impeach Trump. And the exceedingly weak Democratic candidate to Trump in the presidential election will be steamrolled by the 2020 Trumpslide. It will be a brutal campaign, but Trump will once again be the triumphant winner. Because that is what winners do. They win!Wikignome72 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
I think our friend JohnZ doesn't understand the American justice system. Even a homeless bum on the street who's arrested for panhandling understands that he is entitled to due process, which Democrats have ignored and bulldozed under a mountain of garbage. If they want to proceed with this railroad job of burning the Constitution in plain sight of all, it will cost them dearly for generations to come - generations that survive their abortion holocaust and generations of immigrants. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:54, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
Wut? Trump is currently in a far better position than any ordinary poor schmo under criminal investigation. There are 47 GOP members of the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees entitled to sit in on the depositions and ask questions, so he's got friendly representation in what is essentially a grand jury process.
And when that 47 includes partisan cranks-on-wheels like Devin Nunes, Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan, no sane person believes that a) witnesses aren't being subjected to hostile questioning, or that b) Trump isn't getting a blow-by-blow account of proceedings. JohnZ (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
It's not even worth debating if you are going to pretend to be that ignorant of justice, due process, and the Constitution. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:58, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
You keeping banging on about the Constitution. It's so silent on the matter, Pelosi could write "abuse of power" on the back of a napkin and put it forward as an article of impeachment for the House to vote on. JohnZ (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
You are correct. The House could even vote on and pass it. And it's still a violation of an American citizens due process rights. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:33, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
Nope. In our hypothetical, a fair trial in the Senate would give Trump his full complement of due process rights. He'd also have his Fifth Amendment grand jury protection prior to this, as Nancy's napkin would have to convince a majority of the House to vote to impeach.
If you want to argue otherwise, you'll need to show how being impeached by the House deprives Trump of life, liberty, or property. Best of luck with that. JohnZ (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
Let's give credit where credit is due. JohnZ is a visionary, cause Nancy writing "abuse of power" on the back of a napkins appears to be exactly what happened. Article II, "obstruction of the obtuse", was moot minutes after the idiots passed it. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:49, 15 December 2019 (EST)
Wrong. Your hypothetical, an impeachment based on bad faith as you chose to put it, written "on a napkin" deprives the American people the due process rights of an election! Trump is our agent! And we will not stand for you to deny them, even in the form of insulting hypotheticals! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 21:42, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Great stuff. Go shake your fist at the Constitution, not me. JohnZ (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Your hypothetical contradicts itself, not the constitution! A denial of the rights of the American people through a bad faith impeachment could not [allow Trump to be provided] with procedural due process [by extension] to his grand jury [despite] the fifth amendment rights you assume they would protect [them], because [the results of the denial] would be fruit from a poisonous tree! If I were you, I'd choose my next words very carefully, as you've already chosen words beneath what the dignity of the American people should be obliged to bear! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 23:13, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Go home, Vargas. You're drunk. JohnZ (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Well, that is a fairly unintelligible response. Let us hope this non-responsive utterance marks a return to an emphasis on learning and a departure from gratuitously insulting Trump—he undeserving of such, as demonstrated by the record of his achievements and accomplishments so comprehensively curated by User:1990'sguy in the Conservapedia article Donald Trump achievements and its sub-articles. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:39, 29 October 2019 (EDT)

Obama bin Biden's jihadis[edit]

"We" as in America, obviously. And while it is true that I wasn't born when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, I can tell you that the 9/11 commission report specifically states on page 56 that, and I quote, "But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States." And the footnote near that even expands upon that by saying, and I quote, "In his memoir,Ayman al Zawahiri contemptuously rejects the claim that the Arab mujahideen were financed (even “one penny”) or trained by the United States. See Zawahiri,“Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner,” Al Sharq al Awsat,Dec.2,2001.CIA officials involved in aiding the Afghan resistance regard Bin Ladin and his “Arab Afghans” as having been militarily insignificant in the war and recall having little to do with him. Gary Schroen interview (Mar.3,2003)."
And I meant "give names" regarding which GOP senators witnessed Trump being "pantsed". And besides, there are 100 senators in the senate, so I'm pretty sure the Republican Party is the majority party, with 53 Republicans in the Senate. Even if 7 went up against impeachment, you still haven't listed the number of how many explicitly voted for impeachment, either. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ, It's a moot point you're arguing about bin laden in the 1980s. Yes, bin Laden single-handedly took down the godless Soviet Union. Then, full of himself, he was going to take down the House of Saud and the United States, as well. And finally, create the Islamic State. You're peeing in the wind, again. Arming bin Laden was Zbigniew Brzezinski's idea after his brilliant "human rights" policy brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power. What's your point? Other than to prove what an ignorant idiot you are? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:51, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
Wut? My point - though you'll never admit it - is you were 100% cheering on Reagan, the CIA, the mujahideen (and by extension, bin Laden) when they were fighting the filthy commies in Afghanistan. So it's pretty funny watching you now play the committed isolationist and parroting Putin's talking points on US interventionism. JohnZ (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
First of all, while Reagan and the CIA were backing the mujahideen, they did NOT back bin Laden, or al Qaeda. In fact, Ayman al Zawahiri specifically stated that al Qaeda didn't get any backing from the United States, not even one penny, and specifically stated it in his tract Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, which BTW was also sourced in the 9/11 Commission Report. And another thing, who said we're denying our backing Reagan and the CIA? Pokeria1 (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
"Arming bin Laden was Zbigniew Brzezinski's idea after his brilliant "human rights" policy brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power." Ah, don't you mean "arming the mujahideen" was Brzezinski's idea? Both Gary Schroen and Ayman al Zawahiri specifically denied that the United States supplied much, if any training and financing to al Qaeda, or for that matter to bin Laden, who headed al Qaeda back then as well. There's plenty to blame Brzezinski for, including the disastrous "human rights" policy that resulted in Iran becoming a terror state and the closest thing to a Caliphate, but I'm not sure al Qaeda/bin Laden is one of the tings to blame him for (and believe me, if he did in fact arm them, I most certainly would make sure he's blamed for it). Pokeria1 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
Go do some more reading. If, after that, you can't see the historical significance of establishing an Islamist international brigade, then I really can't help you.
Not sure what to make of your last paragraph (previous post). They all witnessed Trump get pantsed. There's no way to spin it as good for US interests / allies in the region, and this will likely have a bearing on how many of them vote in the Senate trial.
None of them have (or will) vote for impeachment. That's the House's job. Are you talking about who I think would vote to convict? JohnZ (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
I gave you the 9/11 Commission Report, and more than that, I even gave you sources cited within that document, in particular Knights Under the Prophet's Banner written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, and even an interview with Gary Schroen dated March 3, 2003 specifically stating that al Qaeda had minimal, if any funding or backing by the US during the Soviet-Afghan war. Not to mention a deleted scene for Path to 9/11 specifically had Mujahideen attempting to aid CIA agents in taking out Bin Laden (and only didn't do so because Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton evidently got cold feet, with the Mujahideen evidently having nothing to do with their failure, and if anything the Mujahideen were very adamant in wanting to kill Bin Laden, which can be gleaned from what bits of Path to 9/11 they DIDN'T cut due to Clinton interference.). And you shouldn't have mentioned GOP senators earlier regarding the whole Trump getting "pantsed" thing. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
And what is YOUR JOB here on this website, JohnZ? So far all I've been seeing is a shoveling of your leftist ideology that's at odds with this site and the people in it. Karajou (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
Bin Laden was rich. He didn't need CIA money. he was part of a coalition of the CIA and Saudi Arabia. He spent his own money ferrying jihadis from Saudi Arabia and the Middle East to Pakistan and Afghanistan. He spent most of his time in Pakistan as a cheerleader and motivational speaker for jihadis ("community organizer" in Marxist terms). He was one of the few leaders who survived the war (1988-89), and returned to Saudi Arabia as a hero and hometown kid who did good. His falling out with the Saudi ruling klan came in 1991, when his offer to use his Afghan veteran jihadis to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was rejected, and King Fahd invited American military personal into the Islamic Holy Land for the express purpose of killing Muslims.
Bin Laden's crime was being anti-globalist and anti-politically correct (he didn't like the U.S. military which included women, Jews, and Christians who carried the bible and wore the cross). Contemporary communists try to make something out of his anti-communist alliance with the CIA in the 1980s as something hypocritical. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:00, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
IOWs, bin Laden spent his own money to fly jihadis into Pakistan/Afghanistan and remained on the ground as a coach. Once they were there, the CIA armed them. So yes, there is no material assistance provided to bin Laden.
Bin Laden was a supporter of the Saudi monarchy throughout this period.
By 1991, bin Laden and his followers viewed themselves as responsible for the destruction of the Soviet Superpower. Puffed up in their pride, they thought they could take on the U.S., the Saudi ruling klan, and Israel next and establish a Sunni Islamic State, along the lines of the Shia Islamic state established by Brzezinski and the Carter administration in Iran in 1979. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:22, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
It should further be noted, traditional jihadis and Islamists thought bin Laden was nuts, and still do. Since 1948 and the creation of Israel, the saying was that "the road to Jerusalem is through Cairo", meaning a revolution to retake Jerusalem would begin in Cairo (as in 1948, 1967, 1973, etc.). Bin Laden held a minority view that the way to retake Jerusalem, and ultimately Mecca to establish an Islamic State, was through New York and the World Trade Center. Traditional jihadis in Egypt and elsewhere viewed this dangerous and crazy, which would call down the wrath of the United States on the jihadis all over the globe. They viewed bin Laden's crusade as a personal vendetta between him and the Saudi ruling klan. He remains a controversial figure; while he's appreciated for uniting and inspiring jihadis worldwide, most jihadi strategic thinkers view his strategy as flawed, dangerous, and insane. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:39, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
So, wait, hold up. How could the CIA have been involved in Bin Laden and al Qaeda during the 1980s when Ayman al-Zawahiri made it very explicit that they never received any funding or training in his memoirs? Or for that matter Gary Schroen in that interview specifically saying that the CIA had very minimal, if any actual backing of Osama bin Laden. I find it hard to believe that Bin Laden's #2 man in al Qaeda would specifically deny and even scoff at the idea of the CIA or America backing al Qaeda, or Osama bin Laden for that matter, if they actually did. Being his #2 guy, he'd know about al Qaeda's history and inner workings, not to mention alliances made between the organization and others, directly or otherwise. That's kind of the entire point of being the #2 guy, to be entrusted with this information and man the inner workings of the group. Even if we were to argue the whole thing about Gary Schroen was CIA misinformation, I fail to see why al-Zawahiri would lie about something like that, especially when by that point, he and al Qaeda were very obviously not part of the CIA and if anything open enemies. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
First off, let's clear up some basic facts: (1) al qaeda was not formed until the 1990s, after bin Laden's expulsion from Saudi Arabia and after his expulsion from the Sudan; (2) Ayman Zawahiri was sitting in an Egyptian jail throughout half the 1980s for his involvement in the assassination of Anwar Sadat; (3) Zawahiri and bi Laden did not formally link up until after both their expulsions from Sudan in the 1990s.
During the Soviet-Afghan War, the CIA and Saudi regime worked together. The Saudis provided manpower from all all over the Mid East, and bin Laden's personal financial contribution was to provide airfare. He didn't provide material assistance to jihadis once they were flown there - that came from the CIA. And bin Laden was not content to sit home in Saudi Arabia and be just a financial backer - he lived in Pakistan and functioned as (one of several) preachers of jihad, giving moral and spiritual guidance to young jihadis (although he was never trained as an Islamic scholar). When the war ended, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam was assassinated under mysterious circumstances. Azzam was considered the spiritual leader the jihad, but bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia claiming the title.
As cited, traditional jihadis of the Sayyid Qtab and Hassan al Banna stripe, always considered jihad against secular leaders as their main objective, such as Sadat, Mubarak, Assad, Saddam, the Shah, or King Hussein of Jordan. This was the big difference between Ayman al-Zarqawi (founder of AQI and ISIL) and bin Laden. Ayman al-Zawahiri took the Egyptian Islamic Jihad in a different direction, which was and remains controversial. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (or Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) was always focused overtrhowing first Nassar, then Sadat, then Mubarak, now Sisi. Zawahiri got in bed with bin Laden and brought the wrath of the United States down upon the Egyptian Islamic Jihad for his role in the Embassy bombings. Zawahiri remains on the outs of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad homies for making the jihad global and inviting the U.S. to pursue them. Obama sympathized with them by helping overthrow Mubarak, and widened the split between al Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
IOWs, al Qaeda mostly always was and is a detached branch of Egyptian jihadis in exile at odds with the homies remaining in Egypt. Bin Laden supplied the money. Zawahiri supplied the manpower. I suspect Zawahiri's denials about CIA funding in the 1980s is simply to protect what they consider the first of their great achievements - that a ragtag bunch of jihadis destroyed a Superpower, the Soviet Union. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:07, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
A word on the material assistance provided by the U.S.: The only American hardware provided (eventually, after any years), were TOW missiles or MANPADS to shoot down helicopters, which proved decisive. Prior to that, it was all Soviet equipment (trucks, guns, etc) the U.S. acquired from Egypt as a result of the 1979 Camp David Accords when Egypt became a U.S. client state and kicked the Soviets out. Perhaps because Zawahiri saw no American equipment, only Soviet, he denied any U.S. contribution. And bin Laden certainly did not have the resources to ship the volume of equipment from Egypt to Pakistan.
The reason for using exclusively Soviet equipment in the war zone is the issue of spare parts; for example, if a truck needs a generator, it can be cannibalized off a captured Soviet truck or one partially destroyed in combat. These are lessons learned from the Germans during WWII, at Kursk and North Africa where spare parts became a big issue. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:33, 25 October 2019 (EDT)

JohnZ's "Kurdish" communist professional victims[edit]

Crybaby JohnZ's charity case, the "Kurds", have their counterpart to Insana bin Laden (follow the money):
The Kurds' Democratic Union Party (PYD), the Kurds JohnZ are referring to, has a military wing, the People’s Protection Units (YPG) the "international" office of Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the Marxist group at war with Turkey since 1984, causing tens of thousands of deaths and is listed by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization.
The Obama Administration counseled YPG leadership to camouflage the group’s roots in the PKK after getting them to fight ISIS--they were rebranded the Syrian Democratic Forces, being promised U.S. weapons and money, which brought in other Arabs.
The whole goal right now is to bring the activities of Obama's "foreign legions" to a close, not tally up more to Kurdish communists' killcounts. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 16:05, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
And you have to study the activities of the Kurdish Ansar al-Islam, which merged with Ayman al-Zarqawi]]'s group in 2004 and founded the Islamic State in 2014. RobSDe Plorabus Unum
Aye. You've convinced me. What have the Kurds ever done for us, eh? JohnZ (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
Well, explain to me why Kurdish nationalism is suddenly sacred and holy to anti-nationalist globalists right now, other than pure opportunism? I think we've made the case that "The Kurds" are a wide, diverse group. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:16, 26 October 2019 (EDT)

<---The Iraqi Kurds got their spoils of war for fighting alongside the US against Saddam, and later ISIS. It hardly seems unreasonable for the Syrian Kurds to get theirs as well. If Erdogan wants to secure the border to stop traffic between the Turkish and Syrian Kurds, then let him do it on his side of the fence. JohnZ (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2019 (EDT)

I love it. "Syrian", "traffic". VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:38, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ, you still don't get it. Abu Musab Zarqawi, founder of the Islamic State, set up a chemical weapons plant in Iraqi Kurdistan, under U.S. protection of the No Fly Zone. Zarqawi merged his organization with the Kurdish Ansar al-Islam. "The Iraqi Kurds" were co-founders of the Islamic State, if you wanna play stupid with words.
Saddam didn't have a chemical weapons factory -- the Kurds did, under U.S. protection, along with Zarqawi.
The Adana Agreement of 1998 between Turkey and Syria allows the Turks to enter Syria for distance of up to 5 kilometers to beat back the Kurds. It's a legal treaty between the two. The two have asked the Russians to be there to police the situation.
I've met brainwashed people by the mainstream media before, but you take the cake. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:39, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
"Saddam didn't have a chemical weapons factory -- the Kurds did, under U.S. protection, along with Zarqawi". Actually, it's more accurate to say both the Kurds and Saddam had chemical weapons factories, since several sources, including one of Saddam's top generals and even one of the pilots responsible for transferring the chemical weapons materials, verified that Saddam did in fact have chemical weapons factories, and that they had been relocating since 1991. Said general, George Sada, even attempted to alert the British news media to Saddam's creation of chemical weapons and supplied proof, but they buried the story, deciding instead to just falsely tarnish Bush and Blair as liars. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
(@RobS, for the avoidance of doubt): It's times like this when it's hard to tell whether you're just really bad at basic research, or completely at Trumpian ease with arguing in bad faith to avoid retreating from something stupid you've said previously.
Yes, Ansar al-Islam carved out a bit of territory in Iraqi Kurdistan. No, that was not with the blessing of the Kurdish authorities, nor did the Kurds have the military muscle to dislodge them from the mountains until they received the backing of US special forces and air support in Operation Viking Hammer, March 28–30, 2003.
And I've no idea what point you're trying to make about the Adana Agreement. It appears neither Erdogan or Assad have any intention of honouring it at the moment. JohnZ (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
"Kurdish authorities" HAHAHAHA! Careful. You're revealing you're totalitarian mindset.
I have a simple question: When are "the Kurds" not "the Kurds"? When they are Shia Kurds armed by Iran? When they are Salafi Kurds under U.S. protection from Saddam in a No-Fly Zone? When they are Syrian Kurds taking U.S. assistance to stage terror attacks on a NATO ally? When they are Salafi Kurds and co-partners of the U.S.-armed Islamic State? When they are Qawqaz Kurds at war with Russia? When they are feminist Kurds fighting ISIS? When they are victims of a U.S. Army live fire exercise in Kentucky broadcast on ABC News? When?
And why all this globalist promotion of Kurdish nationalism? I thought nationalism was the enemy of globalism?
And as best as I can determine, to the extent that "Kurdish democratic" forces exist anywhere (Iraq, Syria, Turkey, the Caucasus), they don't want a landlocked independent Kurdish state, knowing that without a NAFTA-style free trade agreement with their neighbors, they couldn't export their oil wealth. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:13, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
You say "and why all this globalist promotion of Kurdish nationalism?" I'll give you an answer. It's because some globalists, particularly those of the neocon variant, see the creation of a Kurdish state as necessary to achieve their goals. Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria are all opposed to the Saudi-centric regional status quo. That automatically makes them enemies of the petrodollar, and therefore, in the eyes of the neocons, worthy of regime change and/or destabilization. In that case, Kurdish nationalism would be a great tool for the neocons to use. For this reason, at this time, not only do I not support the creation of a Kurdish state, I actively oppose it.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
Actually, let me walk that back just a little bit. At this time, I do support Kurdish nationalism, but only in Turkey, and only because Erdogan's regime is still in power and there's very little moral equivalence between that regime and its Saudi counterpart.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
Personally speaking, the only regime change I'd even remotely endorse is if it's changing the Middle East from Muslim-dominated to Christian dominated, whether it be Roman Catholic dominated or, heck, even Coptic Christian dominated. Don't bother switching Sunni for Shia, or Shia to Sunni, or either for Kurd or Kurd for either for that matter. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
There actually was an opportunity for a Kurdish state 10 years ago in Iraq. The Kurds themselves didn't want it. Largely due to two factors: (1) their diversity and/or lack of unity; and most importantly (2) a Kurdish state would be held hostage to tariffs when it tried to ship its oil down the Tigris to Persian Gulf ports for export to the rest of the world. The Kurds of Irbil figured it would serve their best interests to remain within an Iraqi system and Iraqi parliament where they have continuous engagement, rather than having no influence over the Baghdad regime and being at the constant mercy of outside forces. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:34, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
Well, then. Those Kurds are cool with me. They're definitely a lot smarter than their Syrian counterparts. --Geopolitician (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
We get little reporting on Kurds in former Soviet republics - Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and elsewhere, as well as Iran. Here again you have secular (on the side of Russia) vs religious (on the side of ISIS) Kurds fighting each other. Then you have Shia Kurds fighting Sunni Kurds (ISIS). These same divisions exist among Kurds in Germany and the U.S.
For these reasons I'm very skeptical when I hear anyone discussing "the Kurds" (like Bernie Sanders statement here). I'll go a step further - Media, being fed by the intelligence community, is playing on the deliberate ignorance of the American people, if not even a racial stereotype. The journalists who use the phrase, "the Kurds" are just ignorant partisans themselves. And this sort of Deep State/media collusion, appealing to what they assume are irrational bigoted stereotypes in the soul of the American people, is how the U.S. has blundered into numerous wars beyond my lifetime. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:20, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
User Masaman on youtube is one of the best at handling issues like this. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:34, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Allow me to say this, plain and simple. The Kurds are not our allies. In fact, they border on being our enemies. --Geopolitician (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2019 (EDT)

Let me clarify. They border on being our enemies in Iran, Iraq, and Syria.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
How do you cross out text? I want to cross out "Iraq."--Geopolitician (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
use < s > for strike with a close </ s> like this. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:22, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Thanks. I wish Wiki would allow you to do that with a single highlight-and-quick, but then again we are living in the "learn to code" era.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
@RobS: I'll content myself with noting that, having been called on talking rubbish about Ansar al-Islam being allied with Iraqi Kurdish forces, your response was to try and start a game of Well, what's a Kurd anyway? Spineless. JohnZ (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
If he's so wrong why do you have to exaggerate to prove it? I started the topic, he just sustained it. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 20:47, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
I was called what on huh? Facts:
  1. Ansar al-Salam, a Kurdish group, harbored Abu Musab al-Zarkawi after his flight from Afghanistan in 2002 when the Americans chased him out;
  2. Ansar al-Salam and Zarqawi were protected under the American No-Fly Zone in 2002 and 2003;
  3. Zarqawi and Ansar al-Salem operated a WMD camp in Iraqi Kurdistan under the protection of the American No-Fly Zone.
  4. Zarqawi's Organization of Monotheism and Jihad merged with Ansar al-Salm to form AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq);
  5. AQI became the Islamic State in 2014.
Where am I in error? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:01, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Your error is a product of your usual bad faith in discussion. You appear unable to admit that Ansar al-Islam was engaged in a terrorist campaign against the regular Iraqi Kurdish forces, and that those same forces drove them out of the territory they'd seized as soon as they received the necessary US military support. JohnZ (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Right. Where'd you get that spin? Don Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? Ansar al-Salam merged into Al Qaeda in Iraq, conducted the insurgency, and established the Islamic State.
Ok, you got me. Ansar al-Salam changed its name to Ansar al-Sunna, and merged with Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Group of Monotheism and JIhad, Zaqrawi's group).
Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad was started by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, other foreigners, and local, mostly Kurdish Islamist sympathizers. ,,,Following the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, it is believed that Zarqawi moved westward into Iraq, where he may have received medical treatment in Baghdad for an injured leg. It is believed that he developed extensive ties in Iraq with Ansar al-Islam ("Partisans of Islam"), a Kurdish Islamist militant group that was based in the extreme northeast of the country. Ansar had alleged ties to Iraqi Intelligence; Saddam Hussein's motivation would have been to use Ansar as a surrogate force to repress the secular Kurds who wanted a "free Kurdistan". [7] RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:55, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Some light reading on Operation Viking Hammer. JohnZ (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Ok, that's progress. At least we're back to distinguishing "the Kurds" as between pershmerga and AQI. That link covers 2005, from Cheney & Rumsfeld's perspective. Now let's pick up the story from their own history, translated by Aymenn al-Tamini:
the position of general security official in the Dawla [Islamic State] currently [December 2015] and the man is considered the most important after Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
In 2006, a deal was struck in the American prisons for the release of some of the leaders...
In 2007, the leadership of Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna took a decision to change the name of the group and revert it to the old name of Jamaat Ansar al-Islam....
When the armed revolution of al-Sham [Syria] began against the Assad regime, Jamaat Ansar al-Islam entered al-Sham and began operating under the name "Jamaat Ansar al-Islam in BIlad al-Sham."
On the third day of the Mosul events, the Majlis Shura of Jamaat Ansar al-Islam decided to come down and aid the Dawla [ISIS], and this meant the group came down on the left side of the city [east Mosul]
Indeed most of Jamaat Ansar al-Islam gave allegiance, but a simple and small presence for the group remained in Iraq and the most important of those who gave allegiance feature in the photographed allegiance ceremony. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:47, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
You'll have to help me with the relevance of this. Were there ethnic Kurds in Ansar al-Islam and its successor outfits? Sure. Does their presence have any significant bearing on the development and legitimacy of a reasonably autonomous and functional Iraqi Kurdistan? Absolutely not. JohnZ (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
These guys ("the Kurds" if you will), took part in the capture of Mosul, the resurrection of the Caliph, and were rewarded with the VP spot and head of internal security. They weren't bit players in the Islamic State. These guys killed their fellow Kurds, Pershmerga, Shia Kurds, and anyone who wouldn't submit to the Caliphate. So when we hear talk about "the Kurds", "abandoning the Kurds", and globalists pushing Kurdish nationalism, it is not unreasonable to ask just what exactly are you talking about.
Pardon my thoughtlessnes, I forgot; there are good guy Kurds and bad guy Kurds; the bad guy Kurds are the guys who do beheadings; the good guy Kurds are the guys who take U.S. taxpayer money and kill U.S. NATO allies. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:27, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
Right now, I consider all of the Syrian Kurdish factions associated with the SDF to be bad guys, even the non-Communist ones.--Geopolitician (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

<--- It's kind of fun watching you twist yourself like a pretzel over this, just so you can ultimately argue abandoning the Turkey/Syria border region wasn't an unmitigated disaster. Ansar al-Islam numbered in the hundreds (including Arab and other foreign fighters) when they were driven out in March 2003. Shortly afterwards, tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds fought alongside US forces in the invasion of Iraq.

Seriously: What. Is. Your. Point? JohnZ (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2019 (EDT)

He's right, Rob: Kurdistan was just about to exist for the 30 million Kurds scattered about near Asia—and then Trump came in and caused it not to happen, because all the Kurds had really been planning it the whole time and were really about to get together and make the nation happen. Really. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 23:39, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
Well I thought nationalism was fascism. Now globalist are pushing Kurdxit, MKGA, and the Yellow Turbin movement.
JohnZ, you certainly don't understand anything about jihadism. Your frame of reference comes from your Western Eurocentric colonial imperialist and racist outlook. Jihadi groups appear, disappear, reappear, merge, change their names, and form alliances routinely. Leadership and experience are vital. 40 year old veteran fighters are more valuable than a 20 year old punk who doesn't know anything. 300 veterans of Ansar al Salam make up the drill sergeants and the equivalent of an officer corps for radicalized punks coming from the EU and elsewhere. They trace their war against Western influences and Shi'ism back several decades at this point. An Arab figurehead was put at the helm - Baghdadi - but the Kurds were in charge of internal security - who gets let into the organization and who may be a risk and needs to be disposed of. None of this is rocket science. Sure, these experienced fighters had sons and kid brothers who came with them, but the organization traces its origins back to the end of Iran-Iraq war in 1988. They were the most experienced fighters in Iraq. From their perspective, their war against secularism, Western influences, and Shi'ism, was finally joined by outside fighters coming to their aid.
In the meantime, the Hong Kongers can all get squashed by tanks and shipped off to the gulag cause we don't want to upset our Chinese communist trading partners.
And do you have any clue how ridiculous it sounds to say we should defend the Syrian border but not the Rio Grande? Especially since our Mexican allies, whom we depend on so much for help, just got their butts kicked by the Sinoloa cartel who took over a town of 800,000. tRobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:50, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Once again: What does the presence of a small number of ethnic Kurds in various jihadi outfits have to do with the development and legitimacy of a reasonably autonomous and functional Iraqi Kurdistan? I've seen estimates of 400-1500 Brits who went to fight for ISIS. We've had our share of eejits who stayed home to maim and kill in the name of their twisted version of Islam. None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy or viability of the British state, or its institutions, or its armed forces.
It's not like the US is flush with regional success stories for all the blood and treasure it's spent over the past 30-odd years. You've got the liberation of Kuwait, and then you've got Iraqi Kurdistan as far and away the most successful bit of Iraq to date. Not much after that. You'd think a good conservative patriot like yourself would be proud of the US having brought a bit more freedom and self-determination into the world, but hilariously, you can't because that would beg the obvious question re. cutting and running in Syria.
If memory serves, Rand Paul clapped like a seal, whilst the rest of the GOP senate was aghast. They can't all be neo-con RINOs. JohnZ (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Just as an FYI, there's actually some evidence that Trump deliberately gave that Syrian withdrawal order specifically to bait a key leader of ISIS to into revealing himself and getting himself at the very least captured, if not killed, and that operation was such a success that you leftists were caught with your pants down due to not even your installed leakers finding out about the op (and we had the bonus of his second in command being taken out as well). To put it another way, Trump played ISIS like Palpatine played the Rebels at Endor in Return of the Jedi. I'll admit I was very unsure about leaving the Kurds behind, mostly because I feared we'd have the same thing as Vietnamization after the end of the Vietnam War where the Democrats exploiting Watergate sold out the South Vietnamese to the Communists. Since we just shattered the vertebrae of ISIS, I don't see any reason to be concerned about our forces staying in Syria right now. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
There's much more evidence which says Trump's withdrawal announcement caught the Pentagon completely off guard, and they had to scramble to launch the operation for fear of losing effective force projection should the withdrawal be fully realised.
I'm glad to hear you had qualms about ditching an ally, though. That's the proper response. JohnZ (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Here's an immediate problem that hasn't been addressed now for two or three decades: the U.S. provided air defense and a No-Fly Zone for a group that set up a WMD lab. When it was discovered, the Deep State deceived the American people when Colin Powell went to the UN and blamed Saddam for it, when in fact the people we were protecting uder our No Fly Zone had created it. And this idiocy of the Deep State they blamed on Saddam as an excuse to go into Iraq in 2003. People are tired of these lies, and ain't falling for arguments about "the Kurds" and Kurdish nationalism again as an excuse to send troops into a war zone that Congress itself, under two presidents, has refused to pass an authorization for. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:49, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Wait, didn't General Sada as well as one of the guys who flew the chemical weapons stocks to Syria confirm that Saddam WAS in fact making WMDs, and had been doing so since before the Gulf War or something? Pokeria1 (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
I'm not arguing whether or not Saddam had WMD, I'm pointing out the historical truth that our friends, "the Kurds" had WMD and Colin Powell lied about it, which was the No.1 fact pushing Obama's candidacy in 2008. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:50, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
You'd think the answer would be easier to know—they spend a billion dollars to find out. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 18:05, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
I've never heard of the Kurds having WMDs. Can you provide a link?--Geopolitician (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
"Ditching"? The PKK succeeded beyond its wildest dreams: It got a quasi-state in Syria from which to attack Turkey, and is now positioned to receive the "creamy" (your word) concessions from the peace process Erdogan initiated.
You have no standing in the matter: as a New Zealander (or globalist), you're not encumbered with the difficulty of possibly rewarding a disloyal president, the evidence of which demonstrated by the information that is coming out through Justice Department reports daily, though you probably love that we are because you share his politics.
You probably suspect RobS, Pokeria and I may have trouble articulating this sense and hoped your high-tensioned rhetoric would provoke us into being strung along by your series of objections and qualifications, however lengthy[, to Donald Trump's military movements]. If so, you suspected wrongly. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 01:06, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
@Vargas: Who you calling a Kiwi?
@RobS: How on earth did we get back to conflating Ansar al-Islam and their weapons plant with the Iraqi Kurds in general? For extra "protected under a no-fly zone" lulz, the link you shared earlier clearly states the US was aware of the plant from at least June 2002 onwards. Even better, they rejected an airstrike several times, because "...we were so concerned that the chemical cloud from there could devastate the region that we chose to take them by land rather than by smart weapons.”
That's according to Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, at least. Much of the rest of your link suggests it was either simple dithering by the Bush administration, or due to worries about appearing too eager for war in the eyes of potential coalition allies.
And while we're at it, an honourable mention for this quote: "...Ansar al-Islam militant group ... controls a very small region of Kurdish Iraq near the Iranian border". (emphasis mine)
What you reckon, then? One more crack, or have you finally tired of beating this particular dead horse? JohnZ (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ & Geopolitician, Sorry for the delay and I don't have time to fully provide links here now. However, the bio I created on the Ratwiki website of Abu Musab Zarqawi contains the basic research and links of Zarqawi's flight from Afghanistan in 2002 to Northern Iraq, his merger with Sunni Kurdish jihadis, and establishment of a WMD lab in a Kurdish sanctuary under the U.S No Fly Zone. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:55, 15 December 2019 (EST)

4 resources which show America has a religious future in the 21st century[edit]

I was recently asked about the future of American Christianity. Below are 4 resources which show America has a religious future in the 21st century.

Read this material:

1. United States, irreligion vs. religion and demographics

2. Secularism, Fundamentalism or Catholicism? The Religious Composition of the United States to 2043, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 49, no. 2 (June) 2010, Eric Kaufmann, Vegard Skirbekk and Anne Goujon

3. New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger, 2018

4. "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."[8] Wikignome72 (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

No. 3 quotes (then debunks): “Meanwhile, a widespread decline in churchgoing and religious affiliation had contributed to a growing anxiety among conservative believers.” The Atlantic, January 2018. This is what passes for journalist leadership these days (The Atlantic). It's not a description, it's an instruction for their hostile liberal-reader-wannabe-journalists.
And now they have Gallup polls lending a hand, who we're supposed to believe don't know about non-denominational Christians. They don't even pretend they have something positive to put forward, which makes me even less concerned about conservative believers, who can put their anxieties on the Lord, even if they believe the lies, than sinners of whatever variety camouflaging their sins by diverting attention toward non-existent problems, instead of stopping their behavior. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 15:16, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Ace (the New Zealand atheist), is either a liar, not very bright or stubborn (or a combination of 2 or more of these attributes). It not that hard to understand. The nominal Catholics and liberal Protestants die out while the more committed Christians with higher birth rates grow. Eventually, there are fewer and fewer nominal Catholics and liberal Protestants to die out. And among the nones, most are theists (at least in the USA). By 2043 for the USA (or sooner) and by 2050 in Europe (or as early as 2021), the secular population plateaus followed by a period of decline. In short, atheism has a bleak future. It's not rocket science. If Ace still doesn't understand this matter, it is a matter of willful ignorance.
I think the reason why Ace has a bee in his bonnet and is obsessed with me is because all of my predictions concerning atheists have come true. If Ace wants to deny the atheist movement is dead, he is free to do so, but unfortunately for him, he will lose what little credibility he may have (see: Decline of the atheist movement).Wikignome72 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Ace, by the way, I have never said that "atheism is a second rate belief system". It is far below second rate and we both know this. There is no proof and evidence for atheism. In addition, you have atheists like PZ Myers and Peter Singer indicating that bestiality is morally acceptable under certain conditions (see: Atheism and bestiality). And while the Mormons certainly have their faults and I disagree with their theology, at least they weren't responsible for about 100 million deaths in the 20th century and at least they don't run an oppressive regime like the Chinese, communist atheists (and most atheists are East Asians with a very large portion of them being Chinese. See: Asian atheism and China and atheism. But the good news is that in China, Christianity is seeing explosive growth. See: Growth of Christianity in China).
Ace, I hope this further clarifies matters for you.Wikignome72 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

Canadian election[edit]

In the recent Canadian election, the Conservative Party of Canada got 34 percent of the popular vote while the Liberals got only 33 percent. Yet Liberal Party of Canada leader Justin Trudeau will continue as prime minister all the same. I hope that puts some perspective on the Electoral College issue. Trump got 46 percent of the popular vote. Not many British or Canadian prime ministers can claim anything like that level of popular support. See "All time low share of popular vote is enough for Liberals to win power." PeterKa (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

Yes, this is normal in Canadian/British politics -- parties can win well under 40% of the vote and win a solid parliamentary majority. Look at the UK Labour Party's election results in the 1990s, as an extreme example. The Electoral College still has a good purpose -- to preserve the federal aspect of the U.S. government, one that preserves the importance of state government. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

Our system is more democratic. No head of state is directly elected in a parliamentary system. Trudeau is elected party boss by Members of Parliament, who in this case sit a Electors. The voters of Canada do not have an opportunity to vote for or against Trudeau. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:32, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

IMO, the problem with the Canadian system is that power is concentrated in the hands of the prime minister, who can use said power to implement social engineering schemes aimed at pleasing himself. The one that comes to mind is bilingualism, the pet project of the elder Trudeau. It is quite obviously unsuccessful in the sense that no significant number of Canadians are learning a language because of it. Yet it has created a bilingual elite and disadvantages the monolingual majority. PeterKa (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2019 (EDT)

Atheists are badly losing. Conservative Christians are victorious![edit]

The big picture of the view of the world which certainly is important given sub-replacement level of fertility in the developed world, the sub-replacement level of births of the irreligious (see: Atheism and fertility rates) and the fact that religious people often immigrate (see: Religion and migration):

"By comparison, there were 138 million atheists around the world in mid-2019 – slightly more than the 137 million in 2000 but less than the 165 million in 1970. Atheism’s annual growth (.04 percent) is less than that of the population, and the number of atheists worldwide is projected to decline to 132 million in 2025...

Among Christian traditions, evangelicalism (2.19 percent) and Pentecostalism/charismatic Christianity (2.26 percent) are growing faster than Protestantism (1.61 percent) and Roman Catholicism (1.02 percent)."[9]

And of course, while atheism lacks proof and evidence that is true, Christianity has an abundance of proof and evidence that it is true (see: Evidence for Christianity).

Onward, Christian Soldiers, marching as to war...Wikignome72 (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

Wikignome72, I hope you don't mind my wikilinking that song to its lyrics here; I'm thinking it would encourage the troops! VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 17:32, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
I don't mind.Wikignome72 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Say hello to New Zealand's newest asylum seeker, seeking refuge from John Durham. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:41, 27 October 2019 (EDT)

"A favorite lie" resurfaces—in Ann Coulter column.[edit]

Conservative political phenomenon Ann Coulter ran one of her satirical columns Wednesday, where she poses hypothetical follow-up questions to the Democratic candidates.

The "favorite lie" I mentioned a few weeks back that appeared in an Elizabeth Warren debate answer, this time appeared in Julián Castro's Twitter feed, a lie which exploited the sad fact of transsexual domestic disharmony or participation in prostitution, together with other non-bias homicides, by falsely portraying it as an epidemic of bigots targeting sexual dysphorics to the magnitude of a Presidential-level crisis, while the actual statistics reduced it to ten people total in comparable statistics in 2018, their cataloguer even noting "Trans homocides are underrepresented compared to non-trans groups."

Ann Coulter's satire of the political exploitation (because you don't know whether to laugh or cry about it), revealed a distinguishing characteristic of the offender of one of the remaining actual hate-crime homicides (which could very well apply to the others), pointing to how it would have been preventable by sane federal policies:

Question for Julián Castro (D-Texas):
You recently criticized your successor as Housing and Urban Development secretary, Ben Carson, for his remark that “big, hairy men" were trying to gain admittance to women's shelters. You tweeted: “19 Black trans women have been killed this year because comments like Ben Carson's normalize violence against them.”
Just a few weeks ago, a black transgender woman, Daniela Calderon, was shot six times in the abdomen, hip and chest in Dallas by a man yelling homophobic and transphobic slurs. The accused shooter is an illegal alien from Mexico, who had been deported in 2010 and was committing a felony by re-entering this country. He was released on bond and has now disappeared.
Question: Which would you say contributed more to the transphobic attack on Daniela Calderon — Ben Carson’s “comments” or our policy of refusing to control our borders?

VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 00:42, 24 October 2019 (EDT)

Castro is near death and his days are numbered. Look at this chart under Democrat reports. You can learn a lot about the American presidential election process.
In analyzing this chart, you can see the most marginal candidates have a staff of three who are paid between $1000-$2000 per week, and spend about $10,000 per week which includes flying around the country.
Right now, most of the disbursements go for paid staff. Later, media adverting will dwarf those disbursements. So you have three tiers: those sitting at home doing nothing and trying to rake in donors; those with paid full time staff in Iowa or New Hampshire; and those with paid full time staff in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The size of those staffs vary from 2-3 to a dozen or more, hence the variation in disbursements (ranging from $250,000 to $2.5 million per quarter - which includes media advertising).
These paid full time staffers work the campuses, trying to get idiot, unpaid volunteers (that's usually how Democrats work). Hence, much of the media advertising (and debate schedule as well) is targeted at college-age students. The media advertising directed at students is intended to convince students that the candidate has big momentum and to get them to volunteer to be part of something. Steyer is probably the worst offender, and Castro a big failure, demonstrating once again white privilege and the institutional racism of the Democratic party, and that the 18-25 year old group ain't buying Castro's extremism, which is very telling when you examine his rhetoric on the issues on a point-by-point basis.
Bottom line, "Money talks and BS walks." What I can't figure it is what did John Delaney spend $26 million on (putting him in the same league as Biden, Warren, Buttigieg and Harris, and above O'Rourke, Booker and Klobuchar) and have nothing to show for it - other than the fact that 18-25 year old Democrats are bigots who judge a white man by how much hair he has on his head. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 05:32, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
Ahem. Do you still maintain that the large donors will surround one of the back-bencher Democratic candidates and provide them fuel to blast to the front of the contenders, that is, if they don't crater on the way there like Kamala Harris? Skeptical political amateur, Rodney Bigot (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
Hard to say what will happen. Maybe Hillary, Bloomberg, or Kerry will get into the race. Maybe Steyer will rise to the top. It's gonna be a bloodbath when voters have their say. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:16, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
To illustrate the point, Beto has money coming out of his ears (see chart link above), but can't get any traction for volunteers on campus. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:14, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
So, what does this mean, the failure of Beto to gain any traction on campus? It means Hope. It means young Progressives understand the meaning of, and the need for, the 2nd Amendment. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 08:25, 26 October 2019 (EDT)

Hillary 2020! Let's get ready to rumble![edit]

Clinton Advisor Philippe Reines: Hillary Has Not Closed The Door On 2020.[10]

I thought she might run given Biden's weakness as a candidate.Wikignome72 (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2019 (EDT)

I think she needs to stop wearing pantsuits though and perhaps given the upcoming rematch, wear something similar to what Apollo Creed wore in Rocky II.Wikignome72 (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
That is not funny. Let me explain why: Hillary was a Senator and a Secretary of State and is a very serious candidate. If you don't support her in her quest, it proves you don't like women. And if you think women would be in bad shape if she were really the best woman candidate, you're obviously someone who has terrible taste for not agreeing with liberals in general, who are experts on the latest new ideas that always work out.
You also didn't italicize the movie title "Rocky II" in your essay. More evidence of bad taste!! VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 18:49, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
Please tell me you're joking... There are plenty of women politicians, some of whom did a much better job than Hillary. Like, I don't know, Karen Handel. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
"There has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill, nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America." - Barack Obama.[11]
In addition, it's her turn.[12]
If it weren't for: the Russians, the terrible shape the DNC was in when she ran, sexism, submissive women voting the way their husband's voted, the mainstream media no longer being able to control the narrative and the electoral college system, she would have won. It wasn't her fault! She needs to be given a second chance!
The logic is inescapable - Hillary 2020!Wikignome72 (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2019 (EDT)

New York Times floodwall breached[edit]

No one spied on Trump--it's good they spied on Trump! There's no such thing as the Deep State--the Deep State is a good thing!

Corollary: Then--How dare you attack our law enforcement community? Now--Justice Department is Trump's lap dog!

VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 15:12, 25 October 2019 (EDT)

Remember a few years ago when the study came out that goldfish have a bigger attention span than humans? NYT editors predicate everything on that scientific fact. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:29, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
This is pertaining to what? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 20:38, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Ok, ok. You got me. It only took me a few days to figure it out. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:25, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Chuck Grassley caught sending code to RobS[edit]

This is obviously some kind of "fist-bump" compromising both of their appearance of withholding skepticism at suspicious government acts!

All of the delays and excuses why the Horowitz IG FISA report isn’t public yet after several months of anticipation of its issues leads me to the suspicion it’s going to be “deep six” by the deep state (Chuck Grassley, October 21, 2019, 5:59 pm)

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 18:18, 26 October 2019 (EDT)

It's probably in excess of 800 pages and won't be out til after Thanksgiving.
More recent developments are:
  1. McCabe turned down a plea deal, which means it goes before a grand jury now (Comey and McCabe are already at odds over whether Comey approved the leaks that got McCabe fired);
  2. Brennan swore under oath the Steele dossier had nothing to do with his January 3, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian meddling; Comey has an email telling staff that Brennan insisted they include it.
  3. Comey's "I hope you can see your way to let this go" memo alleging Trump was trying to obstruct justice by interfering in the Flynn investigation is BS cause the DOJ cleared Flynn of allegations two weeks earlier.
  4. Flynn will walk.
  5. Mueller prosecutors may be reprimanded.
  6. Clapper's gonads are in a vice over two leaks now, one to Jake Tapper over the news hook to report the pee-pee memo, and secondly okaying the kill shot on Flynn. Clapper already gave the Nuremberg Defense on CNN, "I was just following Der Fuhrer Obama's orders."
  7. Mifsud and Halper have been trying to frame Flynn since 2014, probably on Brennan, Clapper, and Der Fuhrer's orders, cause Flynn knew about Obama's order to Brennan to arm ISIS.
  8. FISA abuse had been occurring since June 2012, when Obama was running for re-election, and after they got caught using the IRS to target political opponents.
  9. The same names of American citizens (i.e. Republicans and the Trump campaign) were illegally entered over and over and over again in the FISA database to provide real time monitoring between November 2015 (when Mifsud and Halper first started working on Papadopoulos) and May 2016 (when Adm. Rogers shut it down and Hillary, Obama, and the DNC hired FusionGPS).
All in all, the break-in at the Watergate Hotel, where the burglars got caught before they planted a wire, looks like a church picnic compared to Obama/DNC spying on the opposition and corruption. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:27, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
The views on this page are going nuts...on a Saturday night. Imagine that. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:23, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
The "wiretapping" not ending until May 2016 was thus during the entire Republican nomination process. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:54, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
That's why Fusion GPS took over, cause Adm. Rogers of the NSA cut them off from access to the database. FusionGPS' job was to develop supposed information so they could go to the FISA court and get legal authority to wiretap. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:14, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
Lol. Creeps. I had guessed from the incomplete timeline I put together in my head the administration came up with the snooping idea at some point in the campaign, having been startled at some point. Not this continuous series of spying abuses, start to finish. I guess Obama took the idea he talked about wanting to be Spiderman (being able to use all those hi-tech gadgets Peter Parker came up with) too much to heart (to the point of massive illegality)! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 08:37, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Or: Obama got away with Benghazi, so, he thought, dig deeply enough to stand under Trump and give a big enough push, and any of Trump's center of gravity beyond legality will carry him over the fence into criminality. Except Trump was clean. This calls for some crowing, but I'm not going to give Obama's corrupt buddies any more of my clever idea-pictures to rally against! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 08:56, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
I think the "Oconus [Outside the CONtinental US] lures" episode (December 2015) shows the Obama administration was prepared to frame a "Russia collusion hoax" against whoever the GOP nominee would be (Rubio, Cruz, etc.). They were hoping it would be Trump, cause in everyone's estimation at the time Trump would be the easiest for Hillary to beat. You will recall, it was reported in March 2016 (before primaries ended) that Trump had received $2 billion in free publicity, as he was being heavily promoted by CNN at that time. This implies collusion at a deeper level.
Much of that collusion followed Nixon's model in 1972; Nixon's "ratf*****s" job was to sabotage the campaigns of Nixon's more serious rivals, such as Ed Muskie, and promote a radical fringe candidate - George McGovern. As this fact became known in 1973, deliberate meddling in the opposition parties internal primary process, became more of a public outrage than the actual Watergate breakin, which was actually a failure cause they got busted before a wire could be planted. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:42, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Why right-wing populism will triumph[edit]

It seems like the media elites are starting to come out of their denialism and are beginning to recognize that right-wing populism is not a temporary blip on the radar.Wikignome72 (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Shouldn't I get a virtual private network before I click these? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 20:28, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Which "right-wing populism" do you speak of? The America-centric version that Trump promotes? The National Globalist version that Putin promotes? Or the version that followers of Ron Paul promote? Those are very different -- and incompatible -- versions. --Geopolitician (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
"right wing populism" is a pejorative term coined by leftists to mean "proto-fascist". RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:09, 29 October 2019 (EDT)

Site metrics[edit]

Hello Andy, what page hit metrics do you have lately on a per-page basis?
What single page over the last 15 days has gained the most; what dropped the most?
What single page over the last 90 days has gained the most; what dropped the most?
What single page over the last 180 days has gained the most; what dropped the most?
If you don't have metrics, how hard is it to install/upgrade?Progressingamerica (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Upgrading to newest version of Wikimedia would mean losing the view counters on the bottom of pages. So Andy does not want to do it. Many editors like to see the view counters.Wikignome72 (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
So the only way to get single page metrics is a newer version of Wikimedia? Progressingamerica (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
For the record, I also like the view counters since they're very useful, so I would want any new Wikimedia version to keep that feature. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
I am not a Wikimedia expert. I just know the last version of the Wikimedia software that had view counters is the version we have. We upgraded to the version we have because it is mobile friendly in terms of site visitors.Wikignome72 (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
I also think the view counters is useful in total, it just doesn't help in any other way. Sure that page has 120,000 page views but 119,000 of them were before you even made edits to the page. I guess the three questions I have are these:
1) What other way is there to get metrics besides the Wikimedia software. I hadn't assumed that upgrading the entire site was the answer at the outset. Sounds like a whole lot of work and headache if a simple modular snap-in isn't available.
2) Where does the assumption come from that the total view counters go away? Total views is in itself a metric, and anything that didn't have that number would be equally just as useless. You just now have a much more comprehensive tool for metrics, including total views.
3) Nobody sees the value in internal trends? Progressingamerica (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
All that information is available at Popular Pages. A page needs 75,000 views to be ranked in the top 500. If it hasn't done it in the first year, it may take 10 years. Popular pages gives you more information to analyze - what pages a particular article or subject is competing with. For example, right now Dinosaur ranks just ahead of Jesus Christ; Hillary Clinton has been closing in Joe Biden since Biden announced his candidacy; George Soros has passed up old staples like Joe McCarthy and Alger Hiss, etc.
You find opportunities, as well. For example, Revolution is ranked No. 42 w/418K views. The article stinks. It's just as pale and thin as Wikipedia's Revolution. So obviously there is much interest among readers in this subject which is not being served by either Wikipedia or Conservapedia.
The top 100 (of 45,000 articles) shows where viewer interest is at. There are pages moving up fast (Soros, Obama administration, Clinton body count, etc. Donald Trump is about to overtake Kangaroo, which was a big hit in the early days. Some are stagnant; Al Gore has sat at #69 for a full year now. Others are fading from view (FDR, New Deal, etc. no longer rank in the top 100). These indicators give a sense of reader interest and trends. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:56, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Hello Rob, how are you? That helps, but its not quite what I mean. For example, Main Page‏‎ (41,928,459 views) may increase by 3000 or 300,000 over the next week or month. So the number may change to 42,228,459, but it won't tell you that it increased by a difference of 300,000. That would require taking out a calculator and having the old frame of reference. Maybe a screenshot or something. You would have to actually know that the old number was 41,928,459 to begin with otherwise the month's metric of 300,000 is lost. Well, not that I see anyways. If I missed it, let me know. Progressingamerica (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Oh yes, you have a good point. Does Wikimedia have something that does that? I'm a regular reader of the Popular Pages page, but the only way to discover the rate at which a page is advancing is by copypasting the data somewhere (usually on the articles Talk page ) with a time stamp. That's quite cumbersome. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:16, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Yes, this is what they have. It is super easy to use and see that the total page hits for "Cat" is a little over 12 million. In the menu over on the left click the Dates/calendar, then click "all time". Done. That simple. And two pages can also be compared. [13]

Another good example is Ocasio-Cortez has 29,000 views and was started in July 2018; Elizabeth Warren has 22,000 views and was started in 2010. This type of information is invaluable for the amount of time and attention an editor should give to a page. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:16, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

If we had site metrics, we could target higher traffic pages and bring them even higher to the surface. As to the two pages you mentioned and in particular Elizabeth Warren, that's less than 3000 per year. What this suggests(and we can't prove without metrics) is that nobody reads this page without first coming to the Conservapedia home page and browsing around. That page isn't "accidentally" being seen from outside on the interwebs. Progressingamerica (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
Consider this scenario. The page "Conservative Bible Project" caps the bottom of the most viewed pages. But what if (for example) prior to one of these final debates the page for Jay Inslee starts surging over a few week period because some phrase in it is catching some search terms. If that page never eclipses 1.6+ million(which is easily a reality), it will never become known to us. The surge ends sometime shortly after the debate, it doesn't see new activity here by our contributors, so the end result is that the page never has the opportunity to move out of obscurity in the wider internet when it is surging. We lose opportunities on a regular basis around here because of this blindness. The opposite is also true about pages that drop off, considering some of the one-off editors that make their way through here. Progressingamerica (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
Maybe we all need a tutorial: What it is, How does it work, and How do we get it? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:39, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
Six years ago I wrote a computer program to enable me to take a snapshot of activity to see which entries were being visited most, without relying on intrusive Google software. In response to the above I just updated and ran it. Here are the top 20 entries visited this afternoon on Conservapedia:
  1. Main_Page
  2. Atheism
  3. Clinton_body_count
  4. Obamagate_timeline
  5. Donald_Trump
  6. Alger_Hiss
  7. Katie_Hill
  8. Bernie_Sanders
  9. Barack_Hussein_Obama
  10. Donald_Trump_achievements
  11. Eddie_Rispone
  12. United_States_presidential_election,_2020
  13. Homosexuality
  14. Russiagate_timeline_2017
  15. Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies
  16. Liberal
  17. George_Soros
  18. Muellergate_timeline_2019
  19. Democratic_Party
  20. Liberal_hypocrisy

--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2019 (EDT)

It appears as if the Conservapedia atheism article is the second most popular page on the website. Please see: Viral article deals major blow to atheism by PNN News and Ministry Network.Wikignome72 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2019 (EDT)

Site metrics, continued[edit]

I would like to see this discussion continued. Andy indicated that he has some ability to put together scripts which can facilitate some of what is needed. I would like to know how far we can go. Progressingamerica (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

I like your idea on Conservative media, as well (I think that discussion is now archived). Perhaps we can meld these two projects together. I have quite a bit of free time at the moment (awaiting the FISA abuse report which may take me away for sometime afterwards). But let's get both these projects started. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:49, 28 October 2019 (EDT)


I have to admit I'm been fascinated by emotional dismissals. But mostly for the humorous (or as the Commonwealth puts it, humourous) component. Like maybe you blame a poor delivery of a joke you wrote for someone else the audience didn't understand for giving you "nothing" to work with—whether it really happened or not. This hasn't actually happened to me, but it might have to you. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 06:20, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

Happens all the time. That's why the search for a universal language (interesting, how the Spanish menu on my TV uses the word 'idioma' for 'language' rather than 'lingua' or 'tongue').
Trump knows this better than anyone cause his twitter jokes seem to go over the commie media's heads (you'd think they would understand the idioms, having grown up in the Saturday Night Live school of satire for decades). The guy is enormously hilarious; their constant taking offense is either deliberate ignorance and hypocrisy or symptoms of being plain brain dead. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:54, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

Who is the whistleblower?[edit]

Washington's greatest secret revealed: "How 'Whistleblower' May Be Outed: Ties to Biden, Brennan, Schiff's Staff, Etc.." His name is Eric Ciaramella (char-a-MEL-ah). He graduated from Yale and worked with Biden on Ukraine in 2015-2016. He was an NSC staffer in 2016-2017 and thus worked closely with Susan Rice, the unmasker in chief. There was a huge problem with leaks early in the Trump administration and Ciaramella was a suspect. So of course he was transferred to the CIA in mid-2017. They don't have any secrets worth keeping over there, apparently. PeterKa (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

Don't forget the other big story - Republicans were blocked from asking Vindman yesterday, Did you have any contact with Ciaramella after the July 25 phone call? Did you have any contact with Schiff's staff?
Other question could have been, Did you leak Trump's early 2017 phone calls to the Mexican and Australian presidents?, which are felonious national security leaks.
Oh, and Susan Rice dumped all the blame on Samantha Power, who unmasked over 300 names beginning in late 2015. John Bolton unmasked 2 while he was UN Ambassador. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:37, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Hey Peter, this "secret" was already revealed in #Golden Fleece Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2016 dinner guests. It turns out they all had a fancy dinner together before the election.
And hey, why didn't we get a report of your role as a military attaché in Hong Hong on Talk:Main Page? That is much more interesting than Schiff's two goons. What are we, chopped liver? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 00:35, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
And RobS, lol! VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 01:20, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
We're linking Ciaramella to Alexandra Chalupa right now (in real time), which is gonna blow thiexs thing wide open. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:32, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Although the conservative media is full of Ciaramella buzz at this point, no one in the mainstream media has even reported on the story. If it wasn't true, somebody would have debunked it by now. It seems that liberal journalists don't believe in reporting the news anymore, at least not news they don't like. I hope Barr makes an example out of this guy and sends him to prison for a good long time. PeterKa (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
If and when the minority in Congress ever win any participatory rights, and if the Democrats ever again respect constitutional due process and the rights of the accused, Matt Gaetz is gonna call Adam Schiff as his first witness: Did you collude with Eric Ciaramella? Did you collude with Vindman? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 08:55, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
In fairness to me, Peter Ka is like the Elvis Presley of declassification, only matched by Donald Trump, whose declassification of the picture of the dog who apprehended Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi netted 568K likes. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 09:55, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Conservapedia Talk:Main Page recent wild success[edit]

3.6% of the total visits to Talk:Main Page have occured in the last 29 days.

Okay, that's it, I don't have any more information! VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 01:43, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

So in CP's 144 month existence, that's about 500% above the average; I think the Deep State is spying on us to see what our priorities (and the style of rhetoric used) in preparation for the 2020 presidential election. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:15, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Spying? Perhaps a better description would be "reading the pages that we put on our public web site". The priorities and rhetorical style of the various contributors to this site are out there for all to see. Including all the "atheism and apricots" stuff. I doubt that any of this will influence the 2020 election. SamHB (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
What are you talking about, we delivered the one-two knock out punch to Katie Hill (Equality Act & White Supremacy). We made her the poser child for both. I've seen at least a dozen articles today of her supporters trying to pick up the pieces. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:48, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
@Rob: "So in CP's 144 month existence, that's about 500% above the average" I'm not so sure: The counter is reset whenever the page is destroyed and recreated - the current version was created on June 5, 2014 by User:Conservative. --AugustO (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
Don't spoil his fun, man. He's righteously LARPing for Trump, Jesus, and the American way. JohnZ (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

Hong Kong elections[edit]

On VargasMilan's advice above, I will update the report on Hong Kong that I wrote a couple of weeks ago. The election of the city's 18 district councils is not usually anything to get excited about. But my informants tell me that everyone plans to go to the polls in the next election, scheduled for November 24. In 2015, 55 percent of the vote went to pro-government parties while 40 percent went to the pro-democracy parties. How does that happen? In a low key election, a significant percentage of the vote consists of people who go to the polls simply because their bosses told them to go vote. Public opinion was evenly divided last time around. Since then opinion has shifted dramatically to the pro-democracy side. It's all rigged in the sense that the election judges can disqualify as many candidates as it takes to make sure the pro-government parties get a majority. Those judges are already hard at work, according to today's South China Morning Post: "By blocking Joshua Wong from standing for election, Hong Kong is just driving protesters back to the streets."
The government has made several concessions to the protestors recently. For example, it was reported that Carrie Lam, the city's hated chief executive, will step down by March. Lam's "local government" is just window dressing and power rests with the Communist Party, or "Liaison Office" as it is called in Hong Kong. PeterKa (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

As an administrative head, she's already a member of the Central Committee, I think. The next step up is the Politburo Standing Committee, as understand it. She can't fail, she can only be promoted out of a job. Time to bring in some fresh blood into a tough job. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:08, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Here is a list of current Central Committee members. Lam is not on it. But notice that Wang Zhimin, head of the Liaison Office, is a full member of the Central Committee. Wang reports to Zhang Xiaoming, head of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office. Zhang is also a Central Committee member. None of these people are on the Politburo or the Secretariat, so they may not be all that high ranking in terms of the national party. PeterKa (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Then she must be up for a job on the Central Committee. Either way, she gets promoted. If there is violence and bloodshed, she gets promoted to some mainland position; if peace and order is maintained, she gets promoted. Their system is not unlike the US civil service system. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:56, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Lam's background is in the Hong Kong civil service, not the Communist Party. The Hong Kong Communist Party is an "underground" organization and its membership is secret. So there is no way of knowing if she is a member. But the party doesn't trust anyone who hasn't been trained from college as a party man. After Tung Chee-hwa was ousted as chief executive in 2005, he was appointed vice chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. This is an advisory body whose chairman is on the Politburo Standing Committee. It is a place to park nonmembers of the party, the "fellow travelers" as Trotsky would put it. The conference has 25 vice chairmen, so there is even less to this honor than meets the eye.
If you want to compare the Chinese system to the U.S. federal bureaucracy, you should know that a very high number of people are being purged in China all the time, including quite high-ranking people. This is true both in the army and in the party. The reason usually given is corruption. Since Xi Jinping himself is hugely corrupt, at least according to the Panama Papers, there is obviously more to the story than that. PeterKa (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
That's the Discipline Inspection Commission. i started some work on that many years ago either here or in Wikipedia but didn't get far. Didn't Carrie Lam attend some high level Summer camp meeting with mainland CCP bosses just a few months ago? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:02, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
  • What do you know? Only Joshua Wong was disqualified as a district council candidate. So the election could end up being more or less democratic this time around. To review thousands of applications and disqualify only Wong suggests spite was a factor.[14]
    Vetting for candidates was introduced in 2016. It was imposed retroactively in order to disqualify six sitting lawmakers, just enough to give the pro-government parties a majority in the legislature. These legislators fell afoul of a rule against advocating "self-determination." "Self-determination of peoples" is enshrined in Article 1 of the United Nations Charter. (President Woodrow Wilson made it part of international law. He was a big fan of the Confederacy.) PeterKa (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
Did you see any protestors take measures to avoid facial recognition? If so, what were they? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 03:14, 3 November 2019 (EST)
Well, they wear masks. Masks have been a symbol of the protests ever since they were banned. It's usually just a piece of cloth. The Guy Fawkes mask is popular as well. They had a masquerade in the Lan Kwai Fong nightclub district for Halloween and the police used tear gas.[15] PeterKa (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2019 (EST)

Side comments[edit]

Organization of the CCP is an important and fascinating topic, for two reasons (1) The immediate necessity of Americans to understand the Chinese system, and (2) to clarify and rectify many misunderstandings Americans have about historic totalitarian regimes, i.e. the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

In both the Soviet and Nazi single party systems, neither the Communist party nor the Nazi party fully controlled the military. The armed military in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were the only potential internal threat the existence of single party control. It was for this reason that both the KGB and SS were created, to strong arm the military and protect the party.

By contrast, in the Chinese system, (and its progeny, such as Vietnam and Cuba), the party's center of power was formed around the military, and that is the one institution the party continues to dominate and control, and uses to intimate the traditional civil service. All this has yet to play out to its tragic finish as it did in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. In the USSR and the Third Reich, there were elements in the Red Army and Wehrmacht that sympathized with the plight of common people living under a totalitarian system; in the Chinese system, its unclear how any kind of armed dissent could arise within the military - which is the same as the communist party in full totalitarian control. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:25, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Unfortunately, we don't understand the party's internal structure very well. I have a book called The Party by Richard McGregor. So sources do exist. In Deng Xiaoping's time, the "Eight Elders" would meet each summer at Beidaihe and work out upcoming policy announcements for the Central Committee, Politburo, State Council, and so forth. Was this group a power center or just a collection of Deng's buddies? When the Elders started dying off, Deng lost his authority. So it is possible that they were the power behind the throne all along.
Because the party boss was top dog in the Soviet system, many people assume the general secretary runs China like a dictator. In the 1950s, Deng was general secretary, but he was definitely not the top leader. According to the party's constitution, the Politburo sets party policy while the Secretariat implements it. PeterKa (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
I don't want to give the impression I'm speaking with knowledge or authority, but rather just personal impressions' It's almost like there is a dual system: (1) A Politburo and a Politburo Standing Committee, then (2) a Party Congress and the Central Committee. The Politburo and Party Congress seem to be formalities and annual events where party policy is adopted, then the standing committees are year-round administrators. There is some minor or modest overlap in personal. The big question is, Where does the real power reside? Theoretically, the standing committees just implement and administer the policies of the Congress and Politburo, but it could also be the annual formal meetings are just honorary positions that rubber stamp policy decisions and directions adopted by the bureaucrats in the course of the previous year. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:03, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
I read the Congressional Research Service's Understanding China’s Political System, (45 pages) which is what Members of Congress and people in the USG use. It's revised from time to time, but hasn't been revised in 6 years now. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:20, 1 November 2019 (EDT)

Israel vs. Ukraine[edit]

It's useful to note that while Democrats are complaining about "quid pro quo" with Trump and Ukraine, they openly support the same policy with regard to Israel: [16] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Subtitle in your article: "Bernie Sanders says Israel would have to ‘fundamentally change’ its relationship to Gaza to receive aid if he is elected".
A socialist who had a heart attack recently talking about what is going to happen to US/Israel policy if he is elected to be president of the United States. I think Bernie Sanders needs to create greater self-awareness within himself. "A man has got to know his limitations" - Dirty Harry, Magnum Force[17]Wikignome72 (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Point of fact: there was only ever a potential quid pro quo between the Ukraine and the Trump Administration. And the phony (Congressional) "House Inquiry" testimony indeed bore out the Ukrainians never originated a new policy with regard to investigating government or business entities Trump called the president of Ukraine about or even the Bidens, who came later in the conversation. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 10:16, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Revival of pictures of New York City gaslights[edit]

I forgot how pretty these looked! I like all the funny names of the different brands. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 11:05, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

float right

Shame it just shows the frequency relative to the peak so you can't compare each word. It would be interesting if there was a similar graphic showing what percentage of articles contained that word at that time so you could get a better overall picture as well as some more non-woke words. Still fascinating though. FredericBernard (talk)
Let me remark, I found this upload fascinating. I wish we could find a mainspace to put it. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:19, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Idea for Main Page Right[edit]

Today is Reformation Day, the 502nd anniversary of Martin Luther's theses on the church door at Wittenberg. The rest is, to use a cliché, history. We had a very interesting discussion about it today at our interfaith group!

It goes without saying that the mass media won't mention it. Rafael (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Christine Blasey Ford had nothing to gain by testifying[edit]

...except non-stop acclamations, awards and receptiveness to her political leadership from multitudes of spiteful liberals (that is, nearly all of them) from that point forward.[1]

We should subpoena her tax returns and find out how profitable lying, fraud, and subversion is. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:21, 5 November 2019 (EST)


  1. Prestigiacomo, Amanda (November 1, 2019). "Christine Blasey Ford wins another award, gives acceptance speech".

Shaking my head[edit]

Fox News reported a Finnish politician is under a 'hate crime investigation' for sharing a Bible verse on Facebook.

What a bigot. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 05:53, 7 November 2019 (EST)

Is Warren taking a dive?[edit]

After briefly acheiving frontrunner status, Warren's poll numbers dropped dramatically when she proved unable to explain how she will pay for her signature "Medicare for All" proposal. She has also adopted a curious strategy of not responding to criticism. See "Elizabeth Warren blows up the 'war room'." Obama's people wanted Warren to run against Hillary in 2016. Obama aide Valerie Jarrett leaked the story of Hillary's "homebrew" email server to give her a helping hand. (This is a bit of history the mainstream media has been doing its best to erase lately.)
Warren was apparently afraid of challenging Hillary in 2016. When you think about what happened to Brett Kavanaugh, Don Imus, or others who've crossed the Clintons, she was probably playing it safe. Who thought you could still red bait a Democratic congresswoman like Tulsi Gabbard? It's so old school. Warren can position herself so she can pick up the pieces when Hillary finally realizes that her campaigning days are over.
Or at least that's the way I hope things work out. America has been on the Clintons' enemies list since the 2000 election. Hillary will be in quite a vindictive mood by the time inaugeration rolls around. PeterKa (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2019 (EST)

Michelle Obama is the only one who could reassemble Democratic voters - minus non-aligned and crossovers. Warren can't get blacks onboard, and looks increasingly like she never will if she can't do it right now in the next 3 months. Warren's other problem is Wall Street, which pledged $70 million to fund the DNC convention but now has second thoughts. Hillary wants to run so bad, but she can't win a two-way contest (her 2 Senate wins were virtually unopposed in the general election), never mind a wide field. Dick Morris, no amateur, lays out a scenario where Warren becomes inevitable. And it's like watching a slow train wreck. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:42, 10 November 2019 (EST)
I hope Bloomberg is testing the waters just out of vanity. Blacks hate him for being pro-police while progressives hate him for being fiscally responsible. That leaves him competing with Gabbard for the white moderate vote. PeterKa (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2019 (EST)
He's picking up the anti-gun torch from Beto. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:10, 10 November 2019 (EST)

Ciaramella vs. Plame[edit]

Throughout the Valerie Plame episode, we were free to say the woman’s name all we liked. It was never established whether she was an undercover agent or not. But her status at the CIA, whatever it was, was treated as blown as soon as Robert Novak’s article was published.
Not so with Eric Ciaramella, or “whistleblower,” as the media lovingly refers to him. Although his name is all over the conservative media, it’s out of bounds as far as our mainstream gatekeepers are concerned. See “Facebook scrubbing 'any and all mentions' of alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella.” If there is any precedent for keeping a “secret” this way, I am not aware of it.
The logic for keeping a whistleblower’s name secret is to prevent retaliation at his place of employment. But Ciaramella’s various supervisors presumably know all about him. Are we supposed to imagine that after talking to Adam Schiff on Capital Hill, Ciaramella goes back to Langley, puts in a day’s work as an analyst, and his coworkers are none the wiser?
So why can’t the media tell us anything about the man at the center of the hottest controversy in American politics? Well, if we knew who he was, we could examine his track record and determine if he is a credible source. The smart money says this is another production by the Steele dossier crew. PeterKa (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2019 (EST)

See Lawfare group -- the same guys who wrote Ciaramella complaint are prosecuting the case. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:12, 10 November 2019 (EST)
To the extent that the media has tried to justify not disclosing the alleged whistleblower's name, they point to death threats. The way they present the issue of threats is thoroughly dishonest. You don't have to be terribly famous to get death threats. I speak from personal experience here. Furthermore, the media is interested in them only to the extent that they serve an agenda. Anomynity for whistleblowers was not created in order to prevent death threats. If potential threats are the standard, you could justify anomynity for almost anyone. What about people listed in Trump's tax returns? There have been boycotts of businesses just for having links to Trump. PeterKa (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2019 (EST)
It makes no sense. How can he get death threats if he's not been named? Today I found this (published a month ago, October 11, 2019) scroll down to see the context:
"Adam Schiff claimed the whistleblower had received ‘death threats’ without saying when the alleged threats were received. Perhaps he forgot the whistleblower was anonymous; if so, how could they have been threatened?" RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:51, 10 November 2019 (EST)
I didn't realize that Fox News was also protecting this guy: "Fox News Contributor Causes Scene When She Names Alleged Whistleblower on Air." Hey, don't say "Ciaramella" or your mother will faint, and your father will fall in a bucket of paint. We need a blimp to go around the country with the message, "Eric Ciaramella is a fraud." Wasn't there a character in Harry Potter whose name you couldn't mention? PeterKa (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2019 (EST)
Watch a few minutes of this Tim Pool report. Facebook suspended him for mentioning Ciaramella. It's his first suspension ever anywhere. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:05, 11 November 2019 (EST)
What about Sean Misko, the second whistle-blower? We need to run a test on him, especially since he's an embarrassing wrinkle whom Adam Schiff wants to prevent from testifying altogether! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 04:53, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Misko is a Schiff staffers, isn't he? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:34, 11 November 2019 (EST)
I think he knew two of Schiff's staff members and was recruited by Schiff in August 2019.
Lol, just found out that Ciaramella's name was already mentioned in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence October 22, 2019 transcripts, published on November 6! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 10:07, 11 November 2019 (EST)

FLASHBACK October 10, 2019

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.RobS De Plorabus Unum 06:43, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
My take: Hiding the (phony) whistle-blower's name is the (phony) media's way of helping the Democrats have more flexibility in staging or choreographing the impeachment drama, to compensate for the fact that there is no actual drama to the substance of what is left to disclose, in this case releasing the (phony) whistle-blower's name and face in a dramatic "reveal", even though, of course, the transcript was released weeks ago, and his testimony is completely unnecessary. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 16:05, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Coupled with the ongoing Facebook and Youtube censorship, you see how this is also a trial run for how Facebook and Google will handle the Democrats 2020 October Surprise. This impeachment coup has already been three years in the planning phase. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:49, 11 November 2019 (EST)
I don't think they planned it this way. When his existance was first announced, Schiff thought Ciaramella would be a great witness. Then something happened that made them think better of that idea. The obvious move for Republicans in the Senate is to call Ciaramella as a witness. I assume he will refuse to testify. I hope the Senate issues a subpoena and puts him in jail. PeterKa (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Theconsewrvativetreehouse back in December 2018 (before the new Congress was sworn in) outlined House Rules changes, as well as personnel, that were all geared toward impeachment. Among these changes was stripping the minority of any rights in hearings and depositions; striping the minority of the right to be notified that person was being summoned for a deposition; the sharing of information between committee chairs gathered by different committee subpoenas and hearings; the appointment of various Lawfare group attorneys in certain committees, etc. Here's a September 2019 recap of the earlier article. The two week timetable here was delayed, but even McConnell told Senators a few weeks ago to be prepared for a Senate trial before Thanksgiving. The public not catching on and lack of bipartisan support is basically the cause of the delay (so the MSM will continue hammering). The timetable is still before primary season begins (voting on February 3, 2020) cause at least four Senators will be on the road campaigning then.
The December 2018 articles I could retrieve, but that would take time. Usually Sundance of theconservativetreehouse (who sounds an awfully lot like the team of diGenova and Toensing) will link back to an earlier article or cut an paste into an expanded update. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:45, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Speaker Nancy Pelosi Outlines New Rules for 116th Congressional Session – Includes Schedule for Process of Trump Impeachment… - Posted on January 2, 2019 by sundance

Daily Beast article[edit]

If you read the article, you'll see the Daily Beast exposes nothing. It reports what is coming up in a TV show.

The Anthony Blunt story was explained in great detail back in the 1980s by Chapman Pincher and others. He was protected by the British Secret Service from the early 60s to avoid any further damage to US-UK relations which had already been strained by the Philby affair.

If you don't know about the Cambridge Spy Ring, this might seem like a revelation. However, it was extensively covered by the MSM back then and it's in a TV show produced by the MSM why is it on MPR? Come on guys, you can do better. Rafael (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2019 (EST)

Great example! Initially, it was the "The Cambridge 2". Then a hunt for "The Third Man". Then eventually "The Cambridge 3", which lasted for about 2 decades. By the 1970s the hunt was on for "The Fourth Man", and people were tired of it. They now have settled on "Cambridge 5" (Wikipedia's title). Great example of confusing historigraphy. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:09, 10 November 2019 (EST)
Despite the fact that real life British intelligence was thoroughly infiltrated like this, the James Bond movies allowed the phrase "British intelligence" to retain quite a cachet. To reiterate what others have already posted, the Cambridge spy ring is a very old story at this point. You could cover the show as news, but what would that headline look like: "Netflix has produced a show about an old British spy scandal." PeterKa (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2019 (EST)
In reply to Rafael above, what the Daily Beast reports appears to be missing from the Wikipedia entry about the Cambridge Five. Why am I not surprised?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2019 (EST)
The fifth man, John Cairncross, was exposed in the 1980s. Like the other four, his duplicity and trwason was known decades earlier. Again, there's nothing here that is either a) recent news or b) hasn't been extensively covered by the MSM in the past. I simply fail to see how a web article about a TV show produced by the MSM about something that has already been extensively covered merits MPR status. The British elections are far more interesting! Rafael (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2019 (EST)
So Lord Rothschild was the 6th Man? [18] RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:35, 11 November 2019 (EST)

MPL Update: 750,000,000 page views[edit]

Need an update. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:57, 11 November 2019 (EST)


Is sexism worse than it was before? Is racism? Do the misdeeds and weaknesses we are encouraged to avoid in the Bible through obedience to our faith misrepresent what is right and wrong?

Unless affirmations of these beliefs, and those like them, include conditions under which they can be falsified, it's impossible for them to have any independent validity. Because then they could be the product of merely emotional leaps (in this case, as often, perhaps to be used as fig leaves or vehicles for revenge) without connection to reality, having gone unexamined.

These, otherwise, political pseudo-principles do harm, and are in a sense violence, in that when they are promoted, they distort the thinking of free citizens in their pursuit of what is the best interests of themselves and their country. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 05:35, 12 November 2019 (EST)

Sexism is social construct. I witnessed it happen. It happened when white privileged feminists hijacked the civil rights movement. White privileged feminists do not want equality with blacks. They want power. That's what the "glass ceiling" is all about. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:36, 12 November 2019 (EST)
I thought American liberals gave up Marxism after Solzhenitsyn's book as their project and made it women's liberation. At least one administrator here(!) bore the brunt of opposing what really became a liberation to abuse and be abused by divorce and devaluation of family life.
Is it wrong for me to suggest that black immigrants reached the point of hijacking the civil rights movement too as they have reached parity with American descendants of slaves in affirmative action programs?
Women's liberation kept the "sexist" label in reserve, then their successors later used it wherever they could, then instead of just applying it to events and people, they to this day apply the allegation to abstract structures of American life, where suddenly a hidden vein of sexism will have been discovered to have escaped (at best, aided by the research of an agency helped by further allegations of their having a non-political or neutral nature) coincidentally during phases of political processes where there is no leisure to study the evidence. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 09:46, 13 November 2019 (EST)
No no no, Solzhenitsyn is an anti-semitic bigot for criticizing communism, haven't you heard? (that's why the Nobel Committee gives awards for climate hoaxers, trying to rehab their reputation with leftists). Women's lib originated as a CIA plot 1957 when the CIA put Gloria Steinem on the payroll. The theory was that the Cambridge 5 got recruited in college so young people needed an alternative to Marxism to be recruited into, dedicate their lives to, and change the world (since Jesus and the church obviously were failing).
NYT reported the other day 40% of all Ivy League freshmen are immigrants or second generation immigrants; it's probably just a plan to push wepawations and encourage immigrants to get professional positions to keep ADOS on the Democratic plantation.
In the late 1960s and early 70s, honestly, when women started tossing around the word "sexism", as blacks benefited from affirmative action, housing discrimination laws, and handouts, most people just laughed when they heard or where accused of it. Which of course only became evidence that it was true and existed, as Hollywood, legislators and immigrant foreign rock stars picked up the torch (Woman Is The Nigger Of The World). As blacks achieved civil rights, the Vietnam war wound down, and Nixon was driven from office, the liberal left needed new causes to keep violent mobs in the street motivated and bound together. Feminism and environmentalism became the issues. Now that women have achieved "progress" (a few dozen Congressional seats, a majority of college degrees, and zero-population growth) environmentalism or climate change comes to the forefront (oh, the gay rights movement hijacked the civil rights movement from blacks and feminists in the 1990s; the trannies' time has now come but with zero population growth and immigration, nobody really cares cause it doesn't really matter in the long run). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:28, 13 November 2019 (EST)

The plan...[edit]

The plan is to dump Trump by February, install Nikki Haley as Pence's running mate (that's what her pro-MAGA book tour is all about) and Hillary jump back into the race. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:36, 12 November 2019 (EST)

Hillary jumping in is just her plan, I assume. If other top tier Democrats thought it was a good idea, she would have done it by now. Doesn't Pence get to pick his running mate? I don't think Hillary and Pence have joined up, at least not yet. Blacks despise Buttigieg and Bloomberg as pro-police. They don't respond to Warren. So I am looking at Sanders at this point. Hillary has a plan to stop Sanders, I'm sure. He went to Moscow for his honeymoon and would presumably be easier to red bait than Gabbard. PeterKa (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2019 (EST)
I thought filing deadlines were coming soon for Iowa and New Hampshire? Or was this a joke? VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 09:48, 13 November 2019 (EST)
This go-round (2020) will be a real test of Iowa and New Hampshire; Biden's strength is South Carolina (where blacks are 60% of Democrats) If Biden runs 4th or 5th in Iowa or New Hampshire, the MSM may use it to dispose of him before South Carolina (that's why Deval Patrick is being pushed now). One theory since the election of Obama is that blacks are more important than Iowa or New Hampshire, and that identity politics is more important than geographic or regional factors. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:56, 13 November 2019 (EST)


What a farce. (A) The sanctity of NATO: Ukraine is not a member of NATO; Turkey, a member of NATO, just purchased a Russian missile defense system (presumably to defend against NATO missiles). NATO is dead. (B) Biden is not the Democratic nominee. Biden is not Trump's political opponent in a campaign. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:51, 13 November 2019 (EST)

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk awarded the Ukraine to Germany in 1917; Hitler invaded Russia with the idea to make the Crimea the "German Riviera". Now, after two world wars and 100 years, do you think Putin and the Russians will sit still for EU and Democrats to make the dream of Hitler and the Kaiser come true? Turn Sevastopol into a NATO naval base? Absolutely ludicrous. And We Americans will cede our Constitution, our Constitutional rights, and impeach a president to do so? Absolute insanity these Democrats, globalist/socialist and Trump haters have been overcome with. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:44, 13 November 2019 (EST)
Cool story, Rob. While I'm here, what you want for Christmas? The Putin 2020 calendar or the Putin on a bear action figure? JohnZ (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2019 (EST)
JohnZ, found your gift, just need an address to send it to. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 07:53, 15 December 2019 (EST)
After all the tear-jerker stories about how vital Ukraine is to U.S. national security, no one asked the Dems' "experts" How many Americans they think will be willing to die for Ukraine? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:41, 13 November 2019 (EST)

The subtext[edit]

Mike Cernovich: Evangelical support for Israel is so high (72% or more) that people who claim to be American nationalists and populists while obsessing over Israel don’t want to win elections.

Some of you don’t want to give Israel foreign aid. We get it. And this is such a losing issue.

@CityBureaucrat: It's not about $. It's about the double standard of the U.S. supporting a nation that controls its borders, protects its citizens w/tariffs & socio-economic entitlements, & guarantees a particular identity & way of life against the market, while denying this to U.S. citizens.

The Dem & Repub parties want to demonize and even criminalize advocacy of these policies in the U.S. while effusively supporting Israel and its policies. Using our tax dollars to fund them is an additional slap in the face. I'm sure evangelicals would agree.

VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 00:13, 14 November 2019 (EST)

These are good observations. I'm speechless.
I recall Israel's 30th birthday, when Israel became a man (according to Jewish tradition). That was 40 years ago. If someone dared utter these sentences then in public, print, or broadcast, they would immediately be branded a Nazi. So, in part, it kinda depends on the Zeitgeist. Today for example scratching your butt without asking the gods of climate change to stave of the apocalypse makes one a Nazi. So I'm really confused and can't give any meaningful response. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:42, 14 November 2019 (EST)
This is a reference to Hosea 11:1? "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." (ESV) PeterKa (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2019 (EST)
I have a few things to say about this.
1. Mike Cernovich is a fraud. He recently was exposed by Lee Stranahan to having accepted money from Saudi sources in exchange for spewing propaganda that al-Qaeda and ISIS are rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood, and not the Muslim World League. This is significant because this means Cernovich is being paid to lie about which countries are the largest sponsors of Islamist terrorism. Iran, Qatar, and Turkey all do sponsor terrorism, but none hold a candle to the Saudi regime. But in Cernovich Land, those three get all the blame and Saudi Arabia can do no wrong. Go ahead and try to bring up the Muslim World League on Cernovich's Twitter. He won't even try to debate you. He'll straight up block you, even if you mention the MWL in good faith.
Completely irrelevant. Cernovich just teed up the ball with some conventional wisdom about Israel for @CityBureaucrat to hit. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 02:18, 15 November 2019 (EST)
2. I personally think Israel is getting too much flak from people like @CityBureaucrat. Yes, it's hypocritical for our politicians to do that, but that's no reason to tear Israel down. If Israel's doing the right thing, then leave it alone. Plain and simple.
3. That being said, Israel is not doing the right thing. I'm not talking about its immigration policies. I'm talking about its foreign policy. Many young conservatives like myself are becoming lukewarm or even hostile towards Israel because of Netanyahu's obsession with Iran. This is causing Israel to embrace even worse actors like Saudi Arabia, and covertly endorsing policies that could cause the US to get into an armed conflict with one of our own NATO allies. This is unacceptable and it must be called out for the sake of our national security.
4. In hindsight, I believe moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a mistake. In doing so, we have essentially rewarded bad behavior. If the location of the embassy is such a hot button issue for Netanyahu, then perhaps we can use it as a leverage. Perhaps we should give him an ultimatum: reverse your recent foreign policy shifts, or we move the embassy back to Tel Aviv. And if you refuse to do so even after we move the embassy back to Tel Aviv, then we will close the embassy and then there will be no embassy at all.
I rest my case.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2019 (EST)
Iran is hardly a benign entity. Should a PM and cabinet ignore reality and practical solutions in favor of theoretical ideals and the way we would like things to be? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:16, 14 November 2019 (EST)
Netanyahu already is ignoring reality. The reality is that the true nature of our Sunni Arab so-called "allies" in the region have been exposed in the aftermath of the Syrian war, and the American people are not happy. More and more Americans (especially younger Americans) are rejecting our alliances with these countries, and some (myself included) even support normalizing relations with Iran because they believe we're supporting the wrong side in the greater Sunni-Shiite conflict. Eventually, this shift in public opinion will lead to a shift in policy. If Netanyahu expects the Israeli-American friendship to survive, he'd better adapt to these changes. So far, he's not doing that. --Geopolitician (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2019 (EST)
Ok, granted, much of what you say is true and makes sense. However Shi'a Iran will (1) never be an American ally in the sense of a vassal state like Germany, the UK, or Japan. It will ally itself with the US to destroy the Saudi monarchy only, then (2) spread its brand of Shi'a hegemony over Mecca and Medina.
Israel's chief concern is loosing its nuclear monopoly. Right now the threat of nuclear annihilation allows for reprisals against Gaza or Syrian missile attacks. The missiles are built by the Iranian military industrial complex; we've very recently seen technical improvements in Iranian drone missile attacks launched by Houtis with pin-point targeting to wipe out 50% of Saudi oil refinery capacity and move world oil prices. The same weaponry will show up in Gaza soon and replace the old-fashioned "bottle rocket" attacks.
If Israel looses its nuclear monopoly, it will (1) set off a nuclear arms race in the region between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, and Israel; and (2) Israel will loose its nuclear leverage in cross-border reprisal attacks against Hezbollah in Syria and missiles coming from Gaza.
Barring an Iranian/Israeli rapprochement in the event of the fall of the Saudi regime and rise of Iranian Shi'a hegemony, violent Sunni resistance would likely continue - even if Iran became recognized masters of the region and were awarded a seat on the U.N. Security Council. Israel fears the likely response of Iranian Shi'a becoming hegemonic - the traditional way to promote Islamic unity and quell sectarian difference is to scapegoat the Jews as the source of the world's problems.
An Israeli/Iranian rapprochement seems to be the policy of all three - the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Israel - as the only way to stave off violence and the threat of a nuclear arms race, which becomes more and more likely each day. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:12, 14 November 2019 (EST)
What's the lesson from all this? Policies built on demonizing individuals (Netanyahu, Putin, Trump, Kim jong un, Gadaffi, Baghdadi, Osama, the Ayatollah, Saddam, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mugabe Castro, Meduro, Duarte, MBS, Erdogen etc etc etc), while enjoying immediate popular appeal, are always fraught with problems. Policy must be separated from the person, and the focus must always be policy. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:20, 16 November 2019 (EST)


To understand the complete Russia collusion hoax and impeachment scheme, read this John Solomon article from April 25 this year. Solomon states

"The January 2016 gathering....brought some of Ukraine’s top corruption prosecutors and investigators face to face with members of former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ)....U.S. officials “kept talking about how important it was that all of our anti-corruption efforts be united,” said Andrii Telizhenko, then a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington tasked with organizing the meeting."

Eric Ciaramella signed Andrii Telizhenko (spelled Andrey) into the White House on January 19, 2016, per White House visitor logs obtained by Judicial Watch. ("telizhenko,andriy,g,U67540,100561,VA,1/19/16 10:57,D1101,1/19/16 12:53,,01/19/2016 12:00:00 AM,1/19/16 11:00,1/19/16 23:59,,1,KH,WIN,1/19/16 10:51,KH,Ciaramella,Eric,OEOB,230A,HARTWELL,KYLE,,,04/29/2016 07:00:00 AM +0000",,,," [19] Judicial Watch: White House Visitor Logs Detail Meetings of Eric Ciaramella.)

Solomon writes in April of this year:

Americans’ objectives included two politically hot investigations: one that touched Vice President Joe Biden’s family and one that involved a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump.

Shut down the Biden case and frame Manafort. It's all right there. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:41, 14 November 2019 (EST)

Aha! So the Obama Administration was worried about the Biden deal in the Ukraine not very much less, if not in fact, more, than Trump was! VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 04:50, 14 November 2019 (EST)
This is beyond the FBI, DOJ, and John Brennan now. Ukrainian prosecutors were instructed by the Obama White House to clear Hunter Biden (or you're not gettin' the cash) and dig up the old 2014 allegations against Manafort, which the FBI dismissed in 2014, to frame Manafort.
The Obama White House colluded with a foreign government to interfere in American elections. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 05:44, 14 November 2019 (EST)
I guess Mueller's prosecutors were investigating the wrong country. How about that? Not that it would've mattered; they only bothered to investigate potential Russian collusion with regard to Trump. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 09:54, 14 November 2019 (EST)
Soon we'll learn that Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian President was another FISA leak while the FBI inspector general sleeps on. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 09:58, 14 November 2019 (EST)
Why is it surprising to learn the Obama White House colluded with a foreign government to meddle in American elections? Globalists don't believe in sovereignty or borders - unless of course it's Ukraine's and not our own. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:58, 14 November 2019 (EST)

Jim Jordan remarks[edit]

"Today the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Vadym Prystaiko, verified what we already knew: 'I have never seen a direct relationship between investigations and security assistance.'"

Rep. Jordan also said the Ukraine was known for government corruption, and Trump's State Department, including John Bolton, investigated the Ukrainian President while aid was being delayed, and other members of the State Department in the Ukraine paid him visits. There were statutory requirements passed by the U.S. Congress that U.S. aid be paid within a certain time, so Trump couldn't have indefinitely delayed aid even if he had wanted to. The delay lasted 55 days. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 02:48, 15 November 2019 (EST)

"Madam Ambassador, I want to thank you for your opening remarks and the high regard in which you hold yourself." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:27, 15 November 2019 (EST)

I say, Holmes![edit]

That's gotta hurt... Sondland will have "refresh" his memory once again when he testifies next week. JohnZ (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2019 (EST)

If it's from CNN, it's fake news. Northwest (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2019 (EST)
I'm amazed. Does anyone still actually watch CNN? Why? Why would a person do that to themselves? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 07:41, 16 November 2019 (EST)
"Dem witnesses all seem to think congressional hearings are Queen For a Day tryouts," observed Ann Coulter. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:06, 16 November 2019 (EST)
The Democrats are betting the farm on this one. They've pressured Trump with an FBI investigation since at least November or December 2015 (looks like Comey and McCabe will both be charged), Mueller from May 2017 til April 2019, Nadler and Schiff since January 2019. We have a full year to go before voters can put a stop to it.
If Trump finally smashes the Black monolith support for Democrats, barring the GOP falling into corruption scandals, the Democrats are toast for decades. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:37, 16 November 2019 (EST)
Aye. The very idea Trump might be the man for that particular job is the perfect illustration of just how divorced from reality you actually are. But back to Sondland... obviously not the sharpest tool on opsec and in way over his head now. And I don't see anything in his previous political and business activities suggesting he's the kind of fierce partisan who'd be willing to put Trump ahead of saving his own skin. JohnZ (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2019 (EST)
OMG! Vote rigging and stealing in Lousy-ana! Shocking! RobSDe Plorabus Unum 06:00, 17 November 2019 (EST)

Democrat racism[edit]

Actually, the fact that Kayne West became a Trump supporter, and various blacks participated in Walk-Away more than shows that, if anything, Trump is, if not the man for that particular job of smashing the Black monolith, then certainly coming very close to it. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2019 (EST)
You should probably talk to more black people. The likes of Candace Owens and Diamond & Silk are widely derided as putting on a minstrel show for the benefit of a white GOP audience. Kanye gets a partial pass on the strength of his earlier albums, and a kind of Michael Jackson-esque sympathy for his increasing levels of eccentricity. JohnZ (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2019 (EST)
Actually, there's a few more people besides Diamond and Silk/Candace Owens or even Kayne West who left the Democrats. In fact, many of them even have YouTube videos explaining this. I'd know because my mom watched quite a few of them. Also, let me remind you that Colonel Allen West is for the GOP as well, well before Donald Trump even entered the 2016 presidential election. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2019 (EST)
Well, let's look on the bright side, eh? Trump managed 8% last time out, so in the unlikely event he hits 10% in 2020, he can claim he increased his share of the black vote by a whopping 25%. Winning! JohnZ (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2019 (EST)
20-25% of people showing up at Trump rallies are Democrats. And many of them are black. Trump is over 40% approval among black men. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:57, 16 November 2019 (EST)
You're using "many" in a way I've never come across before. JohnZ (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2019 (EST)
What's unusual about Black Democrats showing up at a Trump rally? They didn't ask their Masters first? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 05:58, 17 November 2019 (EST)
Keep rocking the plantation metaphor, man. It's as good a plague sign as any above your imaginary "Blexit" door. Use it as often as possible. JohnZ (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2019 (EST)
Actually, I like your idea of noting that CNN called Kanye West an "attention w****", but looks like it got reverted before I could verify The Wrap article. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:28, 17 November 2019 (EST)
Essay:Top conservatives on Twitter shows many more blacks than the two you mentioned—should I put labels on them to be sure to satisfy the quota you personally have in mind? Or maybe it's not so bad, and we just need to answer you one! last! time! It would fairly easy to do, so if we don't do it it proves that we're afraid!
Or just maybe you won't be satisfied for the umpteenth time, and next week you'll be back spouting off your sour generalizations that you didn't research. And notwithstanding the lack of knowledge, insisting your view is the correct one, however often your previous assertions got refuted. And that it's still our job to refute it on your behalf if possible despite the obvious political convenience for you that always seems to be attached to making your bald assertions. If skepticism with prejudice are harnessed to aid your self-advancement rather than the pursuit of the truth, it's really no skepticism at all! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 13:51, 18 November 2019 (EST)
The racism of JohnZ is exactly the racism of the Democratic party that Blacks are rebelling against - being stereotyped as "liberal" when in fact they are God-fearing churchgoing community loving, pro-family patriots. They resent being taken for granted and used, as Pete Buttigieg just did in Black-dominated South Carolina where he trails magnificently against Joe Biden, despite being a white media darling. Biden is buoyed in national polls by Blacks because he's not perceived as a liberal. And how have Democrats responded with the flight of Blacks? tossing them more bones with "wepawations" - an ultimate insult cause Democrats think Blacks are too stupid to compete in society and too lame to make it without their white liberal Masters' help. JohnZ is playing with dynamite tossing around these racist smears against Blacks. And these same idiot liberals accuse Trump of playing and manipulating people's fears. What balderdash that even poor kids I mean Blacks can see with their own two eyes.
There is a disconnect between white and black in the Democratic party, and it is this - Blacks have become waaaay more sophisticated in coalition building and having influence to serve their needs than white liberals have, who view Blacks as tokens who you mollify by tossing them bones, ever since Lyndon Johnson came up with the idea - which they learn in Black History month. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:41, 23 November 2019 (EST)
Aye. Black voters are definitely going to flock to a conservative movement that denies the southern strategy was even a thing; where The Bell Curve is reported on uncritically; and in which eejits like you casually sling plantation metaphors around. But I sleep soundly in the knowledge that you won't take any of this onboard, and will carry on being a walking, talking prophylactic for your very own cause. JohnZ (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2019 (EST)
Congrats, JohnZ, you just proved RobS's point with your condescending response. You also need to watch your step about insulting other editors because you're already on the brink as it is. Northwest (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2019 (EST)

Donald Trump Poll Numbers SURGE During Impeachment Hearings as Democrats Admit DEFEAT.[20]

JohnZ, watch this video and start weeping inconsolably!!!!! Donald Trump and his supporters keep winning! Conservative (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2019 (EST)

A Steve Turley video? Really? You expect JohnZ (or me) to weep inconsolably from that? A Steve Turley YouTube video? Really? Have you looked at his videos? On the other hand, have you tried reading books? Real books by real authors? People who know what they are talking about, as opposed to right-wing YouTube people? And citing them instead of YouTube videos?
Be that as it may, it's good to see you back, my friend. For a while I was afraid that you were actually going to follow through on your oft-stated resolve to stop your manic editing habits. Or maybe you were just handing that task off to your friend Wikignome72. So it's good to see, from your 29 edits in 70 minutes this morning, that you are still on-message. SamHB (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2019 (EST)
SamHB, unlike you [Wrong; see my user boxes—SamHB (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2019 (EST)], Dr. Steve Turley is an author. I have his book on the book The Abolition of Man who is a book by C.S. Lewis. And yes, I have seen his videos and like them. Lastly, your continual use of logical fallacies in your "reasoning" is counterproductive (see: genetic fallacy and Style over substance fallacy). For example, an informative video is far better than a wrongheaded and poorly researched book.22:51, 17 November 2019 (EST)
I should have been more careful when I claimed you were not an author. My apologies.
Secondly, Dr. Turley is a well informed man. Like most careful scholars, he makes reasonable statements/claims. The one exception to this is his belief that Trump is a shoo-in to be reelected. I do think 2020 is going to be a brutal U.S. presidential campaign and it is not going to be a cakewalk. Given these factors, I do think Trump has over a 50% chance of being reelected: power of incumbency, the current strong US economy may continue in 2020, Trump did a good job of keeping his promises, the weakness of the current Democrats running to be president, Trump's huge campaign chest, etc.Conservative (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2019 (EST)
Aye. Tell that to Eddie Rispone. I'm sure it'll be of great comfort. JohnZ (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2019 (EST)
JohnZ, the Allies didn't win every battle, but they won WWII. The Vietcong lost battle after battle after battle, but now the communist rule Vietnam. The idea that you have to win every battle to win a war is a very unreasonable position.
Have you read the article Decline of the secular left? I especially like the John Feffer quote near the top of the article. The further decline of the secular left is inevitable.Conservative (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2019 (EST)
JohnZ, read Sorcha Faal today; for once you can take it 100% at face value - their analysis of the Lousy-ana election. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:43, 18 November 2019 (EST)
Hahaha. Fair play, man. That's sufficiently swivel-eyed and spittle-flecked that you seem positively Zen and lucid in comparison. You gotta give me a big win please, OK? OK? JohnZ (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2019 (EST)

Vietnam, etc.[edit]

Technically, the Communists never even won the Vietnam War, not while we Americans were still in it anyway. What happened was the American left, after exploiting Watergate to get a supermajority in Congress, reneigned on America's end of the deal and cut out weapons shipments to South Vietnam to help them win the war, with Ford being powerless to stop it. Just watch Prager University's explanation on it: Pokeria1 (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2019 (EST)
A Youtube video from Dennis Prager? Dennis Prager? The right-wing radio host who runs a YouTube channel that he calls a "University"? Really? Have you looked at his videos? On the other hand, have you tried reading books? Real books by real authors? People who know what they are talking about, as opposed to right-wing YouTube people? And citing them instead of YouTube videos? By the way, the Vietnam war ended over 40 years ago. Many many books have been written about it. Please read some of them. SamHB (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2019 (EST)
That's exactly what happened. The Mujaheen defeated the Soviets when the U.S. supplied weapons; Iran prevented Saddam from overrruning Kuwait when the U.S. provided weapons. South Vietnam lost when Democrats cut off weapons (and the leftist genocide of South East Asia ensued, which any Vietnamese immigrant to the U.S. can attest, and incidentally, John Brennan voted for). We're having the same debate now; Obama refused to provide weapons to Ukraine. Trump has done so and communists want to impeach him for it. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:48, 17 November 2019 (EST)
Pokeria, the communists won in Vietnam. If a boxer walks out of a fight, he loses the match. The Soviets lost in Afghanistan as will the USA. America is tired of endless wars.Conservative (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2019 (EST)
No, a boxer walking out of a fight means he walked out of a fight. An actual loss in a boxing match involves a boxer being utterly beaten into submission, ie, either failing to regain consciousness during the 10-second countdown, or otherwise doing a total knockout. And considering America was the one who headed the treaty obligations, as pointed out by Prager University, it was in fact America that won Vietnam when we left. Unfortunately, the anti-war, anti-American left sabotaged the South Vietnamese allies after Watergate. As far as being tired of endless wars, want an end to endless wars? Drop a nuke on all hostile countries and forcibly depopulate them. That eliminates the enemy and thus ends any reason to even have a war, even if it means turning the world into charcoal as a result. And I'm pretty sure even you realize that's a very awful way to go about it, far worse than participating in endless wars. Until Communism and Islam is completely annihilated, we have to fight (and I'm speaking VERY personally due to being all too aware of the Christian persecutions committed by Communist and Islamic governments. In fact, China becoming Communist, as well as Eastern Europe being turned Communist? That blood is on our hands as well, so no we cannot afford to stop fighting, even for the sake of stopping endless wars.). Otherwise, we'll have the blood on our hands when Communists take over and slaughter everyone, including our fellow Christians. You really want that? Then you're no different than the anti-war left, and if I must be blunt, don't even deserve to be called "Conservative". At least with Syria, we already broke the backs of ISIS, so there's no longer any reason to be concerned about leaving Syria. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2019 (EST)
Huh? Why did Obama illegally place troops in Syria without Congressional authorization and in violation of the War Powers Act? Was it to:
(a) fight and disarm the Sunni forces he created in two Presidential Findings in 2012? or
(b) fight the spread of Iranian hegemony and destabilize the Syrian regime?
RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:38, 17 November 2019 (EST)
Honestly, I've given up on thinking on why Obama did those things other than just plain old anti-Americanism. I may have had my hesitations of our leaving Syria due to it possibly leading to a redux of Vietnamization, but after the more Palpatine-esque drawing out of a high-ranking ISIS leader to be killed as well as his second in command, I no longer have any worries on that front. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2019 (EST)
To be sure, the remnants of ISIS will reconstitute themselves somewhere, sometime (Yemen? Afghanistan?) and recruit a fresh generation of jihadi figheters. But that is for President Ivanka Trump, President Nikki Haley, or President Dan Crenshaw to worry about. The only two immediate problems are (1) Clinton cash (through Saudi and Qatari donors) going to reconstitute the force, or (2) in the event of that failing, ISIS remnants getting back in bed with Iranians to destabilize the Saudi regime. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:21, 17 November 2019 (EST)
Trump often takes a zig-zag approach to his decision-making, and he may be the U.S. President where it's entirely justified due to his being the subject of spying (by the deep state) while still in office. Trump has decided to leave some troops in northern Syria, whom he claims will be there to protect Syria's oil infrastructure. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 22:43, 17 November 2019 (EST)

Make Hong Kong great again[edit]

Poster for Hong Kong district council candidate Phillip Khan
Police and protesters are gearing up for an epic rumble on the campus of Hong Kong Polytechnic University, just a few blocks away from where I am. I got as close as I could until the cops shooed me away. All I got to see were rows of police vans and firetrucks.

On a more positive note, I noticed some clever advertising by district council candidate Phillip Khan: "Make Hong Kong great again." How's this for a savvy constitutional approach: "universal suffrage...under the Basic Law." Hong Kong girls tell me he is the best-looking candidate. The district council elections, scheduled for November 24, are the way early first step in the election process, the city's Iowa primary. Hong Kong's last round of elections were shamelessly rigged by the Communist Party, leading to the current crisis of legitimacy. PeterKa (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2019 (EST)

Sort of like the Gresham's Law of democracy - where Democrats and communists control things, you have rigged elections. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 05:54, 17 November 2019 (EST)
It seems like the best time to protest would've been when the British handed over the city. But why now? --Jpatt 13:33, 17 November 2019 (EST)
[promoted by VM] Very good question. Here's a plausible response: 1997 was still in the immediate shadow of Tiannanmen (1989) but with the promise of the CCP joining the WTO (2002) everyone thought free trade would cure communism and promote democracy, as East Germany and the former USSR and other Soviet satellites were experimenting with then.
Time has shown that free trade did more to promote the spread of corruption than it did democracy, as Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Bill Browder, and the Ukraine are just a few living examples that can we can use as examples. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:49, 17 November 2019 (EST)

[promoted by VM] I took a stroll down Nathan earlier this evening and the commie-cops fired tear gas at me. That’s a sentence you don’t get to write every day. With the cloud closing in, I hightailed it down a side street. A few minutes later, I pulled out a handkerchief to protect my face. An EMS worker saw this and rushed over to put water on my face. The police announcer switched to English when she noticed me: “Don’t stay here! Don’t stay here! The police are coming!” I guess white privilege is a thing after all.

I scouted the area around PolyU. The police have the campus sealed off now. The headlines warn of "lethal force." I think we are looking at a predawn raid, which would be in just a few hours.

As far as the history goes, there were massive protests in 2003 when the government tried to impose Article 23. At that time, the Hu Jintao government backed down. Communist rule was reasonably popular in Hong Kong for the next decade or so. The faction of the party that Xi Jinping belongs to has always thought that Hu made a mistake. When Xi became president in 2012, one of the first things he did was to make the Hong Kong "local government" subordinate to the local branch of the Communist Party, or "Liaison Office." In 2016, they disqualified several opposition politicians so that the government could retain a majority in the legislature. The current protests started after an extradition bill was proposed in March. This bill would have given the Communists the authority to extradite Hong Kongers to the mainland. Xi is known to be pretty upset about the publication of anti-Communist books, among other things that are legal in Hong Kong but not tolerated on the mainland. PeterKa (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2019 (EST)

So, you're reporting from Hong Kong? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:50, 17 November 2019 (EST)
It's Monday the 18th afternoon (2:55p) right now in Hong Kong. I hope Peter doesn't live on campus and was captured by a big Chinese police raid at dawn. I wonder if habeas corpus requirements are still in effect, because maybe you wouldn't expect a civil disturbance to be still ongoing at dawn. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 01:55, 18 November 2019 (EST)

Yes, I am in Hong Kong. No, I am not on the PolyU campus. The police didn't take my "predawn raid" advise. A large group of students surrendered Monday morning, saying that food on campus was about to run out. There are just a few holdouts at this point.

Today, the High Court ruled that Carrie Lam's ban on masks is unconstitutional. The police haven't been enforcing the law much up to this point. But they came down hard on a kid who was standing right next to me. I don't think he was doing anything suspicious aside from wearing a mask. We were both waiting for the light to change. Twelve officers, one with an AR-15, ran up from behind, grabbed him, and knocked him against the wall. This was right next to a police station, so the arrest was a pretty convenient one from their point of view. I guess they need to make some mask arrests before the law expires. Meanwhile, the city is in chaos with bricks and barricades blocking the major streets. Everyone is a protester. I saw a pretty girl in a nice dress kicking bricks into the street. Did she ask the shop attendant, "Which color do you think goes best with vandalizing a public thruway?" PeterKa (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2019 (EST)

In response to Jpatt's point about why there were comparatively few protests in 1997: It was already too late and it would have looked like colonial nostalgia. Hong Kongers should have been on the streets demanding democracy back in 1978-1984 when the Joint Declaration was being negotiated. At that time, the city's business leaders were cowed by the 13-year-mortgage issue and a currency crash. Hong Kongers with money were the only ones the British listened to. PeterKa (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2019 (EST)

Shortly before 1997 the US (I think UK and dominions, too) passed a special immigration asylum bill for Hong Kongers, mostly police and law enforcement, to come to the US and elsewhere. They were virtually guaranteed jobs and to continue their careers as cops and investigators. The fear was they would be the first targeted for arrest and reprisal. The CCP had no problem with this, cause they could re-staff law enforcement and the criminal justice system with their own cronies without much public attention. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:36, 18 November 2019 (EST)

[promoted by VM] I joined the cleanup crew this morning on Nathan Road. After yesterday's day of rage, the entire road was covered with debris. We picked up bricks and tiles left by the protesters. It was a proud moment when the first taxi made it through and the driver gave us a thumbs up and a heartfelt hǎode (good). PeterKa (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2019 (EST)

Is it true the trains and subways pick up and depart every two minutes? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:51, 18 November 2019 (EST)

[promoted by VM] The stations in my area have been closed for the last few days. The protesters have a grudge against the subway provider that is complicated to explain. Hey, MTR doesn't rig the elections, attack the campuses, or try to extradite anyone. In normal times, the Hong Kong system is a wonder to behold. The announcements are given in English, Chinese, and Cantonese (the local language in Hong Kong). I don't necessarily understand them any better than I did the "English" language announcements in New York City. But they have an app that tells you what you need to know, including when the next the train is coming. The train to the airport leaves every ten minutes and the one to Disneyland is every five minutes. Just to take a subway line at random, the Island Line is every four minutes. PeterKa (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2019 (EST)

Wow. When I hear white people from Hong Kong speak English, it's almost like a second language for them. You notice that too? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:45, 18 November 2019 (EST)
You mean white people who consider themselves Hong Kongers? I didn't realize this was a thing. Han Suyin wrote books about the agony of being "Eurasian," but you don't hear this word much in modern times. I suspect the government would object and refuse citizenship. Phillip Khan was born and raised in Hong Kong and so was his father. But he is still a Pakistani national as far as the government is concerned. PeterKa (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (EST)
The CCP has in recent years partnered with Hollywood to make full feature bilingual films. Most appear to be filmed in Hong Kong. They usually bring one big name Hollywood star, but still need a few white people for speaking lines. It's pretty funny, listening to these white people trying to speak fluent English while trying to hide a Chinese accent. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:24, 19 November 2019 (EST)

U.S. Senate vote[edit]

The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act won unanimous approval in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday. With this victory in the Senate, as well as the recent High Court ruling that declared the mask ban unconstitutional, I can report that Hong Kong is a happier city than it was on Monday. After the death of student Chow Tsz-lok on Friday, there were several days of intense protests and protesters adopted the chant, “Hong Kongers, get revenge.” The Senate vote hits the Communists where it hurts far more than any protest action could. It is the first good news the city has had in six months.

The physical damage from the protests gets repaired surprisingly quickly. My local subway station reopened this morning after being closed for several days on account of protests. The bricks and bamboo poles have already been cleared from Nathan Road. We still have bare spots on the sidewalks where the protesters took the bricks. I guess Hong Kong will have to make do with ugly cement sidewalks from now on. The protesters are gone and the shoppers and hawkers are back. Private car owners are still skittish about entering the Nathan Road combat zone. No doubt they remember those videos of burning hulks that were shown over the weekend. My advice to the protesters is to use the Senate vote as an opportunity to proclaim victory, make their peace with the subway system, and focus their energy on Sunday’s election. PeterKa (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2019 (EST)

You're only saying that because you have to ride those same subways, politics or no! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 06:01, 26 November 2019 (EST)
"From Christian hymns to Canto-pop hits, Hong Kong protesters have been expressing their solidarity through song.
"Lyrics like 'still I am still free/still I am independent/Forever loudly singing my song' embody a movement that shows no signs of slowing down."
When I am yet unsuccessful at something, I sing sad songs much as they do. I am the saddest when I sing. So are those who hear me. They are even sadder than I am.
Yeah, right pal. Don't give up your day job, but way to cash in on the misfortune of your fellow citizens caused by the rise of Chinese occupation forces in your homeland. I'm sure your pop song stands astride the two nations on the same level that those forces do, ready and able to face down, by means of bad lyrics and music, exactly the kinds of problems that those forces pose. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 08:14, 26 November 2019 (EST)
It's all too true. Hong Kong residents are more likely to use the bus, which the protesters haven't attacked. PeterKa (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2019 (EST)

The Chinese Communist Party will lose power. Hong Kong will be great again[edit]

The Chinese Communist Party will lose power. Hong Kong will be great again. See: The Coming Crisis of China’s One-Party Regime. Wikignome72 (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2019 (EST)

The popular vote in Sunday's district council election was 57 percent for the pro-democracy parties, 42 percent for the pro-Beijing parties. Voter turnout was Hong Kong's best ever. It was through the roof compared to any previous district council election. It was also higher than any legislative council election, although the legislature has far greater powers than the district councils do. The pro-democracy parties won 86 percent of the contested seats and control of 17 out of the city's 18 districts. Before the election, every district was controlled by the DAB or by another pro-Beijing party. Next up on Hong Kong's political calendar is the election for a legislature scheduled for September 2020. Historically, the pro-democracy parties have done better there than in the district councils. The legislature will write rules for the 2021 chief executive election. Hopefully, these rules will be more democratic than the ones used last time around. Former Financial Secretary John Tsang and protester wunderkind Joshua Wong are the men to watch. Tsang was private secretary for Chris Patton, the last British governor. Wong is a protester favorite, but Beijing has made it clear that he is beyond the pale.
Looking over the official results, what struck me was, how is it possible that 42 percent of the vote went to pro-Beijing candidates? I never met any pro-Beijing Hong Kongers and none of my Hong Kong friends think this number is plausible. I went around Hong Kong on election day and saw no evidence of any support for Chief Executive Carrie Lam's sorry crew. Every poster and every volunteer I saw promoted a reformer. PeterKa (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2019 (EST)

Why are we supporting these protests?[edit]

I'm very iffy about supporting these protests. They started over an extradition bill, which has now been withdrawn. The original goal has been achieved. So why are they escalating now? I personally believe Deep State elements are encouraging the protesters to make progressively heavier demands, in hopes that it will spark an armed conflict that will ultimately drag in the US. They want regime change in China as soon as possible not because the current regime is communist, but because it's challenging the current unipolar world order.

Such an approach to China is not only selfish, it is also extremely dangerous. We're doing this at a time where enough fentanyl to kill everybody in the country is being brought into the US from China. I believe these illegal exports are being done in hopes that the fentanyl could be used as a WMD against our citizens, perhaps by a terrorist cell that takes orders from Beijing. Now is literally the worst time to be poking the hornet's nest. We need to avoid taking measures that could start a war, all the while rooting out this fentanyl trade and the terrorist cells they are going to (if they exist). Failure to do so could literally mean the end of this nation.--Geopolitician (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2019 (EST)

Honestly, I just want Communism to be deader than a doornail, so I'm backing the protestors for that reason alone (I could care less if the current unipolar world order collapses as a result of China's Communist party's collapse, and if anything, I'd probably welcome it if it destroys Communism once and for all.). I'm NOT supporting democracy for China, however. Actually, I see democracy as being absolutely no different from Communism and Socialism (and I don't mean that in a good way, obviously), thanks largely to the French Revolution. Once the Communists are destroyed, I'm making sure that in its place is a Christian theocracy, a Catholic Christian theocracy at that. Jesus (heck, his father, in fact) wanted an Empire in God the father's name after all. Why else would he tell his followers to spread the gospel to the four corners of the world? Pokeria1 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2019 (EST)
What is Hong Kong protesting about? The protesters have been making their "five demands" for some time. See "Why Hong Kong is protesting: Their five demands listed." It's not Hong Kongers who picked this fight. They were satisfied with the "high degree of autonomy" and "one country, two systems" that they had back in 2014. In the last few years, Beijing has started rigging the city's election system, kidnapping people who publish books critical of Beijing, and threatening extradition. PeterKa (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2019 (EST)


Pretty funny guy. Watch the 2 minutes beginning at 18:00. Toward the end he get's int the Resistance pretty good, too. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 07:56, 17 November 2019 (EST)

Bolton's back[edit]

And he's trashing Trump on social media. He has accused the President of attempting to silence him by suppressing his private Twitter account.[21] At this point, it's apparent that he's gone full #NeverTrump and (probably) supports impeachment. Time to get the popcorn as more of his (Bolton’s) former allies turn on him, like they should've done a long time ago. --Geopolitician (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2019 (EST)

B.S. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:08, 23 November 2019 (EST)
If Fiona Hill is going to immigrate to the United States and get job with the State Department, the least she could do is learn to speak English. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:29, 23 November 2019 (EST)
I'm very happy that Bolton has gone #NeverTrump. Neoconservatism must be totally discredited. If Bolton can make that happen with his antics, then more power to him. --Geopolitician (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2019 (EST)
Geopolitician, are you trying to discredit yourself? Bolton, a Top Conservative on Twitter, said the White House, not President Trump, tried to block his access to using his account. You said the opposite twice, and you can't prove it by anything Bolton said on his Twitter account since his departure. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 18:51, 24 November 2019 (EST)
Yes, he did use the words "White House" in his tweets. I won't deny that. But do you honestly believe that wasn't intended to be a rhetorical attack on the President? --Geopolitician (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2019 (EST)
I never realized my honesty was in question. Yet, here we are, I guess. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 23:37, 25 November 2019 (EST)
I wasn't questioning your honesty. It was just a "yes or no" question. Based on your reply, I'm guessing your answer is "no." Let's agree to disagree, then. I see his tweet as an attack on Trump, but you don't. --Geopolitician (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2019 (EST)

And... Trump just called Bolton a "patriot."[22] Even now, he fails to understand how insidious neocons really are. If he's trying to keep neocons and real conservatives together as one big happy family under the Trump banner, then he will fail in the end. Neoconservatism and true conservatism are fundamentally incompatible.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2019 (EST)

How do you know Bolton and the president didn't agree that they would menace Iran as a Parthian shot by sending a carrier to the Persian Gulf? That way, before Trump started implementing his isolationist foreign policy, he signalled he could break away from it if he needed to against Iran.
Because of Trump's strategy, he now needs someone with a lot more experience in diplomacy rather than someone more experienced in coercive measures like Bolton. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:11, 26 November 2019 (EST)
If Trump decided to go along with Bolton's warmongering as part of a "coercive measure" strategy, he made a serious mistake in doing so. We are in no position to try to coerce Iran about anything right now. If the events of the last decade have proven anything, it's that we're backing the wrong factions in the region, and that an alliance with Iran would be necessary to counter the actions of even worse actors like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and their al-Qaeda/ISIS-affiliated proxies. We need to acknowledge that and abandon our current anti-Iran policies. Completely.--Geopolitician (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2019 (EST)
Honestly, if I must be blunt, even if you're right that we shouldn't back Saudi Arabia, why the heck should we back Iran? Why not just nuke both of them out of existence and wipe out Islam, which if you ask me is probably the better strategy knowing that both Shia and Sunni variants are pure evil? Pokeria1 (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2019 (EST)
No one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. There would have to be a trial first, unless, of course, you don't believe in the rule of law. For anything less would be unconstitutional. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 17:28, 26 November 2019 (EST)
When fighting in a war, due process of law really doesn't work. Otherwise, our even nuking Japan to prevent Operation Downfall from slaughtering Americans in a land invasion of Japan would have been considered reprehensible due to it being a blatant violation of due process of law, not to mention the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, even though it was done specifically to prevent more American casualties. And don't get me started on how Obama tried to implement "due process of law" to terrorist groups via civilian courts, and how that was a complete disaster. And yes, what's going on in the Middle East is a war. In fact, the Muslims are ultimately no different from the Japanese in tactics, including a blatant disregard for lives, whether their enemies lives or even their own. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2019 (EST)
The simple and correct answer to your question Why not just nuke both of them out of existence...? is "because that would be mass murder on a scale beyond even the Holocaust, you absolute cretin. JohnZ (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2019 (EST)
So are you going to criticize our decision to drop bombs onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Not really all that different, especially considering that Islam as an enemy engages in similar tactics to the Japanese, with neither Shia nor Sunni really deserving to be our allies. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2019 (EST)
Your autism does not excuse calls for genocide. You are categorically wrong on this point. Desist. JohnZ (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2019 (EST)
Who said anything about my having autism, let alone it being used as an excuse? Also, I was citing actual history, like, oh, I don't know, the fact that we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically to end the war. And quite frankly, the Muslims often strapped bombs onto themselves to take out their enemies in Jihad, and have even used airplanes in suicide bombings, just like the Japanese. I guess by your logic, we were genocidal during World War II. I suggest you really rethink your rebuttal. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2019 (EST)
I suggest you consider your position on this wiki. I guarantee you that the owner does not wish to be associated with users calling for the extermination of millions of innocent people, whatever their religion. My sincere advice is to delete your most recent comments on this thread, and you have my permission to do the same for mine. I can't speak for Vargas, but I suspect he would agree. JohnZ (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2019 (EST)
Innocent? Muslims are not innocent by any stretch. In fact, I suggest you read up on several articles where it compares Islam to totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism or Communism, and also makes clear that they rape and massacre multiple Christians. And let's not forget a key tenant of their faith is the practicing of Taqqiyah, which means lying to a non-Muslim specifically to advance Islam, and even having a variation that dealt with false conversions. And let's also not forget that we've already got plenty of Muslim attacks occurring right now, from CAIR, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, and the whole shebang. And quite frankly, going by your blocked status, I'm suspecting the admins of Conservapedia ultimately agree with me. Then again, I might be wrong about that. I'd prefer sparing the muslims, but their practicing taqqiya and their overall actions made me reconsider that approach. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2019 (EST)
JohnZ, you need to be reminded of a couple things here. First, you know next to nothing about American history, for if you did you would have run right into the very first war ever declared against us as a nation, and it was done by a bunch of Muslims. Second, why don't you try looking at your own country's problems, like the euthanasia bill that was just passed. And before the ink dries on that piece of paper, one of your doctors is going to be the first one sued for refusing to help a patient kill himself. Just who are the real cretins now? Karajou (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2019 (EST)
(edit confict) Are there any still-current official jihads on the United States by any muslim sect? Sources say that may not be war.
However, there are apparently Muslim gangs all around the world committing murders on a large scale on the order of hundreds per year. The Chinese see that that kind of gang violence, with no one responding to stop it, could be claimed as a stepping stone or sanction (like a kind of consent) for more agitation over new or increased imaginary grievances.
China may have sent many spies to mosques, because instead of destroying all mosques, they only destroyed half of them (over building or fire codes), and one might think it would have paid the Chinese government off well to be selective with regard to intelligence reports of the mosques' members' revolutionary zeal in demolishing the buildings.
I think I read over a million Muslims were deported to prison camps too, and the argument above might apply here too.
If one starts to believe Muslims have reformed, that so many of their places of worship are also functional military fortresses deserves to be considered in any analysis along those lines. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 20:46, 26 November 2019 (EST)

Question for Pokeria[edit]

If only two percent of the delegates of the 1934 XVII Communist Party Congress returned to the 1939 XVIII Party Congress, the other 98% having been executed or shipped to the gulag by Stalin, is it fair to say at that point that Communism was whatever Stalin said it was?
Search Duckduckgo with "Ship of Theseus" if you're not sure. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 06:04, 11 December 2019 (EST)

Happy Thanksgiving fellow Conservapedians![edit]

Today may we all take time to reflect on everything God has blessed us with. DMorris (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2019 (EST)

London Bridge terror attack[edit]

You might like to go back to your sources. The terrorist was restrained and disarmed before the armed police arrived. They shot him because they believed he had a suicide belt. Rafael (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2019 (EST)

It would be very difficult without a gun to restrain and disarm a terrorist. If he were truly restrained and disarmed, then there would not be any reason to shoot him multiple times.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2019 (EST)
Rafael, is a customary in Britain for the authorities not to reveal a suspect's name? Like so as not to prejudice the jury? Or is it more likely due to some terror suspects having Muslim names and the authorities engaging in political correctness? I know that Muslim terrrorist attacks probably help fuel right-wing populism and pro-Brexit voting. This is not a provocateur question. I just want to know.Conservative (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2019 (EST)
It's also difficult to get hold of a narwhal tusk but, along with a fire extinguisher, it's what five members of the public and one unarmed Transport Police Officer used to take the man down. As I mentioned earlier, the terrorist appeared to have a suicide belt on so the armed police did the only thing they could. They pulled the civilians away and shot him.
It has been standard practice to withhold the names of people hurt or killed in any incident until the families have been notified. No matter how evil a person is, his family is normally innocent. Given the predatory nature of the media, they don't deserve to hear about it from a bottom-feeding "reporter". There are also moves her, and abroad, to not use a terrorist's name. It's a way of denying them their moment of infamy. To borrow a phrase Margaret Thatcher used about censoring the IRA, it "denies them the oxygen of publicity". That's not to say the name is not available. It just means it isn't shouted from the rooftops.
For the record, the terrorist was called Usman Khan, aged 28, UK born British citizen, convicted jihadi terrorist, on parole and tagged. This comes after the recent downgrading of Britain's security status and during debate about cuts to the police. If Boris Johnson and Pritti Patel don't play this right, it's going to blow up in their faces two weeks before the election. Rafael (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2019 (EST)

Supreme court will hear a case on firearms[edit]

New York has for some time shown that it is eager to defy the second amendment. It sounds like they took it too far this time. They tried to backpedal to get the supreme court to dismiss a case against them, but it didn't work. A decision is expected in June on this matter. [23] Hopefully Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will have the guts to take a stand on this. --DavidB4 (TALK) 19:41, 1 December 2019 (EST)

Roberts is the one to watch, not Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2019 (EST)
Yeah, Roberts is iffy for sure. Kavanaugh caved on something a few moths back too though... I forget now what it was. --DavidB4 (TALK) 15:17, 2 December 2019 (EST)

Lisa Page[edit]

Lisa Page just released her first tweet. In the responses, someone who had written a book about Russia-gate claimed Page was a CIA officer whose FBI job was a cover. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 02:26, 2 December 2019 (EST)

In a one-sentence excerpt I saw of an interview she gave, it shows Page is still hanging on to the claim that the FBI did have a predication for investigating Trump. This can only be through the two-jump rule of investigating George Papadopoulos and then Trump by association. This all goes back to the Australian incident again, where Papadopoulos repeats a news story to some Australian official that the Trump campaign was contacted by Wikileaks before they released the DNC leaks, which had already been claimed by major media outlets earlier.

She is trying to stay out of jail by treating dealing with the weight of the records of her manipulative activities like a personal empowerment story and off the bat is seen employing obsolete defenses instead of making a clean break and using CIA associations as a defense. Does this mean the Russia-gate book author is spinning a tale? I don't know. I just really want to put this story out of its misery before it bites anyone who tries to take it at face value. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 03:17, 2 December 2019 (EST)

She lied in her Daily Beast interview: she produced her text messages to investigators to defend herself, they did not confront her with them. Somewhere she cut a deal with investigators (we don't know specifics yet, maybe throwing Strzok under the bus), but this is part of the Lawfare group's attempt to re-integrate a snitch back into decent society. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:48, 10 December 2019 (EST)
Elsewhere she lied in the Daily Beast interview, claiming she had nothing to do with the origins of Crossfire Hurricane; she's the one who came up with the name Crossfire Hurricane. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:39, 13 December 2019 (EST)

Today's highlight reel[edit]

For those who missed Collins bulldog headlock takedown on Goldman. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:11, 9 December 2019 (EST)

Trump Polls 2020[edit]

Can someone add this to In The News: President Trump is SURGING in polls in battleground states Trumpslide 2020!

I added it to main page right.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2019 (EST)

British elections and abortion[edit]

After all these years, I give up any hope that Conservapedia will understand the situation in Britain.

Look up how many people are regular Anglican communicants. Look up where the Anglican church stands on most social issues, including gay rights. Look up where non-conformists traditionally stand politically. Look up how much influence any denomination has on voting patterns.

Then look up where Boris Johnson stands on social issues, including gay rights, positive discrimination for women and abortion - in his personal life as well as his voting record. You might want to look at his actions - not his words - on global trade. - Rafael, 15:57, 16 December 2019 (EST)

If Britons were truly for gay rights, why is it that various British parents literally dragged their kids out of the school system when they tried to do gay pride stuff in there? Besides, using your argument, British Labour would have won instead of having a landslide loss. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2019 (EST)
I've known for a long time that Boris Johnson takes leftist positions on social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and environmentalism, among other issues. However, this election was defined by Brexit, so purely in terms of that specific issue, it's a conservative victory. I'm under no illusion that Boris will be as conservative as someone like Trump, Orban, or Farage. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2019 (EST)

Democrat focus group[edit]

"How many of you here are convinced Trump should be impeached?"

Everybody raises their hand

"How many of you here are convinced Trump should be removed?"

"Isn't that the same the same thing?"

"No, being impeached is like getting arrested. After the evidence is presented, it might be found insufficient by the Senate jurors, and Trump will be found 'not guilty'."

"How many of you here are convinced Trump should be removed?"

Everybody raises their hand

"But that shows your desire to undo a constitutionally-protected election outcome by prejudging Trump's case without due process! How many of you will have the time or patience if Trump is impeached to consider all the evidence provided at the trial that follows as the law requires before a verdict can be fairly returned?"

Silence. Then: "Ask us a different question."

"How many of you here are convinced Trump should be impaled?"

Everybody raises their hand....

VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 08:42, 18 December 2019 (EST)

Road deaths per 100,000.[edit]

Switzerland's rate is indeed great, it rates 4th in the world and 2nd with a population over 250,000 after Norway. The UK rates 6th overall with 3.1 per 10,000, 4th in nations of over 250,000 and 1st of all nations over 10,000,000 and with the extreme population density in England in particular makes this an excellent result. The USA with a population density far less than the UK lies in 46th place with 12.4 per 100,000. A poor result I think you would agree.--Chewy Suarez (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2019 (EST)

I think the United States needs to have stiffer penalties for cell phone usage in phones and driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs. The fact that Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) was created and still exists, shows there is a considerable problem.
On the other hand, when I have been in very cold regions in the United States where the snow commonly crunches when you walk on it and not slushes (namely upper Minnesota, the upper penninsula of Michigan) and I have not had major problems with potholes despite the ice that commonly forms in such cold conditions. When you look at the top 20 roads systems in the world, all of them were considerably influenced by Abrahamic religions.[24] The former colonies of Britain - namely Singapore, Hong Kong and the United States - all have considerably better roads than Britain/UK. Ponder this for awhile: The United States which has a considerable amount of creationism and is a former colony of Britain, has a far greater mastery of road technology/maintainance than the UK which was the fountainhead of Darwinism!Wikignome72 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2019 (EST)
America has a huge defense budget plus has decent roads. Creationism is also very widespread in the USA. The UK, the fountainhead of Darwinism, really has no excuse. And here is the dreadful situation in the UK: "More than 40,000 miles of the UK’s roads could become unusable by 2023, with a report published by Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) in late March saying that councils faced a £556m funding shortfall. So bad is the damage to roads that the AA declared the pothole situation “a national emergency” and said that 88pc of drivers believe the roads are in a poorer condition now than a decade ago."[25]
If only the UK had not put Charles Darwin on its currency, all of this could have been avoided! God is not mocked, what men sow they will reap. The Lord and the father of biblical creationism Moses, look down on the pothole infested UK roads and laugh!Wikignome72 (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2019 (EST)
By the way, Britain is expected to be smited with a -7C in DEEP FREEZE in weather in the run-up to Jesus' birthday.[26] Intense bone-chilling cold weather and a trio of storms will unleash snow across the UK. It is time for the UK to put Moses, the father of young earth creationism, on its currencies.Wikignome72 (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2019 (EST)
This report from 2015 shows that creationism is making inroads into Britain: "An investigation by the British Humanist Association revealed in May that only 14 of the 91 schools teaching creationism had had their funding withdrawn."[27] As the Muslim populations become more dominant in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester, this trend will grow and intensify. And if the Muslim schools are given exceptions, the evangelical schools will demand the same. They will demand equality under the law.
In addition, it is becoming more and more apparent that the math doesn't add up when it comes to the hypothesis of biological evolution.[28] "As biological complexity pertains to the theory of evolution, Berlinski highlighted that Oxford University was opening up a new institute “for the Mathematical Study of Evolutionary Dynamics.” “It begins with the admission that they don’t have a mathematical theory of evolutionary dynamics, “Berlinski explained. “150 years after Darwin, that seems to me a striking admission.”[29]Wikignome72 (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2019 (EST)
Now that New Atheism is dead and the UK elected Boris Johnson, I think I will stop posting about the UK/British pothole crisis. Britain is no longer having a bad influence on the USA for the most part. One could argue that the Brexit vote helped get Donald Trump elected. And that Boris Johnson being elected will help Trump get reelected. And 2020 will be a hard fought and bitter election if 2016 was any indication of future things to come.Wikignome72 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2019 (EST)

Slackers invade new Star Wars screenplay - correction[edit]

"After Rey and (black race) Good fight a few red troopers, they come across a few white storm troopers, and Rey tricks them with the force. She says to the black chick...the white ones are always so incompetent" in which she responds 'they have smaller blasters too'. scene transitions."

I'm against allowing these screenwriters seats at the Oscar ceremonies. I sense these young award candidates to be too willing to gratuitously broach upon damaging stereotypes and primitive societal taboos, which leads to anger, which leads to fights, which leads to being framed as racist, which leads to other stereotypes being fostered that there are some Jews, like screenwriter J. J. Abrams, who maybe, somehow, possibly haven't quite negotiated their assimilation into American life as smoothly as you might have expected someone with a pale of a complexion as his to have done.[1] VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 00:43, 21 December 2019 (EST)

Oh, did I mention it might lead to different races or other groups watching the movie to isolate themselves as they're walking back to their cars, rather than share even a temporary moment of cross-group fellow-feeling of the kind you might think would come naturally after having cheered on the good guys in the movie on to victory? VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 00:54, 21 December 2019 (EST)

  1. "Fear is the path to the dark side…fear leads to anger…anger leads to hate…hate leads to suffering." Yoda, The Phantom Menace (1999).

Retraction: The good news is this was either taken out of the final cut of the movie, or it didn't exist at all. The bad news is that there are 35 reported other examples of LucasFilm [along with major media critics acting as self-qualified sociological analysts] showing a weird bias sharing the very same description, but I have to retract that any of them are known to be shown by J. J. Abrams himself like I sarcastically implied, as I'm not digging through all of them to find out. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 07:45, 23 December 2019 (EST)

If the examples are true (I haven't looked at all of them), in any other industry this would be litigable as "creating a hostile working environment" for white men. I wonder if this has ever been considered by any of their employees, and if not, why not? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 08:15, 23 December 2019 (EST)

Actually, there was one example of JJ Abrams showing anti-white bias. Specifically, it was his remark about how at the Emmy awards, he mentioned how it was the "whitest [censored] room in the history of time. It was so white" and used that as a reason to constantly fill roles with people of color. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2019 (EST)
Lol, thanks for finding that, Pokeria. So I was right after all (at least partially). I knew you watched Star Wars movies, but apparently these scapegoatings of white men have been caught up with by the observances of all kinds of viewers with any interest in cultural Marxist virtue-signalling (e.g. in YouTube videos dedicated to specific examples of the activity by LucasFilms employees or Star Wars movies). VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 09:49, 23 December 2019 (EST)
Just to be clear, when I say "some Jews", one necessary quality that forms the "some" from which I draw conclusions, is "being the liberal or left-wing kind". VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 21:02, 26 December 2019 (EST)

Bill Gates verbalizes interest in awarding grants from his foundation to support climate quackery[edit]

The man who invented "targeted donations" to foreign nations to strictly monitor whether they were making progress or just wasting his money, succumbed to extortion of climate quacks to whom "progress" doesn't apply, since part of their quackery is to claim elitehood and move the goalposts in "treating" the climate to wherever they think will draw in the most money.

Apparently Gates can't stand up to the climate quacks, just because they chose a spokesperson who might burst into tears if any portion of their spiel is questioned. I have to admit, I don't find anything in this that's very "scientific" or even "targeted". VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 16:58, 21 December 2019 (EST)

Taming the Ninth Circuit[edit]

If the border wall is ever going to get built, it will need the approval of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This court has final jurisdiction in almost all cases filed in nine western states. The Ninth has been a bastion of judicial activism since appointments by President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. In the Trump era, constitutionalism is gradually being reestablished. The Ninth is America's largest circuit with 29 judges. When Trump came to office, the Dems had an eleven seat majority. Now the Dem majority is 16 to 13. See "How Trump is filling the liberal 9th Circuit with conservatives" and "Newsletter: The changing makeup of the ‘nutty’ 9th Circuit."
Cases in federal appeals court are typically decided by three judge panels, with the judges chosen at random. The Ninth struck down Trump's travel ban and it's rulings are overturned at the highest rate of any of the circuit courts. So we can dismiss its opposition to the wall as anti-Trump spite. Isn't it ridiculous that a circuit court can have it's own positions on national policy and that so much of the nation's business is tied to when judges die or choose to retire? European nations generally have a central body that makes personnel decisions for the judiciary. These bodies are typically elected by the judiciary. So a judge who doesn't follow the rulings of the supreme court doesn't gets promoted or reappointed at the end of a term. PeterKa (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2019 (EST)

A heartwarming story for Christmas[edit]

See "Cathedral in Iraq’s largest Christian town to be rebuilt in 2020" in Catholic Herald. ISIS used this cathedral as indoor shooting range for several years and then burned it down. PeterKa (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2019 (EST)

2019: Thrill of American Christendom victory. The agony American atheism defeat[edit]

Below is a message to a New Zealand atheist.

Pew Research 2019 report that Christianity is rapid declining in the USA is bunk states Dr. Steve Turley. Christianity is NOT Declining in the USA, but is Stronger than EVER.[30]

The Federalist reported in 2018: New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger.[31] See also: Baylor University researchers on American Christianity

Conservapedia's articles on atheism, which show all the many problems the atheist worldview, continue to receive hundreds of thousands of views per year.

On the other hand, David Silverman is fired from the American Atheists organization amid allegations of sexual and financial impropriety (see: Firing of David Silverman from the American Atheists organization). "Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered...". - Zechariah 13:7. God has smited the American Atheists organization and American atheism!Conservative (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2019 (EST)

Ace, if only liberals/leftists and atheists had a more accurate appraisal of the state of American religion/irreligion.
"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." - Sun Tzu. Conservative (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2019 (EST)

Atheists, how dare you![edit]

Most atheists lean to the left politically. And most liberals/leftists believe that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming/climate change and that using coal for energy production causes global warming.

In December of 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported about atheist controlled, mainland China: "...despite China’s pledges to make steep cuts in what is the country’s most prevalent and polluting source of energy. The country is building more coal-fired plant capacity than the rest of the world combined."[32]

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words... How dare you!" - Greta Thurnberg, Swedish secular leftist whose religion is radical environmentalism.[33] See also: The religion of Greta Thunberg.Conservative (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2019 (EST)

That sounds like the witch doctor who strongly protests when the Doctor of Medicine shows up with the real cure! VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 23:56, 27 December 2019 (EST)
Liberals have expanded their practice of overcounting votes to the meteorological sciences where they overcount high temperature readings in batch after batch of botched data collection. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 00:01, 28 December 2019 (EST)
Things are tough all over. They're complaining about shrinking polar bear habitats AGAIN. But evidently the bears don't have a problem with crowding: their population is increasing. For all we know higher temperatures means slightly less habitat but more sea plants equals MORE FISH!
Liberals simply don't have the compassion that we do. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 00:16, 28 December 2019 (EST)
A polar bear stated: "Sure, the ice calving shrunk our habitat slightly, but the idea in itself gave us just enough oomph that we needed to actually visit our fellow polar bear neighbors for a change. Now the polar bears socialize more and don't need as much room, which means more mating. I kept telling my spouse we needed to get out more." VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 00:22, 28 December 2019 (EST)
Liberals need to look in the mirror and instead of wrongly seeing themselves as climate heroes for their colleges' science departments, they should truly see themselves as following imaginary crusades pursued for the sake of their leaders' own self-advancement. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 00:39, 28 December 2019 (EST)

AOC for president?[edit]

AOC will be 31 on inauguration day 2021. A president has to be at least 35, according to the Constitution. Perhaps Politico is talking about 2024. IMO, the article is intentionally misleading and tries to generate hype for something that is impossible. PeterKa (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2019 (EST)

The year 2020 is the year of the 700th Olympiad. In 20 A.D. it was the 200th Olympiad. I've been given to understand that that event back then was a harbinger of the appearance of the Messiah. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 00:07, 28 December 2019 (EST)
Isaac Newton was a smart guy and a faithful Christian. He had some opinions on these matters: "Why did Sir Isaac Newton predict the world would end in 2060 AD?" PeterKa (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2019 (EST)
Apparently he wrote a lot about the Bible.
Here's my contribution: 2020 will be the first all-even year number since 2008, but more amazing is the year 2022 in the trinary number system is 2202220. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 08:11, 29 December 2019 (EST)

The Conservapedia biography of AOC correctly gives her birthyear, and it correctly gives her static age at the time of her election to Congress. But no template is used to dynamically display her age. We should add a sentence, "Because she is only {{age|1989|10|13}}, she is ineligible to run for President of the United States." In the meantime, the main page right item is confusing to our readers. GChang (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2019 (EST)

AOC may challenge Schumer in a primary. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:49, 3 February 2020 (EST)

Coronavirus Article[edit]

Why is there not an article about coronaviruses and the outbreak that has spread to the United States? I'm only seeing a self-serving blurb on the main page. Why can't the Best of the Public provide a knowledgeable article to inform our readers? --JLind (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2020 (EST)

Great point. Thank you!!!! I'll start one now.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2020 (EST)
Prophet Moses.jpg
East Asian atheists have live cats and exotic animals in cages in their food markets, which medical authorities believe likely caused the Wuhan coronavirus[34]. Modern, medical authorities in China are now using the Mosaic principle of quarantine to help contain the epidemic.[35] See: The Bible and health
If the Chinese, atheist leaders instituted better quality control in terms of a food delivery system instead of having a barbaric and cruel cat slaughtering industry, perhaps this epidemic may have never happened. See: Cat slaughtering practices in China and Dietary practices of atheists
China, which has the largest atheist population in the world, is now paying a tribute to Moses by having the largest quarantine in human history! See: China and atheism
As much as I hate to say it, once again Bible believers most certainly feel compelled to declare victory over atheists! Olé! Olé! Olé!Conservative (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2020 (EST)
Our top six MPR articles are all on coronavirus; this information needs to be put into the actual article, not just randomly strewn across MPR. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:48, 27 January 2020 (EST)
I have a suspicion that some of the articles about the dietary practices of atheists on the internet are caused by someone with a unique sense of humor who has a low esteem for atheism/atheist. Cats and dogs and babies, oh my!Conservative (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2020 (EST)
Over 20,000 page views for the Atheists eat babies meme article. The newly minted article Atheism and rodent eating article has about 300 page views thus far.Conservative (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2020 (EST)
Mercian appears to be getting angrier and angrier. Instead of getting angry, he should try to debunk the information in my popular Atheists eat babies meme article. In addition, he cannot defend the notion that bringing Muslims into a culture with a significant amount of libertines, is not going to be a causal factor for violence. Sad!Conservative (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2020 (EST)

To: Mercian, flashback: Anglophobia[edit]

I read an article about the Irish potato famine, and it formed a horrific picture in my mind of Irish politicians so committed to protecting Ireland's vanity that they refused charitable food assistance from Queen Victoria and insisted that the transaction must take the form of Great Britain beginning enormous public works projects and paying workers from Ireland to do the work.
But now Mercian insists that we deny that picture that history presents to our senses and just accept that Great Britain "allowed millions of Irish to starve on more than one occasion".
Mercian's description allows for an enormous range of possible culpability from the trivial to the Holodomor, where millions of Ukranians starved to death, so why would he choose a description of an event so vague that it can't be relevant to anything, while yet presented as if it were intended to prove something?
I don't think Mercian is a poor arguer; I think Mercian is too controlling; he presents that which we have thought about particular historical events using his propositional speech in such a way as to normalize basic mistrust of Great Britain, the subtext being that the indignity of being the object of such a range of possible outcomes in meaning regarding its blame is appropriate enough to its subject.
When Mercian presents these hints about an odiosity in Great Britain's behavior, like the boy who cried wolf, you either investigate in order to contradict him well, and he could say "see, you agreed it was appropriate enough", or you confront the attempted intervention between the passage of Great Britain's reputation to its national observers, and he could say "You didn't have the compassion to even look to see if the worst were true. You can't believe your eyes and ears when you look at the picture formed in your mind (or even evaluate your common experience in passing) upon reading the recitation of ordinary historical facts indicative of Great Britain's virtue." There's no downside for him!
I propose to dub this weak defense of one's propositions through this kind of ambivalent playing of the informant together with the potential of asking us to deny our sensations (applying in this case to sensations of those images presented by our historical narrators) the "Mercian"—as it was I who discovered it. VargasMilan (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
Mercian, is one of at least 3 British atheists who have been obsessed with my internet writings. One thing that atheists are known for is their poor grasp of history and/or their historical revisionism. See: Atheism and historical revisionism. Of course, this is not surprising as it is very apparent that that Jesus Christ had on an extremely positive effect on the world and the best explanation of this was that He was God in the flesh and that He rose from the dead.Conservative (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

Come to think of it, didn't Chewy pull a Mercian a few days ago? VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 16:50, 28 January 2020 (EST)

The denizens of a certain wiki criticized my articles on the brutal cat/dog trade in atheist controlled China. And now Mercian digs himself in deeper by continuing the criticism of my commentary on this cat/dog trade. Why can't they just admit that atheists do a poor job of running things? Why can't they just admit that atheists eating live rodents is disgraceful? See: Atheism and rodent eating.Conservative (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2020 (EST)

Mercian: The blood of the Manchester Arena Bombing victims are on the hands of British liberals/leftists/moderates[edit]

Mercian wrote: "I admit that eating live rodents is disgusting but nowhere near as disgusting as murdering young people because they disagree with you politically. Personally I would rather eat rodents for the rest of my life than kill one single person but Mr Conservative glorifies in killing kids and even post Oles when it does happen. When will he admit that killing children is disgusting? Never because he agrees and applauds the concept."
My response, 3 things: 1) I am glad you admitted that Eastern atheists (who make up the majority of the world's atheists and perhaps agnostics as well as per the information cited in the article Asian atheism) eating live rodents is disgusting. 2) You didn't admit that that the cat/dog slaughtering methods in China are barbaric and that the trade did not follow good health practices and thus may have been a causal factor to the coronavirus epidemic 3) Secular leftists/liberals/moderates opened the floodgates of Muslim immigration to Britain/UK. Despite any ideological blindness that may have impaired their judgment (multiculturism, the belief that all cultures are equal, the anti-empirical belief that a large percentage of first/second generation Muslims would be assimilated into the UK/Europe. See: Religious immigrants to Europe resistant to secularization), given what is known about Muslim culture including its more violence aspects/individuals ala Islamic terrorism, it was willful blindness not to foresee that violence would erupt from Muslims against socially libertine/liberal individuals/organizations. Thus, the Manchester Arena Bombing is squarely on the shoulders of British individuals such as Mercian and certainly not on the shoulders of any Americans who lean on the right side of the political spectrum such as myself (not all editors of the User: Conservative are as right leaning as I am, but all of them do believe in religious liberty).Conservative (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2020 (EST)
By now, all Mercian ever seems to do is recite historical fantasies flattering to his political self-advancement that he tailors out of whole cloth and then tries to use as a backdrop to make anything he says, true or false, look less abnormal by comparison—and does so in a smug manner to try to divert from the fact that his credibility has already been shot a long time ago by his increasing use of this same practice, even before it was explicitly described. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 10:15, 29 January 2020 (EST)

Mercian bitterly said: "At no point in that little tirade did you deny that you glorify in the murder of children."

I take no pleasure in teenage girls being enamored with the work of the liberal/feminist Ariana Grande who famously said, ""I hate Americans. I hate America." in response to seeing a tray of donuts. Last time I checked, many cultures have sweets. And obesity, with the exception of places like Japan, various religious, African countries and other countries, is becoming a worldwide problem as evidenced by the documentary Globesity. And much to the dismay of permissive liberals, Japan is hardcore against being fat![36] The New York Times wrote: "To reach its goals of shrinking the overweight population by 10 percent over the next four years and 25 percent over the next seven years, the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments that fail to meet specific targets. The country’s Ministry of Health argues that the campaign will keep the spread of diseases like diabetes and strokes in check."[37]

Jesus said that a good tree will produce good fruit and a bad tree produces bad fruit. According to Elle Magazine, "Ariana Grande joined Madonna on stage for a racy, twerk-filled performance of 'Music.'[38] According to Vogue magazine, "Guest stars included Coldplay, Katy Perry, and Justin Bieber, and Grande cruised the stage belting out her dirtiest songs at the request of one victim’s mother after it was suggested that the bomber, who had links to the Islamic State, had acted in protest of her racy pop persona."[39] While I am no fan of the Islamic State, Ms. Grande is a hedonist and there is certainly no shortage of single mothers so the lifestyle she is promoting is not a healthy lifestyle - especially when you consider that 70-80% of murders/rapists come from single parent homes without fathers.[40] And post feminism, more women are now unhappy with their lives.[41][42]

Grande has been seeing a mental health professional for about a decade (started after her parents divorce) so she is certainly not a strong role model who is prospering in her mental/spiritual life. She also supports the homosexual agenda which advocates a lifestyle that is physically/mentally/spiritually destructive (see: Homosexuality and health). Furthermore, she supports Bernie Sanders and socialism is a very economically destructive force (Venezuela, etc.).

And it doesn't take a genius to understand that mixing the hedonist/liberal Ariana Grande in an area with a lot of Muslims like Manchester (Manchester has a 15.8% Muslim population which translates to 79,496 Muslims) is not a great idea. Culturally, they are oil and water and in an era of Islamic terrorism you are needlessly putting misguided teenage women in danger (I provide data related to this matter below). Unfortunately, Ariana Grande and her security team, the parents of her fans, and the British politicians and intelligence/police officials failed to realize this obvious truth which is very blind of them - especially post 2015 Paris Islamic terrorism.

Dr. Peter Hammond wrote:

"When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).

  • Guyana -- Muslim 10%
  • India -- Muslim 13.4%
  • Israel -- Muslim 16%
  • Kenya -- Muslim 10%
  • Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning: Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%."[43]

In short, the blood of Manchester Arena Bombing is on the hands of pro-Islam immigration advocates which typically are in Mercian's ideological camp and certainly not mine.

"Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?" - King Solomon. Conservative (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2020 (EST)

Mercian, I know it grates on you when I point out the foolish and often self-absorbed mindset of secularists/liberals/leftists who fail to see the consequences of their actions, but instead of being filled with seething rage, I suggest becoming a Christian conservative. Then you can become a happy warrior who merrily skewers the folly of secularists/liberals/leftists and topples over their most sacred cows. Olé! Olé! Olé!.Conservative (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2020 (EST)
By the way, the secularization rate of Britain is now zero (see: British atheism and Western World areas with stagnant secularization rates). Evangelicalism/pentecostalism/Islam are growing in Britain and it is only a matter of time before the air supply of atheism/agnosticism is cut off in Britain - namely evolutionary indoctrination in public schools.
Already, British Muslims are refusing to send their children to British schools pushing the homosexual agenda. And the new atheist Richard Dawkins is complaining that British teachers are kowtowing to British, Muslim, creationist schoolchildren and their parents lest they make them upset (see: New Atheism as a reaction to creationism).
The Christian Post reported on July 21, 2019 as far as Britain: "The percentage of respondents who said they were nondenominational Christians increased from 3% of the population in 1998 to 13% in 2018." See: Growth of evangelical Christianity in irreligious regions
On December 23, 2012, Professor Eric Kaufmann who teaches at Birbeck College, University of London wrote:
"I argue that 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious.
On the other hand, the secular West and East Asia has very low fertility and a rapidly aging population. The demographic disparity between the religious, growing global South and the aging, secular global North will peak around 2050. In the coming decades, the developed world's demand for workers to pay its pensions and work in its service sector will soar alongside the booming supply of young people in the third world. Ergo, we can expect significant immigration to the secular West which will import religious revival on the back of ethnic change. In addition, those with religious beliefs tend to have higher birth rates than the secular population, with fundamentalists having far larger families. The epicentre of these trends will be in immigration gateway cities like New York (a third white), Amsterdam (half Dutch), Los Angeles (28% white), and London, 45% white British.[44]
Bye, bye evolutionary indoctrination. First it will fall in London and then other cities with sizable religious fundamentalist populations.
"The history of war proves that nine out of ten times an army has been destroyed because its supply lines have been cut off...” - General Douglas MacArthur.Conservative (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2020 (EST)
Mercian, the rise of religious fundamentalism and creationism in Britain in the 21st century can be seen HERE.Conservative (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2020 (EST)

LMAO! Oh no he didn't! Oh no he didn't! Globesity is good, but I still like Globaloney. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 20:07, 29 January 2020 (EST)

I would guess that the neocommunists want to normalize violence by means of the mixed population you described, and that they consider their own people being some of the fatalities to be an acceptable loss. But if you're on their side, you're not supposed to actually point out the contradiction by trying to hide it by way of blaming the political expert who's examining whether or not to dignify your abuse with an answer!

Even the neocommunists don't want Mercian—they don't need babies; they need people who know what they're doing! VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 20:49, 29 January 2020 (EST)

Globesity is a recent World Health Organization (WHO) term for the global obesity epidemic.[45]Conservative (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2020 (EST)

Mercian: He is still the bitter and delusional irreligious man living in La La Land[edit]

He recently said about the Manchester Arena Bombing: "I take no pleasure in teenage girls being enamored with the work of the liberal/feminist Ariana Grande." But you do take pleasure in them dying don't you you murderous (by proxy) scumbag. "Fred Phelps is dead, long live his successor"--Mercian (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

A few points:

1. I did not ask British, Muslim terrorists to bomb the Ariana Grande concert. They are not a proxy of mine.

On the contrary, despite having very cordial relationships with Muslims in my area, I am anti-Muslim immigration to the USA/UK/Europe in terms of large numbers of people. It is a recipe for civil strife and Muslim terror attacks.

On the other hand, people in Mercian's ideological camp, are pro-Muslim immigration to Western countries. Yet, they don't want to accept the responsibility as far as the consequences of what occurs by doing this.

2. Given her reputation for being risqué and being pro-homosexuality, Ariana Grande and her security team did the equivalent of hitting a hornet's nest with a stick by having her concert in an area with a very significant concentration of Muslims like Manchester, UK (Britain and France have had their share of Muslim terrorism so it wasn't like the concert bombing was like lightning striking with a blue sky). A very high percentage of Muslims are not assimilating into European culture as can be seen in this article: Religious immigrants to Europe resistant to secularization.

It is well known that many Muslims want women to "cover up". It is well known that many British Muslims are anti-homosexuality.

Here is a 2019 news report about Ariana Grande from the Belfast Telegraph: Ariana Grande celebrates 26th birthday with risqué photo.

James Harkin wrote in the Daily Mail:

"Now that it seems likely the atrocity in Manchester was carried out by a freelance 'soldier' allied to Islamic State, there's good reason to think neither the venue nor the performer were chosen at random.
Why would anyone target a concert by the American singer Ariana Grande? The grim answer may lie in the fact that with her revealing stage outfits, her stockings, pink bunny ears and unabashed sexual confidence, 23-year-old Miss Grande is a symbol of everything Islamists hate.
According to the purist, medieval interpretation of the Koran favoured by Islamic State, almost everything about Western music, and the Western lifestyle that goes with it, is haram, or forbidden — and so merits a death sentence.
Indeed, one claim of responsibility for Monday's attack stated: 'The explosive devices were detonated in the shameless concert arena.'...
Thus the sight of Ariana Grande and her risqué stage outfits would be anathema to the fanatics...
In 2004, British police secretly recorded a cell of young Islamists discussing a possible attack on a London nightclub, on the basis that no one could 'turn round and say 'Oh, they were innocent', those slags dancing around'.
Likewise, a car bomb parked outside Tiger Tiger nightclub in London's Piccadilly in 2007 seems to have been designed to coincide with a 'ladies' night' at the venue, in which the perpetrators might have hoped to kill and maim scantily clad young women drinking alcohol."[46]

Ariana Grande now has PTSD and some of her fans died. This didn't have to happen.Conservative (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2020 (EST)

To sum up, I disagree with the decadence that Ariana Grande promotes. On the other hand, I am not for ladies having to wear burkas nor am I pro-Muslim terrorist attacks. It is also apparent that bringing into proximity these two opposite cultures via high amounts of Muslim immigration is a very bad idea given that a very significant proportion of UK/European Muslims are not assimilating into European culture (see: Religious immigrants to Europe resistant to secularization). Conservative (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2020 (EST)
Why Mercian and likeminded pro-Muslim immigration Brits are responsible for the Manchester Arena Bombing: "European Muslim communities seem to assimilate at different rates and in different ways. A Pew survey from 2006 found that 42 percent of French Muslims defined themselves as “French first, Muslim second”—the highest such rate in any of the European countries Pew surveyed. Only 7 percent of British Muslims identified as “British first, Muslim second.” I’ll personally note—and perhaps you’ve shared this experience—that it’s not uncommon to meet people of North African Muslim origin at senior levels of the French security services, something highly uncommon for their counterparts in the United Kingdom."[47]Conservative (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2020 (EST)

Putting Mercian to the test[edit]

Mercian wrote: "I do not exchange messages with supporters and sympathisers of Islamic Terrorists. What ever #@#@ you come up with does not disguise that fact. You support Jihad, So Jihadi..[User: Conservative], #@#@# Off"

Question for Mercian: Do you support banning immigration to the UK from Muslim majority countries?

According to the 2011 census, in England there were about 2,660,116 Muslims which was 5.02% of the population. No doubt the percentage is higher now given the higher birth rates of Muslims compared their irreligious/nonreligious counterparts who have a sub-replacement rate of fertility.

"Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United Kingdom and its adherents have the lowest average age out of all the major religious groups. Between 2001 and 2009, the Muslim population increased almost 10 times faster than the non-Muslim population."[48]

By the way, creationism is growing in Britain thanks to the growth of Islam, Pentecostalism and Evangelical Christianity in Britain. Charles Darwin will never again be on British currency!Conservative (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2020 (EST)

Re: the anklebiter Mercian[edit]

In response to:

Why Mercian and likeminded pro-Muslim immigration Brits are responsible for the Manchester Arena Bombing: "European Muslim communities seem to assimilate at different rates and in different ways. A Pew survey from 2006 found that 42 percent of French Muslims defined themselves as “French first, Muslim second”—the highest such rate in any of the European countries Pew surveyed. Only 7 percent of British Muslims identified as “British first, Muslim second.” I’ll personally note—and perhaps you’ve shared this experience—that it’s not uncommon to meet people of North African Muslim origin at senior levels of the French security services, something highly uncommon for their counterparts in the United Kingdom."[46]Conservative (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2020 (EST)

Mercian wrote: "That Sir, is libel. When Alex Jones expressed similar views on Sandy Hook the lawsuit almost ruined him, and I am guessing he is a man of vastly more resources than you.--Mercian (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)"

Vox Day wrote concerning anklebiters:

Anklebiters are:
  • 0 to +1 SD intellect
  • Mildly autistic at the least, which leads them to overestimate their own intellect.
  • Far more hurt by a mix of dialectic and rhetoric rather than pure rhetoric (they innately believe themselves above it) or pure dialectic (they'll just retreat to appeals of authority).

For efficacy in pain, the mix of dialectic and rhetoric will probably depend on the level of autism in particular.

The only thing I haven't figured out in this theory is the best way to handle said anklebiters. Ignoring them certainly works, as they're just self-styled intellectual tough-guys walking around with a chip on their shoulders. It certainly seems to serve to frustrate their efforts on that end. But anklebiters can look like an expert to the average stranger, and indeed seems to spend their time trying to convince everyone around them that they are an expert, so it may serve in everyone's best interest to nip that problem in the bud. How, I do not know. Domestication training, using dialectic/rhetoric mixes as the stick?

Anklebiters are a brain-damaged form of midwit. They are almost always atheist, further pointing towards the atypical neurological profile required for that, they are usually male, and they tend to be unexpectedly poorly educated and badly read despite their observable intelligence. Most importantly, they lack the normal ability to admit failure, back up, and start over that normal individuals possess. And lacking it, they therefore lack any ability to improve their arguments or even to question any of their adopted beliefs.[49]

Mercian is not an atheist, but he is close to being an atheist as he is an agnostic.

I would say at this point that Mercian's intellect is 0 to +1 SD intellect at best. The absurdity of someone from another country who uses a username/pseudonym threatening to sue someone for libel leads me to the conclusion that Mercian does not possess a high intellect.

Since Mercian appears to be a classic, midwit anklebiter, the best course of action at this point is to follow Vox Day's advice and ignore him.

Sounds like a good idea. SamHB (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2020 (EST)

"The difference between the mid-wit and the genuinely intelligent is usually fairly easy to identify. The mid-witted individual tends to compare himself to those below the average and concludes that because he isn't like them, he must be a genius." - Vox Day.[50]Conservative (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2020 (EST)

Bio weapons research?[edit]

This report maybe one of a kind, and possibly spurious, but it is another angle to this virus.[51] Karajou (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2020 (EST)

Here's another recent report. Care to begin a new subsection in the article? Let's call it ===Alternative theories=== for now. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:19, 28 January 2020 (EST)
Done. Until proven, I think this bio-weapons theory should be classed as mere speculation. Karajou (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2020 (EST)
What a coincidence. The day after reports that Wuhan needs 100,000 hazmat uniforms daily but the whole nation produces only 30,000, and the U.S. declares corona a national emergency, 9 million surgical gowns made in China are recalled from the U.S. [52] RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:21, 31 January 2020 (EST)