Talk:Main Page/Archive index/188

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

Roberts won't read Ciaramella question

The refusal of Chief Justice John Roberts to read a question from U.S. Senator Rand Paul shows that he is a deeply compromised man: "Read The Question About Eric Ciaramella That Chief Justice John Roberts Just Refused To Read." Roberts is the guy who appointed the FISA judges who approved the Carter Page warrant. Page had long worked with the FBI, so it's unlikely that they ever really thought he was Russian spy. The purpose of the warrant was to legitimize surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016. As a CIA employee, Ciaramella is supposed to be working for the president. Paul wondered why he was instead plotting impeachment with the House staff long before impeachment hearings began. Every first year journalism major is taught that a news story should tell the reader "who, what, where, when, why, and how." Yet the mainstream media refuses to name the guy behind the impeachment effort or to explain why he is pushing it. PeterKa (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2020 (EST)

Either Roberts has no backbone or he leans towards the establishment or both. That he voted for ObamaCare and legislated from the bench in order to call it a tax, points to him being spineless and lacking character. Conservative (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2020 (EST)

What it likely means is Roberts is enforcing an agreement between McConnell and Schumer on trial rules - that Ciaramella's name cannot be mentioned in any context. What concession Schumer agreed to for this item is unknown, but it doesn't really matter since it has become increasingly obvious the Pelosi/Nadler/Schiff Articles were designed to fail.

As a procedural point, if Republicans forced a ruling on the matter (being that they hold all the cards), Roberts would loose. That's why it is likely part of agreed upon rules. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 22:21, 30 January 2020 (EST)

The impeachment trial, like the Electoral College, stacking the SCOTUS, abolishing the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments, is just part of the Democrats War on the Constitution (War on Freedom) that Democrats intend to brainwash juveniles with as to why the Constitution needs to be abolished, the Republican Party outlawed, and the need for a single party state. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 22:30, 30 January 2020 (EST)

I think the constitution is redundant today—barring Trump of course, you can see how sensitive the government already is to all the diverse complaints made by every conceivable interest group! But the system under the constitution is broken. If we could only listen to the lectures of our moral betters and disarm the citizenry, I really believe in my heart that we could give Venezuela a run for the money!

In fact, stubbornly clinging to the constitution in spite of the counsel of wise progressives is probably the cause of half of all the arguments that go on these days. These are the result of legitimate grievances and not a scheme to derive a benefit, because they couldn't possibly profit anyone. I mean in this country.

And how could anyone be against progress? You don't get to define progress, but we'll let you take your turn later. True, no one knows how radical leftism rematerialized and was put in charge, but who's going to be concerned about something as minor as that? Like I said, we'll let you take your turn later.

Maybe we can watch and learn who gets their turn first. We need look no further than the order of those hopping onto the civil rights gravy train much to the surprise of the American descendants of slaves for whom the civil rights benefits were supposed to be intended! These descendants of slaves must notice, that while these newcomers are undeserving, you might not know it from their faces, alternately looking sad and threatened, maybe making calls for a photo-op with the anti-gun lobby to kill two birds with one stone.

RobS says Democrats intend to brainwash our youth into believing radical views on issues, but that's ridiculous—thanks to our schools, they don't even understand the issues in the first place! Not that they need to if they simply imitate the tone of these newly minted civil rights leaders when they volunteer to express their feelings. Our longtime black communities should be grateful—it's not like they're calling themselves American heroes or anything. At least not yet. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 04:31, 31 January 2020 (EST)

If Donald Trump is going to have more of a lasting impact, he will need to create more school choice pre-college/university which he is doing via Betty DeVos.

But Trump also needs to cut off the federal funding for useless college majors which indoctrinate students into cultural Marxism, leftism, identity politics, etc. College students are forced into taking useless classes and the federal government is subsidizing it via college loan program. The reason young people are Bernie Sanders supporters is due to the 2007/2008 financial crisis awakening leftist populism, but it is also due to indoctrination in the American school system.Conservative (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2020 (EST)

The world is changing faster than we can type. Coronavirus is the final nail in the globalist coffin. Travel bans are a matter of national security (supported by SCOTUS). What is not being reported is the Chinese people blame the communists and the government for the corona outbreak and mishandling of the crisis. Just as Chernobyl was the death knell of the CPSU, Corona may be the death knell of the CCP. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 09:33, 31 January 2020 (EST)

Brexit: "communists take another hit"

The British Communist Party, like the British Socialist Party, has been consistently anti-EU. Come on, a little due diligence - or checking with British conservapedians - won't hurt and it will save face. Rafael (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2020 (EST)

It refers to the commie dominated EU & Commission. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 19:26, 31 January 2020 (EST)

Wrong again. Like crime in a multistorey carpark, wrong on many levels. As User:Conservative correctly asserts, there is a wave of nationalist populism sweeping Europe so the countries aren't communist. The commission consists of nominees chosen by the governments of the member states, so the commission isn't communist. The largest bloc in the EU Parliament is the right to centre right European People's Group so the Parliament isn't communist. The EU was originally set up, and continues, to facilitate and promote the free flow of capital so their policies aren't communist. Perhaps you meant the euro-communist movement of the 1980s that represented a move from hard left to liberalism and died in its sleep in the early 90s? Rafael (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2020 (EST)

Yeah, about that... Writing in The Spectator (London) of 5th February 2000 John Laughland, in regards to the European Union, stated that "The West is now on the verge of achieving that of which Lenin and Trotsky dreamed in 1917. For the point is not to replace nation states with a European or world superstate. It is instead to achieve the old Marxist dream of abolishing statehood altogether". Pokeria1 (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2020 (EST)

[promoted by VM] Was Winston Churchill a Marxist? Rafael (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2020 (EST)

Never said that Winston Churchill was a Marxist, and quite frankly, he at least realized Stalin was NOT to be trusted to his credit. However, that doesn't mean he can't have been duped into supporting Communist policies while under the impression that they're anti-communist. America fell for that bit as well, where communists posed as anti-communists. Case in point, John McCloy's policies were advertised as being formed to fight the communists via the UN, yet in reality, he knew full well they'd aid the Communist cause and in fact designed them as a perfect trojan horse to aid them, and he was so good at his lying that even Ronald Reagan got tricked by him. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2020 (EST)

That's a lot of supposition, analogy and dicky inference to avoid primary evidence that the EU was not and is not a communist project. This isn't a competition. The facts are not negotiable. Personally, I believe it's better to be proven wrong and learn than to stubbornly persist in error but, hey, that's just me.

At a tangent, the leading British voice proposing to keep Stalin at bay - and pushing for a broad transatlantic post-war alliance - was Ernest Bevin, a socialist. Condoleeza Rice wrote her PhD thesis on him. Rafael (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2020 (EST)

[promoted by VM] Laughland wrote another article pointing out Communist ties to the EU, this one dated in 2009, and, well, he does cite a variety of sources at least, some of which came from the likes of Marx and Engels. [1]. And quite frankly, here's my idea of socialists. It could be Stalin, Hitler, or Bevin, doesn't matter who, all socialists and communists need to be wiped out of this planet, and the reason why is because all socialists and communists, as early back as the French Revolution, made it their number one goal to push atheism and more importantly exterminating not just Christianity, but any and all religions just for the "crime" of even existing in the first place. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2020 (EST)

EDIT: Also, might as well quote from New Republic's June 5, 2017 issue regarding McCloy for you to get a better understanding of what I was getting at regarding Communists posing as anti-Communists. It's on page 38, to be more specific, under the article The UN Founding and Founders:

John J. McCloy, known as the "chairman of the American establishment," was an insiders' insider. He was chairman of the CFR (from 1953-1970), chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, chairman of the Ford Foundation, assistant secretary of war, U.S. high commissioner for Germany, and president of the World Bank, as well as being friend and advisor to nine U.S. presidents, from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan.

And yet McCloy, the quintessential wealthy Wall Streeter, was like so many others among the CFR elites, strangely friendly with communist dictators and supportive of communists and communist movements here in the United States. Max Holland, contributing editor to The Wilson Quarterly, reported in the Autumn 1991 issue of that journal that "In a May [1946] memo, FBI head J. Edgar Hoover warned the Truman Administration of an 'enormous Soviet espionage ring in Washington … with reference to atomic energy,' and identified McCloy along with Dean Acheson and Alger Hiss, as worrisome for 'their pro-Soviet leanings.'"

After all, it was McCloy who, two years earlier, as assistant secretary of war, approved an order permitting Communist Party members to become officers in the U.S. Army. He defended identified communist John Carter Vincent and supported J. Robert Oppenheimer after the scientist was denied a top security clearance. It was also McCloy who organized the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency for President Kennedy and who, together with Soviet counterpart Valerian Zorin, drew up the 1961 Freedom From War surrender plan that proposed to transfer all U.S. armaments, including the private arms of American civilians, to the United Nations.

However, McCloy, who was well versed in the dark arts of deception, learned early on that he could use anti-communist rhetoric to sell pro-communist schemes. He observed that a good way to assure a viewpoint gets noticed and wins approval is to cast it in terms of resisting the spread of communism. "People sat up and listened when the Soviet threat was mentioned," he once remarked. Allen and John Foster Dulles, Dean Acheson, Dean Rusk, Averell Harriman, Robert McNamara, and many other CFR "wise men" learned this lesson well, and regularly claimed their policies were aimed at fighting communism, when they were instead helping the communists.

During the war, McCloy and his fellow CFR globalists paved the way and drew up the plans for the organization that would become the United Nations. And in the postwar years they carried their schemes to fruition. What was the result? The United Nations became one of the most important vehicles for promoting communism and socialism worldwide.

We have space here for only one example that demonstrates, only seven years after its founding, where the UN was going. In 1952, Senator James O. Eastland summed up findings of an investigation by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary into "Activities of U.S. Citizens Employed by the UN." Senator Eastland stated:

I am appalled at the extensive evidence indicating that there is today in the UN among the American employees there, the greatest concentration of Communists that this Committee has ever encountered…. These people occupy high positions. They have very high salaries and almost all of these people have, in the past, been employees in the U.S. government in high and sensitive positions.

How did all of these communist agents and subversives get into those "high and sensitive positions?" Recalling his official government service, McCloy once remarked: "Whenever we needed a man we thumbed through the roll of the Council members and put through a call to New York."

Emphasis mine. If we Americans, even anti-Communist Cold Warriors like Reagan who ought to know better, could get snookered into promoting pro-Communist policies under the impression that we were supporting anti-Communist policies via McCloy, there's a good chance the British were similarly snookered as well. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2020 (EST)

EDIT 2: Can someone help me try to get the above into a block quote? Despite trying to do so, it doesn't format properly. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2020 (EST)

This being the 75th Anniversary of everything post-1945, Russia yesterday declassified documents on the Yalta Conference (in Crimea). Amazing, they seem to be willing to take more pride in founding the UN than contemporary American commie libs. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 18:16, 1 February 2020 (EST)

That kind of observation only encourages people who already know that the first Secretary-General of the U.N., Alger Hiss, was a secret communist. Everybody else thinks, "yeah, it got corrupted later, but why are conservatives always against international co-operation altogether?" VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 19:45, 1 February 2020 (EST)

Another example of historical revisionism from Russian television: MSM Revising WW2 History: Auschwitz Was Liberated by Americans & Ukrainians, Not Russians! RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 18:20, 3 February 2020 (EST)

[promoted by VM] Interesting that the USSR did not veto the UN Resolution to send troops to North Korea in 1950; perhaps it is just the sort of revisionism that is routine today in the West.

Incidentally, besides Hiss, "there were at least 16 high-level communists in the US delegation" to the UN organizing conference, "among whom were Harry Dexter White, Victor Perlo, Frank Coe, Lauchlin Currie," [2] Nathan Gregory Silvermaster and William Ludwig Ullman. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:46, 1 February 2020 (EST)

[demoted by VM] I remember learning that about Korea in junior high school. But wasn't that because the U.S.S.R. was boycotting the U.N. altogether, and not because they were against the brutal communist dictatorship in China? VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 22:40, 1 February 2020 (EST)

Right. That's the point. Those weren't "U.S. troops" in Korea, they were "U.N. troops" (Russia could have vetoed the Resolution). Watch the video linked above - Putin's Russia NOW is taking credit for founding the U.N. and keeping global peace for 75 years - something Putin critics aren't ready to credibly dispute. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 22:50, 1 February 2020 (EST)

Well, technically, Russia boycotted the UN outright during that time (apparently they learned from their mistake afterward). And quite frankly, the fact that Putin's Russia is taking credit for founding the UN should reinforce why founding that Marxist organization was a mistake. And quite frankly, had I been in Putin's position and truly anti-Communist, I'd outlaw Communism to such an extent that I'd get rid of ALL icons relating to it, including Lenin's tomb (in fact, I'd probably make sure Lenin's corpse is hanging from a street lamp from that day forward), have all Communists arrested and shot, basically rendered Communism extinct, with no memory other than the fact that it was a very evil organization, and we'd also restore the Tsar specifically to ensure Marxism was completely exterminated. If Putin actually cared about restoring Russia, he'd make sure to extoll the glories of Tsarist Russia and NOT try to praise Stalin. And yes, I'm MORE than certain that Putin's still a Communist, especially given some choice statements and actions made by him. Pokeria1 (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2020 (EST)

[promoted by VM] I would imagine the Russians turning the site of the Yalta Conference in the Crimea into a shrine and tourist trap emphasizes the Russian role in keeping peace in Europe for 75 years. The symbolism can't be forgotten or shrouded in Ukrainian anti-Russian propaganda which has gripped Washington and the Democrat party. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 06:12, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Keeping peace? They constantly tried to turn Europe and the world into a Communist dictatorship, and there's plenty of evidence currently that Putin STILL attempts to bring about Communism right to this day. Were it ME in their position, I'd demand that we shut down the UN, even explicitly remove Russia from their UN status, take out all Communism to such an extent that the word is literally banned except for historical purposes (and even there, painted in such a horrific light no one would even DARE consider doing so), ban Communists, and even have them mass-executed. And just as an FYI, I don't need to look at Ukrainian propaganda to know this much about Putin still adhering to Communism, Putin himself more than gave his intentions away by even comparing Lenin's relics to Christian tenants (which, BTW, the Russian Orthodox Church, the ones not under Putin's control anyway, took exception to). Not to mention the Democrats only are cynically pushing anti-Russian propaganda in an attempt to paint Trump as a Russian stooge when that's obviously not true (Hillary Clinton did more stooging for Russia during the 2016 elections than Trump ever did). Pokeria1 (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2020 (EST)

[promoted by VM] Nuclear war in Europe? I must've missed that. Russia is communist? No, Western communists hate Russia and demonize Putin cause he doesn't glorify anal and lesbian sex. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 14:50, 2 February 2020 (EST)

If Russia wasn't communist anymore, they would have taken down Lenin's tomb, and in fact, hung Lenin's corpse from a street lamp where he'd be pecked at by crows, taken down Marx's statue at Teatralyana Square, outlawed the Communist party to such an extent that anyone identified as being a Communist party member is automatically lined to a wall and shot, and they certainly won't still be glorifying Stalin or comparing Lenin's relics to Christian doctrine. And don't think for one second that just because Putin doesn't glorify anal and lesbian sex doesn't mean he's any less of a communist, or for that matter they don't love Putin. Stalin didn't either (let's not forget that homosexuals tended to be thrown in the gulags under Stalin's Russia), nor did Che Guevara and Fidel Castro for that matter (same deal with Cuba's labor camps), yet Western Communists absolutely LOVED those guys, not to mention they weren't any less communist (saying Putin is not a communist just because he's slightly to the right of, say, Soros, is like saying Stalin wasn't a communist simply because he was slightly to the right of, say, Trotsky). Actually, if anything, I'm being consistently anti-Communist, to the extent that I want ALL forms of communism completely and totally destroyed, and replaced with a Christian Empire ruled by God alone. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2020 (EST)

So you'll be voting for Sanders? Only a Nazi would oppose Stalin. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:59, 2 February 2020 (EST)

[promoted by VM] Absolutely not. I'm voting for the same person I voted in 2016. Trump. And even in 2016, Sanders was NEVER one of my choices for the 2016 election (it was in fact Ben Carson who was my first choice). Not to mention, use common sense, do you REALLY think someone who wants to destroy Communism, replace it with a revived Christian Empire where God alone was in charge, and outlaw Communism, would even THINK about voting for Sanders? Absolutely not! In fact, if anything, I'd want Sanders dead precisely BECAUSE he wanted to kill off Christians via his communist ideology. And no, I'm no Nazi either, and if anything, I'd treat Hitler the same way I'd treat Stalin, put a bullet in BOTH their brains. If anything, I'm more of a Patton. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Ben Carson? that commie stooge? George Papadopoulos came from Carson's staff. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:12, 2 February 2020 (EST)

[promoted by VM] Since when was Ben Carson a commie stooge? If anything, he was anti-communist as even Conservapedia noted, not to mention against gay marriage and abortion. In fact, his anti-abortion stance and religious views are PRECISELY the reason why I have immense respect for the guy since middle school. Not to mention I'm extremely doubtful Trump would have even hired him into his cabinet if Carson was partly responsible for that collusion hoax. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2020 (EST)

"if anything, I'd want Sanders dead precisely BECAUSE he wanted to kill off Christians" - What happened to turning the other cheek? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:34, 2 February 2020 (EST)

We turned the other cheek with Voltaire, Diderot, Sade, Rousseau, Marx, Engels, and all of those guys quite a bit, too much if you ask me, not to mention we if anything repeatedly capitulated to their most radical demands, and our turning the other cheek just emboldened them to eventually lop our heads off. So no, I don't intend to turn the other cheek, lest I end up exactly like Beast when HE turned the other cheek to Gaston, especially after Beast let Belle go. Better to have the Crusades version of Christianity instead of the Christianity that's willing to just let illegal immigrants cross over and rape our countries on a silver platter, and in fact, God told us to go and spread the gospel to the four corners of the world, not kneel down and let the world beat us to death. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2020 (EST)

We're supposed to convert the world, kinda like Trump has converted the Republican party. Not exterminate them, which is a leftist solution. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 17:08, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Make no mistake, I most certainly would prefer converting the world over exterminating them. Unfortunately, especially thanks to Antonio Gramsci and Anita Dodd with their having Communists infiltrating the church via conversions, I cannot trust conversions right now (and that's DESPITE converting from Episcopalian to Catholicism at an early age myself), seeing it as only a means to infiltrate the church and destroy it from within. Heck, the fact that a Communist in all but name like Francis is currently Pope only reinforces my current views on conversion right now. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2020 (EST)

The church is "wherever two or more are gathered in my name", nothing more. The rest is politics. And Episcopalianism is Catholicism. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 18:06, 2 February 2020 (EST)

No, the church is literally stated to have been founded by Peter at Jesus's behest. "You are the rock upon which I shall found my church." It's not politics at all. Also, Episcopalianism isn't Catholicism. If anything, it's Protestantism. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Protestantism is catholicism also, a gentile church. Technically, the eglesia or called out ones came out of Egypt (strangers sojourned with Israel at that time, too). But the original church could not enter in because of their lack of faith (failure to believe God) and their carcasses fell in the wilderness. Peter headed the Jewish church, not the gentile church. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 18:46, 2 February 2020 (EST)

No, he did NOT helm the Jewish church. In fact, the Jewish people tried to slaughter Peter and the early Christians (and Paul, back when he was known as Saul, was especially eager to kill Christians until Jesus literally shattered his closed heart at Damascus via a lightning bolt), and the Jewish people who DID convert renounced their Jewish identity (that's also part of the reason why circumsition was not practiced in Christian communities, with Peter and Paul even explicitly forbidding it.). The Gospels themselves make this clear, as did the Catechism. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Galatians 2:7 the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me [Paul], as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:58, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Hitler, he only had one...

Hasn't Harvey Weinstein suffered enough? "Weinstein Accuser Says He Has No ███████" PeterKa (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2020 (EST)

The disinherited

As I strived for a top job in my vocation, I made deliberate choices to always be politically correct, choose the right fashion accessories, status symbols and lifestyle trends and signal the virtue of my social justice consciousness. Now Trump comes along, and it seems as if all the personal loyalty I gave up was for something that never really mattered or amounted to anything (e.g. Trump's thriving while having a garish second White House in Mar-a-lago that isn't even legal). What is a middle-class striver like me to do? If only he could have paused a moment and accepted our norms...instead of shattering them. (h/t @CityBureaucrat @MysteryGrove) VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 19:30, 1 February 2020 (EST)

Face facts: Trump is a Visionary who was even ahead of his Republican colleagues. Trump's vision of America and the world transcends partisanship, party, race, creed, gender, sexual preference, national, ethnic, species and planetary origin. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:52, 1 February 2020 (EST)

Big, if true. (h/t @freddoso) VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 22:24, 1 February 2020 (EST)

Impeachment saga approaches a climax

For the past three years, Washington has remained focused on impeachment regardless of what might be happening in the rest of the world. This obsession has its origin in the last stages of the 2016 election campaign. Liberals became convinced that Hillary was going to win. Was her chance of winning 98 percent (Nate Silver) or 99 percent (Huffington Post)? That type of debate was the mainstream media's idea letting both sides have their say. Even if Trump won the popular vote, he would be blocked by the "Blue Wall" in the Electoral College. This fatuous certainty led to a decline in turnout in Blue Wall states like Wisconsin, and thus possibly to Trump's election.

According to the book Shattered, Hillary staffers Robby Mook and John Podesta decided as soon as they knew the election result that they weren't taking the fall. They would blame Russia. On inauguration day, the Washington Post`s headline was "The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun." When the Russia hoax ran out of gas, the Dems moved on to Ukraine. The Ukraine issue opened in October with a flood of stories claiming that those listening to the July Trump-Zelensky call were "alarmed" and "appalled" by what they heard. Adam Schiff or whoever orchestrated this must have thought that Trump would never release the transcript of the call. When it was released, it was hard to see what all the fuss was about. Trump asked for Ukraine's cooperation in various investigations, as he has every right to do under the "Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters." There was no "blackmail," at least not in the call itself, nor was there anything in the transcript about fabricating dirt on the Bidens. Yet these claims remain central to the impeachment effort.

During the 2016 campaign, Obama sicced the FBI on Trump. He even met personally with agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page to find out about "everything we've been doing." From the Horowitz report, it seems that the FBI knew almost from the beginning that the claim of a Trump-Russia connection was nonsense. The FBI traced the "pee-pee tape" and other Steele Dossier claims back to American businessman Segei Millian, who told them they were made "in jest." Millian had no inside track to the Kremlin or even a Russia connection. What he had was some Belarussian friends and an imagination. To the mainstream media, nothing Obama did compares to the "scandal" of Trump asking the president of Ukraine to investigate how Joe Biden's ne'er do well son managed to score big. In short, the impeachment effort has always been about getting back at "deplorable" America and overturning an election. PeterKa (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2020 (EST)

I have yet to read anything on Boris Johnson's role in all this. As British foreign secretary, he was the cabinet member responsible for intelligence when the Steele Dossier was produced. With Stefan Halper, Joseph Mifsud, and the rest, an awful lot of the plotting against Trump was based in Britain. In the impeachment trial, the Dems have announced the standard of, "The president can't ask foreign countries for help against domestic political opponents." Obama didn't know about this rule, and I doubt he followed it. PeterKa (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Excellent summary. Which leads to almost a philosophical examination of the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals take the initiative. Conservatives are reactive. Thus we have impeachment. Liberals knew the Horowitz report would expose fraud. The FISA Court has ruled the Mueller investigation illegal, and a host of other developments (Flynn, Biden, etc. etc). Liberals have once again taken the initiative to control the narrative - Trump has been impeached is their only election year issue (not counting free stuff). Very similar to the ethics complaint Schiff filed against Nunes in March 2017, derailing the HPSCI investigation for months, or a host of other examples (including Crossfire Hurricane, etc. etc.) Who cares that at Don Jr's Trump Tower meeting, that FusionGPS was being paid by the Russian lawyer as well as Hillary and the DNC? It's all moot so long as you can stay one step ahead of the false narrative that you yourself generated.

The latest now is, there was no Senate Trial and the Republican Senate is engaged in a coverup. Get used to it. This is all you will hear for the next ten months in addition to Schiff continuing impeachment proceedings in the House.

A problem, as I see it, is taking commie lib bait laid out in the fake news media. Best to ignore it, and more importantly, seize the initiative and mold our own narratives on events.

As to Bojo, watch a few minutes of this: MI6 Throws Christopher Steele Under the Bus (Bojo about 7 mins in). The whole program actually is quite funny. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 03:37, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Trump's impeachment saga never had a climax. It was dead on arrival. It had terrible television ratings - especially compared to Nixon's impeachment and Bill Clinton's impeachment. It was a yawn fest and even some of its participants were having a hard timing staying awake. I would rather watch paint dry rather than watch the proceedings.

I do like watching Jay Sekulow and Alan Dershowitz though because they are intelligent and can be educational. The Democrats were clowns though- especially Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler. Watch this: Tensions flare between Schiff, Nadler during impeachment trial.Conservative (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Philbin stole the show. He's got a great career ahead of him. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:44, 2 February 2020 (EST)

According to the House managers, the standard for impeachment should no longer be "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors," but rather "You can't ask a foreigner for help against a domestic rival." This view has some interesting consequences if you try to apply it historically:

• Just prior to the 1968 election, President Lyndon Johnson announced a breakthrough in the Paris peace talks with North Vietnam. Since this "breakthrough" wasn't followed up after the election, the obvious conclusion is that it was a stunt and that Johnson had conspired with the North Vietnamese to help Vice President Hubert Humphrey and disadvantage Richard Nixon. In recent years, the Dems have dealt with this issue by claiming that the missed peace was all Nixon's fault since he sent Anna Chennault to talk to President Nguyen Van Thieu in Saigon the South Vietnamese ambassador. South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu was a man with his own foreign ministry and his own intelligence service. The idea that he would have no way of knowing what was going on in American politics unless Chennault explained it to him is a bit silly.
• In 1983, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy wrote a letter to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov asking for help in his upcoming election campaign against President Ronald Reagan. This letter was found in the Soviet archive at the end of the Cold War and was published in the British press. No one in the American press ever asked Kennedy about it. In fact, nothing on this subject appeared in the U.S. until 2009, when Kennedy's obituaries were published.
• Since Christopher Steele, author of the Steele dossier, was a British intelligence agent, candidate Hillary Clinton (who paid him) and President Barack Obama (who allowed the FBI to use the dossier) both fell afoul of the House managers' standard. PeterKa (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2020 (EST)
• Lyndon Johnson illegally wiretapped a political rival, Richard Nixon's conversations with Anna Chennault and Madam Chiang Kai-shek - an impeachable offense. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 12:07, 3 February 2020 (EST)
• Alexandra Chalupa visited the Ukraine embassy in June 2016 to dig up dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort while on the DNC payroll. [3]
• Eric Ciaramella hosted Ukraine officials at the Obama White House with DOJ & FBI officials on January 19, 2016 to request opening an investigation into Paul Manafort and killing the Hunter Biden investigation. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 01:47, 3 February 2020 (EST)
• Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska was the Primary Sub-source for Christopher Steele. [4]
• Andrew McCabe solicited Oleg Deripaska in September 2016 to help frame Donald Trump as the Carter Page FISA warrant was being prepared. [5] RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 01:54, 3 February 2020 (EST)
• FusionGPS boss Glenn Simpson was hired and paid by Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
• Ukrainian parliamentarian Serhiy Leshchenko provided anti-Trump dirt to Glenn Simpson and FusionGPS. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 02:06, 3 February 2020 (EST)

We're certainly not starved for examples, are we? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 21:21, 3 February 2020 (EST)

LBJ has a good claim to being our most corrupt president ever. When he was president, the left hated him. Now they are stuck defending every sleazy thing he did. Why? Because those who defend Nixon argue that LBJ did everything Nixon was accused of, only worse. Today's left argues that LBJ should have charged Nixon under the Logan Act. Unknown to the public at the time, the Johnson administration routinely surveiled "political rivals" ranging from Martin Luther King to Nixon. That would certainly have complicated any prosecution. PeterKa (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2020 (EST)

LBJ is a good example of historical revisionism. While the contemporary narrative is that Nixon committed treason being in contact with the "China lobby" (Madam Chaing kai-shek, Claire Chenault), revisionists ignore LBJ's impeachable offense of spying and wiretapping a political opponent - which only justifies Nixon's and Obama's conduct. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 11:23, 15 February 2020 (EST)

End of the road for Joe Biden?

Electable Joe may be underwater in Iowa and New Hampshire, but he can count on the black vote in the South. Or can he? Only yesterday, Biden supporters promised a "long fight" and that "Joe Biden is anything but doomed." That case is harder to make today: "Holy Cow: The Latest South Carolina Poll Is a Total Disaster for Joe Biden as His Firewall Crumbles." Nothing beats seeing the media's favorite candidates (Warren and Biden) kicked in the teeth! PeterKa (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2020 (EST)

The Des Moines Register`s pre-caucus Iowa poll is a much-anticipated tradition. But this year, the newspaper won't be releasing it: "Des Moines Register Fails to Release Its Historic Poll, Bernie Supporters Are Not Amused." Many suspect the unpublished poll shows Sanders beating Biden by too wide a margin. Sanders is four points ahead of Biden in the RCP average. PeterKa (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Biden's not needed anymore.

• Zelensky election was April 21st, 2019.
• Joe Biden announces his run for office April 25th, 2019.
• WaPo publishes As vice president, Biden said Ukraine should increase gas production. Then his son got a job with a Ukrainian gas company. [6] on July 23rd, 2019.
• Impeachment 1.0 collapses with Robert Mueller testimony on July 24th, 2019.
• Trump-Zelensky phone call July 25th, 2019. "A lot of people are saying...."
• Adam Schiff hires Sean Misko. Misko and Ciaramella meet secretly afterward on July 26, 2019.
• Biden aide Ciaramella files whistleblower complaint August 12, 2019.

Biden was never a serious candidate. Biden posed as a "political rival" to set up Deep State coup 2.0. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum}

Dem establishment are rigging the process before our very eyes. Biden is dead meat. NAACP wants Klobuchar out two days before Iowa. Bootyboy gets stiffed by the Des Moines Register a day before caucuses. Bloomberg. who gave $100 to Congressional candidates last year to buy the House, is the go-to guy to stop a Sanders/Gabbard/AOC hostile takever. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 22:47, 2 February 2020 (EST)

Biden odds of winning nomination: June 26, 2019, 28.5%; February 3, 2020, 28.6%. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 02:37, 3 February 2020 (EST)

Biden might win a brokered convention. But if that happens, many Bernie Bros will probably not bother voting.Wikignome72 (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2020 (EST)

Biden won't last that long. He'll be gone before Super Tuesday. By South Carolina it will be a two man race. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 11:59, 3 February 2020 (EST)

Sidenote: this would be a textbook case for someone investing in a political futures market: you have confidence in your unique knowledge and would perform a valuable service by lowering the expected odds of the rise of an individual who is likely to either financially benefit or disadvantage a great number of people, who can then hedge their risk. That is, of course, if it were worth your while to begin with to do so in a what is a rather small market. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 13:10, 3 February 2020 (EST)

• The canceled Des Moines Register poll is said to have put Sanders at 22 percent, Warren 18 percent, Buttigieg 16 percent, and Biden trailing with 13 percent.[7] PeterKa (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2020 (EST)

Basically, after Iowa and New Hampshire (Feb. 11), it's a two man race. Sanders and Bloomberg. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:13, 3 February 2020 (EST)

Limbaugh hit

See Fox News. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 15:36, 3 February 2020 (EST)

Limbaugh is the poster child for liberalism now. If we had single payer, he'd be put in front of a death panel because of his age. With income inequality, he couldn't buy his way out of lung cancer. He proves God exists and answers liberal prayers, suffering a slow agonizing death. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:48, 3 February 2020 (EST)

Your observations, though cryptically and ironically stated, are not wrong. The disregular centralized control of single-payer (government-controlled) medical practice could be exploited to dispatch (or extort from or warn away) politically-inconvenient people. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 17:00, 3 February 2020 (EST)

That's what's happening in socialist China right now. Due to the shortage of test kits and trained personnel, socialist death panels are sorting out who gets tested and treated, sending home infected people to infect their families. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 17:13, 3 February 2020 (EST)

Okay, am I missing something regarding a Limbaugh hit? I don't get Fox News except for local stations on Sundays, so I have no frame of reference. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2020 (EST)

They have a website, right? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 18:24, 3 February 2020 (EST)

You never answered my story problem:

[Question for Pokeria

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)] VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 21:39, 3 February 2020 (EST)

To answer your question, considering that Karl Marx himself advocated that people slaughter each other once Communism was in place in an explicit comparison to Robespierre's Reign of Terror (which, among other things, included Louis Grignon's infamous extermination campaigns during the Vendée massacres where he even advocated killing their own allies in Vendée simply to satiate bloodlust), it would still be what Marx was doing, and in fact, Stalin would be matching right up with Marx, since the entire point of communism is having people kill each other for a sick laugh. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2020 (EST)

Iowa results

The only Iowa results we have at this point are from the Sanders campaign. They claim to have counted 40 percent of the caucus sites. According to this count, Sanders got 30 percent, Buttigieg 25 percent, Warren 21 percent, and Biden 12 percent.[8] How long can the Biden campaign stop the U.S. media from reporting the fact that hardly anyone actually votes for Electable Joe? The only place where DNC censorship is being challenged is in the British press. It will be harder to suppress the results from New Hampshire. PeterKa (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2020 (EST)

I should have screenshot NYT 10:00 PM CST results. But they are posted on MPR. Sanders 27.7%; Warren 25.1%; Buttigieg 23.8%; Klobuchar 11.8%; Biden 11.1%. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:09, 4 February 2020 (EST)

It's currently 10 delegates for Sanders, 10 for Buttigieg, 4 for Warren, and 17 left to be assigned. I didn't see Buttigieg coming, but hey, Go Buttigieg! The black vote hasn't gone Republican since the 1930s. The New York Times is blaming the Iowa chaos on "a little-known company called Shadow Inc. that was founded by veterans of Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful presidential campaign."[9] Just as I suspected: Hillary is everywhere, and she's on a rampage against Bernie, Trump, and anyone else who has ever crossed her path.
Surely the big news coming out of Iowa is that Biden, the Democratic frontrunner just a few days ago, has now collapsed.[10] Yet the mainstream media isn't looking at it that way. It's full of headlines about the Iowa party's problems counting the vote. In short, there is some serious news manipulation going on.
Hopefully, this fiasco will result in Iowa losing its special status. It should follow the rules and go after New Hampshire like everyone else. It would be a first step toward shortening the primary season. Better yet, go back to the old days when the parties had paid memberships and caucused. There could be non-partisan primaries after the conventions with the top two candidates going on to the general election. PeterKa (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2020 (EST)

• The counting chaos might not be Hillary's fault after all. The Buttigieg campaign paid Shadow nearly $50,000 for "software rights and subscriptions."[11] [12] PeterKa (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2020 (EST)

Peter will be out for a few days; having been dazzled and allured by the shifts of power accompanying the fleeting alliances of the Democratic mob, he has contracted a serious case of Stockholm Syndrome. He is being treated with medicinal syrups and is expected to recover sooner, not later, in a state where he no longer cheers on those seeking to marginalize him and remembers Democrat Adlai Stevenson campaigned against Eisenhower with a segregationist. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 02:54, 5 February 2020 (EST)

Buttigieg did not win. The Democrats rigged the election. Don't start rumors about a fair election. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 10:55, 6 February 2020 (EST)

This is the Stop Sanders campaign. The DNC rigged the vote to defeat Bernie. Clinton operative Robby Mook headed the DNC committee that developed the app to rig the process. The DNC establishment is experiencing right now what the RNC establishment experienced 4 years ago, a hostile takeover by an outsider.

Bootyboy is the temporary placeholder, but the DNC is actively promoting Bloomberg. Biden posing as a candidate was part of the Impeachment coup and his usefulness is gone. Warren (Sanders Lite) crashed and burned on her own accord. Klobuchar beat Biden, but the DNC stepping over her is simply more evidence of establishment sexism.

Bloomberg represents the epitome of DNC establishment racism; like Sanders, he was never a Democrat. Yet the DNC drove all the people of color out of the race before changing the rules to allow Bloomberg in. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:30, 5 February 2020 (EST)

For those interested in following a good Progressive source on the DNC/Sanders war see MCSC Network W/ Niko House. The reported on the Shadow app Monday, before the caucuses started. They've had at least 11 on-site updates on the rigged Iowa caucus scandal and stolen election since it erupted Monday night. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 14:32, 5 February 2020 (EST)

With 96 percent of the vote counted, the second round totals are 26.5 percent for Bernie, 25.0 percent for Buttigieg, 20.3 for Warren, and 13.7 percent for Biden. This suggest that Buttigieg's final vote total is quite impressive, which makes his $42,000 payment to Shadow, Inc even harder to understand. This payment was made back in July when the race was a Biden-Warren contest. As I understand it, nobody knew Shadow would be counting the votes until just a day or two before the caucus. I assume there is a separate vote counting system for legal purposes, so eventually this will be sorted out. PeterKa (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2020 (EST)

Impressive? Yep, it's Stockholm syndrome.

Too much MSM/DNC propaganda has this effect on the rational mind's judgement and analytical abilities. It's like the opioid crisis, widespread and destroys lives and communities. As Adam Schiff would say, "There is evidence in plain sight." RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 11:03, 6 February 2020 (EST)

Low turn-out

With all the controversy and competition, I expected there to have been massive turnout. Do you know how many Iowan Democrats showed up to vote? 172,000. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 17:45, 7 February 2020 (EST)

GOP turnout was massive. Impressive for an incumbent.

Dick Morris explains the details of the alleged "recount" in 30 seconds. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:59, 7 February 2020 (EST)

The Dems seem to be out of gas now. Three years of outrage takes a toll. When they first cranked up the outrage machine in 2017, Rahm Emmanual said it too early and unstainable. How mad can you be that Hillary didn't become the first woman president? PeterKa (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2020 (EST)

U.S. Government revenue + debt

Revenue + debt as a % of Fiscal year GDP by presidency

1977-2000

Presidency	1st year	2nd year	3rd year	4th year	bill to future Americans	Events
Jimmy Carter	20.4%	20.4%	20.2%	21.4%	~$269B
Ronald Reagan	21.8%	23.0%	23.6%	21.8%	~$660B	Arms race
Ronald Reagan	23.2	23.6	22.4	22.6	~$1,030B	Arms race
George Bush	22.4	~23.6	~24.0	~22.6	~$1,450B	Peace dividend
Bill Clinton	22.0	21.4	21.4	21.4	~$1,170B	"Era of big government is over"
Bill Clinton	20.8	20.4	20.6	20.2	$445B	"Vacation from history"
George W. Bush

What does your gut tell you comes next? VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 18:14, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Revenue + debt as a % of Fiscal year GDP by presidency

2001-

Presidency	1st year	2nd year	3rd year	4th year	bill to future Americans	Events
George W. Bush	20.2%	21.0%	20.6%	20.6%	$1,705B	War on terror
George W. Bush	21.0	21.8	21.4	24.0	$2,646B
Barack Obama	27.6	25.6	23.0	23.2	$6,042B	Jobless recovery
Barack Obama	20.8	23.6	19.8	25.2	$3,508B
Donald J. Trump	20.6	22.5	22.0		$3,641B

The symbol "~" means "about" or "approximately".

---

VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 23:12, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Very informative, and your comments in events are very good. Remember, however, it is the Congress in control of the debt and spending, not the President. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:47, 5 February 2020 (EST)

Fallacy! The U.S. constitution prescribes the president to "present a budget". And practically speaking, a knowledgeable president like economics major President Reagan can take a pen and a few charts on TV and rally the public against Congress! Or maybe they can't. Nobody watches the same channels anymore. Whatever. Yes I have a "table pie chart" that shows debt-share by Speaker of the House thank you very much, so it's not a question of "remembering" but of "doing".

But get this: maybe the President sets the tone, and Congress opens the flood-gates. Some of the "bills" look pretty reasonable, maybe some more than others, but a bill of $6-7 trillion to prevent a recession? How is that x times more important than the Cold War? Trump can't turn off the spending habits cold turkey without all hell breaking loose in a flood of sad stories in the left-wing media, so it's up to Trump now to do the tapering off if Congress has finally suffered enough abrasions to its reputation to break Trump's way.

I think I'll try to color-code the Congresses. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 15:25, 5 February 2020 (EST)

The color is for the Speaker of the House. Red is the Democratic Party, Blue is the Republican Party, and Green is the Globalist Party. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 15:46, 5 February 2020 (EST)

I'm joking, of course, about the "Globalist Party". I don't know what it would take to best show a commitment to globalism, so this is offered informally and without prejudice to whatever someone might eventually add to former Speakers Boehner's and Ryan's biographies. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 19:03, 5 February 2020 (EST)

I think I'll try to color-code the Congresses. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 15:25, 5 February 2020 (EST)

Good idea. You may need three colors (purple?) in the case of a divided Congress. Let's examine some facts:

• The aid withheld from Ukraine, (adding $391 million to the national debt with money borrowed from China), was authorized by Congress.
• The Vietnam War ended when Congress cut off funding for the government of South Vietnam, which Commander in Chief Lyndon Johnson determined was necessary with the addition of American blood, and Commander in Chief Nixon negotiated that funding into a Peace agreement with North Vietnam and withdrawal of America troops;
• Deficits in the Reagan era were the result of a Defense budget with Congress authorized, and a rejection of Reagan's proposals to cut Great Society programs, which the Congress rejected.

In all three examples we Congress is responsible for the power of purse, and hence expansion of the national debt. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:06, 5 February 2020 (EST)

Another somewhat reverse example is Iran Contra, where Congress withheld aid to the Contras (as they did aid to the government of South Vietnam) and Reagan funded the Contras through dope sales. In the Ukrainian example, Congress did expand the debt by granting aid to Ukraine; however under the Sequestration Act, the President can impound funds temporarily. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:06, 5 February 2020 (EST)

Reagan had a divided Congress for first six years; Clinton for the last six years. Papa Bush had opposition Congress throughout. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:11, 5 February 2020 (EST)

Headline update: Pelosi rips transcript to shreds after State of the Union.

Guys, we should note on the newsfeed how the left just sunk to a new low when Pelosi just shredded the transcript for the State of the Union upon its conclusion. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2020 (EST)

There can be no more apt symbol and demonstration of Speaker Pelosi's impotent rage at the success of our beloved republic. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 22:45, 4 February 2020 (EST)

If there's ever a Donald Trump: The Musical, we can add these lyrics to the Nancy Pelosi solo:

"So if you think that's funny

I'm not really laughing, honey

Your crib notes they are confetti

Tore them up, my hands were steady

"And then his ghastly face

Recurs in a nightmare place

Impeachment hour has come and gone

Much too short and much too long…"

(h/t @ItsGrahamParker) VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 23:28, 4 February 2020 (EST)

Good news

Trump's been acquitted, so we should note this on the newsfeed. I mean, it was certain he wouldn't be impeached, but nevertheless, especially given how wild the Democrat leftists were, we couldn't be too sure, and it's a good thing he's been acquitted of the impeachment hearings. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2020 (EST)

Good to hear, and nothing the Democrats, their liberal media cheerleaders or the Hollywood elitists say to the contrary will prove otherwise. Far as the American public is concerned, the kangaroo court show trial and illegal coup attempt that was the "impeachment hearings" is finito and President Trump was never "impeached forever" (as the Left likes to childishly and wishfully claim) because the Democrats never had a case against him, and they knew it, just as the public already knew (even though the Democrats tried to publicly pretend otherwise). Northwest (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2020 (EST)

Macron cover-up

"More than a hundred thousand anti-#Macron protesters out on the streets of #France today (yesterday), demanding Macron's resignation.

This was #Marseille today during the #greve6fevrier protest.

International mainstream media nowhere to be seen" "#MediaSilence" "#GlobalistCollusion"

@basedpoland
VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 17:02, 7 February 2020 (EST)

Split ticket

"#Romney/Bloomberg2020"

(h/t @BridgieTherease) VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 19:00, 7 February 2020 (EST)

Bloomberg/Bootyboy or Sanders/Gabbard? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:56, 7 February 2020 (EST)

Trump, Giuliani, and Bloomberg

The race for the future of America is shaping up to be a contest involving three men, two former New York mayors and a New York mogul, Donald Trump. Bloomberg is Giuliani's hand picked successor. As a billionaire, Bloomberg blazed the trail for a greedy capitalist to buy his way into office and take over a major party. A third New York mayor, Bill De Blasio, tried bringing the Central Park jogger case back into the election to attack Trump. Now that Democrats have systematically excluded all black candidates and rigged the process for a rich white guy like Bloomberg to appear, it begs the question: If the Central Park jogger suspects were indeed framed and railroaded because of institutional racism, Why didn't Bloomberg do anything about it rather than leave it to DeBlasio? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 19:08, 8 February 2020 (EST)

Can't you use your imagination to present us with a more comforting "shape"? VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 21:44, 8 February 2020 (EST)

Since Democrats are hemorrhaging black voters, with all their other failures and shortcomings, screaming 'racist' is all they got left. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 21:49, 9 February 2020 (EST)

The boomers are getting old. Some age well mentally, but others haven't. They rolled the dice with Mueller and Biden and came up with snake eyes twice.

The root problem is the educational system has produced left leaning, global warming believing and identity politics ridden younger generation that is unfit to lead on the Democrat side.Conservative (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2020 (EST)

"The shape of our democracy is the issue that affects every other issue," -- Deep Thoughts by Pete Buttigieg. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 23:37, 9 February 2020 (EST)

Rob S is right; Biden is there to be a lightning rod so whatever new liberal presidential identity prevails, the candidate with the identity will have defeated BIDEN and not a different liberal identity group. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 01:24, 10 February 2020 (EST)

We're awaiting Mini Mike's leveraged buyout beginning in Nevada. From then on it's a two-man race, Bernie v. Mini Mike, with cards stacked against Bernie. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 02:31, 10 February 2020 (EST)

Rob S, I found another Buttigieg Deep Thought: "This election isn't just historic, it's urgent. And tonight, we look forward knowing this is our one shot not just to end the era of Donald Trump, but to launch the era that must come next.

"Join us as we turn the page to a new chapter in America's story." (h/t @emzanotti)

VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 18:38, 12 February 2020 (EST)

"We are the ones we've been waiting for." -- Barack Hussein Obama, RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 07:58, 14 February 2020 (EST)

The Democrats: the party of science

Democrats are known for being on the cutting edge of medical technology such as vaccination safety assessments and the psychiatric sciences and doomed to be weighted down by the Luddite conservatives who can never keep up, notions they delight in employing to foster damaging stereotypes but somehow always backed by opinions stated in passing. Or if not that eventually found to be that what Andy has named "liberal clap-trap"—trappings of expertise clapped together, in these scientific cases like many others, to score leftist political goals, only to be abandoned as soon as it's time for the goalposts to be moved again.

And somehow also they struggle for days with recording the voting preferences of 172,000 Iowans when there are probably worldwide Twitter polls that large conducted nightly of similar complexity without a hitch to determine the vital issue of the favorite haircut of the members of the leading K-pop groups. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 22:57, 8 February 2020 (EST)

Few personalities are more dear to Hollywood and to liberalism than Oprah. Michael Moore wanted her to run for president. See "Oprah’s long history with junk science." She is the person most directly responsible for the anti-vaccine movement, although the media acts like it's all Trump's fault. PeterKa (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2020 (EST)

The Democrats are clearly not better at political science than the GOP. "Since the end of the New Deal era the Republicans have been much more successful than the Democrats at winning presidential elections."[13] Conservative (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2020 (EST)

I have very mixed emotions, then. I saw Oprah demonstrate the Neti pot (?, it's about 3-4 inches long) a device that you insert deeply into each of your nostrils and squirt water into your sinuses to help clean them out. At the time I thought: this certainly would help the kind of sexual libertarians who would like to normalize placing foreign objects into parts of their bodies win arguments.

It was also cited as "an ancient medical device". So, again, it would help those would like to portray Christian morals as an island of ignorance between ancient and Eastern wisdom and modern-day science.

The only problem was, two users who took the advice to try it didn't clean their pots well enough and were killed by the growth of amoebas that came from the water and passed through the brain-blood barrier. I guess the behaviors and thinking that I mentioned that the usage tended to deliver up as advanced, newly-restored and desirable practices must not be dangerous—or someone involved in promoting the Neti pot would have noted the irony in the final results of the scoffing at Christian morals that may very well have preceded the use.

Also the irony that those results, while they couldn't be a punishment from God, since he doesn't exist, somehow seem as if they wouldn't have been much different if He really did exist. A mystery of life. By that I mean the widely-broadcast guilt of the results from giving the advice in the context I mentioned, not necessarily from simply following the advice. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 14:18, 20 February 2020 (EST)

American Sun states the obvious, and something doesn't add up

"Peter Buttigieg came out of the closet at age 33. No partners from his past have done a single interview. He married a man, so is technically never going to have to interact with another gay man. His voice."

"#PeteIsntGay"

@NewAtlantisSun

VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 20:48, 9 February 2020 (EST)

It's a little conspiratorial to think he is a straight guy posing as a gay. But the Twitter thread referred to above does present evidence to suggest that Buttigieg might be asexual. PeterKa (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2020 (EST)

Liberal-critical Twitter is made for the lively hashing out of questions like that. There, detecting phoniness and manipulation is even more important than any conclusion you might eventually draw about particular issues. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 01:03, 10 February 2020 (EST)

ButtiJeb has no legs. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 10:23, 10 February 2020 (EST)

Called on the carpet

"Lt. Col. Vindman, we meet at last."

"In your position at the White House, you countermanded my Ukrainian policy and attempted to alter an official transcript made while I carried out Presidential duties in order to facilitate playing the informer on otherwise routine executive branch foreign dealings, spurring an months-long national impeachment crisis by a hostile Congress."

"What do you have to say in your defense?"

[silence]

"As a result of these blantantly insubordinate actions I have no choice but to deal with you to the full extent of what the executive branch civil service bureaucracy allows and render this decision regarding your station in my adminstration..."

"REASSIGNED TO THE ARMY AT FULL MILITARY GRADE! AND NO BACK PAY!!"

VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 01:03, 10 February 2020 (EST)

In previous administrations, these head of state phone calls were treated as supersecret. Vindman must have told Ciaramella all about Trump-Zelensky call. Ciaramella was removed from the NSC after a previous phone call leak, so this was a major breach of trust. PeterKa (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2020 (EST)

It was never a crisis. The Democrats had a weak case and Mitch McConnell and the Republicans control the Senate. In addition, Trump has a strong record to run on in 2020. It was never more than a tempest in a teapot. The only thing left to do is for Trump to keep building his ground game, keep building his campaign war chest and "act more presidential" for the suburban women.

"Invincibility lies in the defense; the possibility of victory in the attack". - Sun Tzu. Trump has both! Conservative (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2020 (EST)

Trump has defanged the mainstream news organizations in terms of their credibility, but more of the damage was self-inflicted by these news organization upon themselves. So the fake impeachment was never going to do more than harm the Democrats. It harmed Joe Biden most of all by giving more media attention to Hunter/Joe Biden's corruption.Conservative (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2020 (EST)

The fake impeachment also rallied Trump's base, helped Trump's fundraising and didn't rally the Democratic base much. All in all Trump benefited from the impeachment.Conservative (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2020 (EST)

The economy is doing so well, it's the perfect time to clean house: "Bigger than Vindman: Trump scrubs 70 Obama holdovers from NSC." I had no idea 70 people worked at NSC. PeterKa (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2020 (EST)

What Obama did to the NSC is a case study in what he did to the FBI and the whole IC. Because it is impossible to fire civil servants, you simply double its size with your own cronies, then replace the attrition in the existing force (retirements, reassignments, etc) with your own cronies to create a governing "consensus" within the agency. A sort of "bureaucratic meiosis." This is essentially the difference between "big government liberals" and "small government conservatives" and happens throughout government when Democrats are elected. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 14:24, 10 February 2020 (EST)

You also told us you read a user comment at a website that said when Mueller led the FBI, he insisted that FBI field commanders move to Washington D.C. or retire early and "accidentally" lost the best who were smaller-town conservatives, didn't you? VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 08:28, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Bloomberg/Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Sanders appear to be siphoning off the national support of Biden since 1/25/2020

Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar appear to be fairly rapidly siphoning off the national support of Joe Biden since 1/25/2020 according to polling.[14] Biden/Bernie almost have equal support. And the trend is good for Bernie and bad for Biden.Conservative (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2020 (EST)

Aimless Warbutcher moves up tonite, pro'lly run 3rd ahead of Warren and Biden. Biden was never a serious candidate. His alleged 'national polls' was a name recognition poll. He was part of Deep State coup 2.0. He joined the race four days after Zelensky's election. And, if you'll recall, Rudy cancelled his May 9 trip to Ukraine after Biden entered the race. The coup plotters (via Alexander Vindman) knew about Trump & Giuliani's interest in Ukraine. So they set up Biden as the impeachment coup bait as an alleged "political rival"; but Giuliani's initial trip to Ukraine was already scheduled before Biden's April 29 announcement. Giuliani had to cancel the trip cause it was obvious then what the coup plotters were trying to do.

Biden jumping into the race was intended to short circuit any investigation Giuliani would ask for. You see it again already. Firing and courtmartially Vindman for countermanding orders from the Commander-in-Chief and leaking classified national security information to Eric Ciaramella is being called an abuse of power and impeachable offense.

The media promoted Biden in much the same way they now are trying to Stop Bernie. Now they drop Biden like a hot potato. Bloomberg is next up as the media darling who can beat Trump.

There is a third factor or subtext at work here: the DNC does not like Iowa and NH going first and winnowing the field. But the primary schedule is worked out by agreement between the parties. So deliberately screwing up Iowa and NH is intended to outrage big city Democrats against rural white folks who traditionally vet the candidates first. This is part of a longer term agenda to revamp the primary process. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 00:26, 11 February 2020 (EST)

The Democrats/press thought Joe Biden could win. And he kept many moderates out of the race. But it was a Robert Mueller type situation. Public speaking unveiled that Biden is not aging gracefully in terms of his mental sharpness.

The are seniors in the their 90s who are still mentally sharp. But Biden didn't eat right and/or exercise enough which is pretty common for Americans. Japan has a significantly lower rate of dementia/Alzheimer's disease than meat/diary eating America. Fish is brain food and countries that eat more fish see lower mental decline among seniors.

If the pro-abortion Biden were a stronger Catholic maybe he would have eaten more fish on Fridays!Conservative (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Just let me emphasize what Conservative is saying: remember that too many carbohydrates (without exercise) can cause mental decline too! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 08:12, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Trump was being polite by calling him 'Sleepy Joe' - he looked medicated. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 09:29, 11 February 2020 (EST)

An aside regarding Bloomberg: the devalued Democratic brand doesn't stick to Bloomberg like the other Democratic candidates. For one thing he didn't have to raise his hand when asked if he supported free healthcare for illegal aliens. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:07, 11 February 2020 (EST)

We may as well fast forward to the end - Democrats have abandoned black voters. There is not a single one remaining who can rally blacks. You can already see the Hillary Effect - apathy among blacks. By contrast, Trump now has a record and testimonials of accomplishment.

The only thing bolstering Biden since last April were blacks. His support was cut in half since the impeachment vote. Not Sanders, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Warren or Klobuchar can pick them up. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 10:33, 11 February 2020 (EST)

When something goes wrong, Bernie Sanders' first impulse is to blame others for his mistakes, the degree of embarassment matched by the malice of his enemies or those whom we assumed to be his friends to serve as dazzle camouflage. That doesn't seem like a good leadership strategy.

Klobuchar is rising to levels of popularity she has never reached before. The Democratic voters and supporters have successively tried out a number of candidates, having been dissatisfied each time. Klobuchar and Bloomberg have achieved a swell of popularity at the right timing of when the Democratic voters have to make a decision. Bloomberg could take a John Kerry approach and take the gloves off to beat on Trump, who seems a bit unfocused. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:40, 11 February 2020 (EST)

It's all being set up for Bloomberg; GOP very effectively played the race card today. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:21, 11 February 2020 (EST)

If the Democratic establishment doesn't rally around a center-left candidate by Super Tuesday, Bernie Sanders is going to be the populist candidate who steamrolls the other candidates. Sanders is the Democrats' Donald Trump except he is a leftist populist and not a right leaning populist.

Michael Bloomberg's comments about minority murderers in NYC and his stop and frisk policy is going to make him unpalatable to minorities in a general election. Amy Klobuchar is more appealing than Bloomberg, but she lacks the charisma, leadership presence and money to win against Bloomberg's money and digital/general marketing team.

It's over. Trumpslide 2020!Conservative (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2020 (EST)

There is no center-left left in the Democrat party. They're all heel clicking, goosestepping Antifa thugs. Look at the facts: Democrats are looking to two non-Democrats to lead them - a Rino and a Socialist. And its highest elected leader tore up the Constitution on national TV. This is beyond a crisis of leadership.

The socialist takeover began with election of Pelosi as Minority Leader in 2002; it was completed with the election of Obama and passage of Obamacare. Now the name - socialist - the transitory phase to communism per Karl Marx, has simply come out of the closet. Chris Matthews admits that while Democrats nurtured this beast for decades to get their votes, they have known all along the violent nature of it.

The GOP's role now is twofold: (1) continue educating people of the imminent threat; and (2) welcome former Democrat refugees with open arms. Forget ideological proselytizing, for now. No socialist would join the Republican camp, but only as a spy, subversive, and infiltrator. We must separate the wheat from the chaff, the goats from the sheep. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:00, 12 February 2020 (EST)

OMG! I'm speechless, kneeling before the latest DNC Messiah. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 14:48, 17 February 2020 (EST)

Lol, no wonder they impeached him after he spoke to the Ukrainian president

Biden's son, Romney's son, Pelosi's son, Kerry's son—are all on the board of directors for energy companies doing business in Ukraine. h/t @RealDonaldTrump/@harmks/@Conservative.Coalition VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 07:47, 11 February 2020 (EST)

I double-checked these later this morning. It turns out there's no proof that Sen. Romney's son did, and Kerry's stepson stopped doing business with Biden's son Hunter shortly after he, and a mutual friend, joined Burisma after warning them not to, but that's all.

But a few months back I saw Speaker Pelosi and her son Paul Pelosi, Jr. appear and speak in a video commercial for Viscoil, which was actually a holding company, broadcast by a successor company NRGLab. The Epoch Times (the tweet is still up) also showed another video by the company (NRG Lab), which claimed it did business in the Ukraine. The journalist said Paul Pelosi, Jr. was an executive for that company and visited the Ukraine in 2017. But Pelosi's spokesman said vaguely that Viscoil "reorganized under a different name" and denied Paul Pelosi had a "role" in that company. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 09:21, 11 February 2020 (EST) VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 09:43, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Here's the thing - Don't think for a minute that Biden-Ukraine was a unique situation. It's not. Congress routinely approves these foreign aid packages for which family and friends get kickbacks. The Clinton Foundation, McCain Institute, Obama Foundation, etc. etc. etc. are all examples. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 09:36, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Trump is willing to go on the attack more than most Republicans. Going on the attack against Joe/Hunter Biden was a smart move. The fake impeachment helped increase Trump's popularity and fundraising.

One of the criticisms I have about the Christian apologetics field is that they don't take the gloves off enough and go on the attack enough. For example, atheists commonly attack the Bible's passages on slavery, despite the fact that atheists are now engaging in more forced labor and slavery than Christian countries (See: Atheism and slavery). I really like Francis Schaeffer's "taking the roof off" method of apologetics which is a more aggressive form of Christian apologetics if taken to its fullest extent possible.

"The more comprehending we are as we take the roof off, the worse the man will feel if he rejects the Christian answer." - Francis Schaeffer

"Invincibility lies in the defense; the possibility of victory in the attack." - Sun Tzu.

Right now, Biden supporters don't have a lot of roof over their head thanks in part due to Trump.Conservative (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2020 (EST)

The perversion there is the notion that slavery started in the bible. In a limited sense, it did. Slavery originally was for payment of a debt, a notion related to the concept of justice and personal responsibility (unless you want thieves and murderers to run the planet). Racial slavery - i.e. a restriction of rights based upon birth or skin color is an entirely different concept.

In any event, grace redeems us from slavery. We are all debtors to sin and Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 11:28, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Trump understands branding more than most GOP politicians. And he takes measures to harm the opposition's brand. Hence, Jeb Bush was branded low energy Jeb Bush. Hillary was called "Crooked Hillary".

Romney had tons of negative attacks that defined him. Yet his fear of the liberal press prevented him from really going on the attack against Obama. John McCain also didn't go on the attack enough against Obama. I don't like the dirty tricks tactics of Lee Atwater and Richard Nixon as they sometimes spread lies about their opponents or used dirty tricks (breaking into WaterGate building for Nixon), but at least Atwater was willing to go on the attack. You can't win a war if you are not willing to go on the attack!Conservative (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2020 (EST)

I politely differ - I can't think of a single half truth Nixon or Atwater said about a Commucrat that wasn't true. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 12:24, 11 February 2020 (EST)

I might be wrong about Atwater spreading lies. The problem is that the people who said he lied about something are liars themselves. But if I am not mistaken, Atwater did push polling in the form of fake surveys by so-called independent pollsters. He used this method as a form of getting out negative information about his opponents. Not sure this is true, but if true, then this would be unethical. But maybe he did this push polling in an ethical way. The Atwater push polling methodology issue is a matter hard to research.Conservative (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Regarding Atwaters alleged "deathbed confession": - I listened to the lengthy audio tape (of poor quality) made by (if I recall) editors from he Nation. No such "confession" occurred. It was a series of baited and loaded questions, then edited entirely out of context. Atwater simply made the point that Southerners who voted for Goldwater in 1964, and later, were patriots concerned about national security issues. Atwater was making the point that by 1980, Southerner perspectives on national security issues led the nation before the North, Midwest, and West adopted those priorities. Nothing more. From this interview, The Nation concocted a narrative that totally unrelated to its context.

In the aftermath of 1980, Carter apologists behaved the same way as Hillary apologists did. Reagan personally was too popular, so slanders were directed against his advisors (as they have against Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, etc. etc.) with the tag of "racism", of course.

Atwater couldn't rebut the posthumous slanders, and there the story lies. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:49, 11 February 2020 (EST)

I just saw an interview with Lee Atwater and Larry King and he came across as a nice guy. I also read some more about Atwater. I think a lot of the attacks against Atwater are motivated by the fact that he helped Republicans win races. On the positive side, Atwater was a hard worker and his opponents describe him as relentless.Conservative (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Awater claimed that in the 1964 election, Goldwater and the South didn't want involvement in Vietnam and took a hardline against the Soviet Union. By 1980, this perspective had a national consensus with the election of Reagan. Commie-libs twisted this to mean Atwater was a mover and shaker in the Democrats "Southern Strategy" conspiracy theory. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 14:04, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Atwater was very proud of the fact that Southern perspectives on foreign policy became a national consensus by 1980; Democrats twisted this to mean Southern perspectives on race became a national consensus by the election of Reagan.

Goldwater's statement, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" was directed at the Soviet Union (witness LBJ's "Daisy" commercial); Al Franken and other as recently as 2016 twisted that to mean it was directed against the civil rights movement. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 14:11, 11 February 2020 (EST)

The GOP strategist Ed Rollins said Atkins was a very hardworking guy, but he is used the word "con man" to describe Atwater because he claims Atwater faked his resume to get hired by Rollins. Ed Rollins was angry at Atwater because he claims Atwater doublecrossed him. After all is said and done, Atwater was a wily, smart, aggressive and bold guy who was very effective at winning political races, but it appears as if he cut ethical corners sometimes.Conservative (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Personally, I don't believe that. Atwater I respect as much as Richard Viguerie. Rollins, whom I admire and respect very much, too, is a closet NeverTrumper. Roger Stone warned in 2016 that any money donated to Rollins Great America PAC didn't go to electing Trump at all. And I believe Stone. Rollins can be thanked for a whole string of RINOs, Christy Todd Whitman among the most visible. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 14:27, 11 February 2020 (EST)

This author at PowerLine Blog came to the same conclusion (with links to original audio. "So the central point that Atwater made in the interview was the exact opposite of the proposition for which liberals have endlessly quoted him." RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:01, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Before Atwater the GOP was too wimpy in national campaigns and did not go on the attack enough. And then Trump, the counter puncher, took going on the attack to a whole new level. Given that the left/liberal leaning press is heavily in favor of the Democrats and are its attack dogs, it forces Republican candidates to be tougher and go on the attack more.

On the whole, I don't think politicians and the government are scrutinized enough so "staying positive" and not criticizing your opponents, their actions and their positions is not healthy for politics. For example, I am glad that Biden's corruption was revealed by Trump. In addition, the U.S. government has been repeatedly misrepresenting their effectiveness in the Afghanistan War for almost two decades.[15]Conservative (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2020 (EST)

This is an interesting article on "Borking". Biden invented "borking" - using a public officials extensive record to destroy them. Since Buttigieg has a limited record, it's hard to "bork" him, but Biden has become a victim of his own methods. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:50, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Buttigieg, who doesn't have the name recognition of Joe Biden, is not going to be able to withstand the campaign money of Michael Bloomberg which could reach biblical proportions. Neither is Biden which is why is one of the reasons Biden is having a hard time with fundraising.

This race is probably going to drag on and a contested convention in Milwaukee is probably going to be the net result which will result in a Trumpslide 2020 (see: Trumpslide 2020. Start celebrating now, but don't be complacent).Conservative (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2020 (EST)

One third of all delegates will be awarded on Super Tuesday {3 wks from now). It'll be a two-man race by then between Sanders and (fill in the blank, likely Bloomberg, Buttigieg. or Klobuchar). Warrens delegates will go to Sanders after tonite. Biden's delegates are up for grabs after tonite, which is why Bloomberg is getting in. Yang, Steyer, Gabbard and the rest are finished after tonite, although Gabbard may linger as a protest vote for awhile. Eventually she'll get on the Sanders train as a possible VP pick competing with Buttigieg and Klobuchar. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 18:37, 11 February 2020 (EST)

Buttigieg and Zuckerberg

Bootyboy and Zuckerberg were butt buddies in college. Bootyboy was among Facebook's first 300 users. Somebody needs to research this and stick it in Bootyboy's article. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 11:15, 13 February 2020 (EST)

I did research it. It was first broken by Mercury News recently in an interview Buttigieg did in San Francisco. And Zuckerberg had visited South Bend and Mayor Buttigieg many months ago on his "I'm a normal guy, America" tour. Some stories stick around the Twittersphere like a toothache and won't go away. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 18:06, 13 February 2020 (EST)

What? Are you trying to deny the Buttigieg/Facebook conspiracy to take over America which has been in the works for morethan 15 years? [16] RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 18:43, 13 February 2020 (EST)

It can't happen here. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 20:52, 13 February 2020 (EST)

40 percent of Americans believe America is ready for a homosexual president.[17] Ordinary voters are quoted saying they — or their “devout Christian” mother — “would never vote for a gay.” And the Buttigieg campaign’s own focus groups recently found that many undecided black voters in South Carolina regard the candidate’s sexual orientation as a “barrier” to winning their votes (source: New York Times[18]).

Buttigieg is a joke candidate. Klobzilla is a far more fearsome candidate!Conservative (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2020 (EST)

59% of conservatives married

46% of moderates married

40% of liberals married [19]

No breakdown on the percentage of gay married. But I'd guess a sizeable percentage of libs 40% are gay married, if the actual number isn't currently outpacing traditional marriage. Which leaves a question, Why has the gay rights movement latched onto such a declining popular trend? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 11:35, 15 February 2020 (EST)

The David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D. study reported in their 1984 work The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop stated that in regards to relationships involving male homosexuality that "all couples with a relationship lasting more than 5 years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships." See: Homosexuality and promiscuity

Homosexual "marriage" among males is likely a farce in terms of monogamy. I don't believe it often exists. Maybe I am wrong about this matter, but I doubt it.Conservative (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2020 (EST)

Stats show a typical hetero person may have between 1 and 20 lifetime encounters with different partners, with 200 at the upper extreme, whereas a typical homosexual has between 1 and 200, with 1,000 at the upper extreme. And as you just pointed, monogamy is rare in gay marriages and relationships. So no, gay behavior and relationships is not "just like" straight relationships. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:35, 15 February 2020 (EST)

In fact, marriage was instituted to protect the rights of a monogamous person with a cheating spouse. Evidence suggest in the first years of "legalized" gay marring, many enter into it who are already in polygamous relations, even with the knowledge and understanding of the parties. This destroys the whole concept of marriage. And the only argument that made gay marriage legal before SCOTUS is whataboutism. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:47, 15 February 2020 (EST)

Bernie: I promise to spend the remainder of our childrens' patrimony on Medicare for All adults, who are the ones always needing to see the doctor. We'll do it right under their noses, and once they figure out what we've done, we'll see a REAL revolution. After all the bloodshed we'll have a true socialist nation where we can practice cultural Marxism all we want, and the social chaos that ensues will be smoothed over by taking out our anger on former beneficiaries of capitalism and practitioners of heroic morals! VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 19:07, 15 February 2020 (EST)

Bernie is already "moving to the center", if such a thing were possible. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 19:11, 15 February 2020 (EST)

Trump's Whisper Network

The media is all abuzz with a recent NYT op-ed, Trump's Whisper Network. It claims 2/3 of undecideds vote Trump (so just add that figure to any poll between now and election day). But among the other gems in this liberal tripe is this:

Republicans will organize their campaign around the country’s material prosperity under Trump; Democrats around its moral deterioration,

coming from the same people fielding a lily-white field of 5 sexist and racist Democrats who railroaded all candidates of color out and rigged the rules for a greedy white male capitalist to carry the banner of anal sex as a human right and transgender bathrooms. Sheesh.

Here's an idea for new slogan: We are the 90%! who, according to Gallup, are satisfied with our personal lives. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:52, 16 February 2020 (EST)

That's not enough. In the next four years, KAS: Keep America Satisfied. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 23:05, 16 February 2020 (EST)

Buttigieg also "carries the banner" that homosexuality is ethically equal to heterosexuality. But he doesn't care about our opinion. "We were never asked." And we won't be anytime soon. He just threatens to reveal secrets about heterosexuals who so much as hint that being a homosexual could be disadvantageous to being an American president, even cancer patient Rush Limbaugh. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 07:58, 17 February 2020 (EST)

AG Barr goes after "sanctuary cities"

Like the title says, Attorney General of the United States William Barr is beginning legal proceedings against wholly-secular "sanctuary cities", including enabling the victims of crimes by illegal immigrant brutes, who kill about 60 a year in the United States, to sue those municipalities for damages. I can't wait for the host municipalities' populations of illegal "pedophile parishioners" in "sanctuarium" locations to be sued by families of victims for millions.

These "sanctuaries" are not just dangerous, they are unconstitutional:

No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Any state that tolerates, or is forced to tolerate, these squatter-camps of illicitly-residing and criminally-prone foreigners, who can potentially be used to menace or mobilize against non-globalists and their allies as local policy is formulated and issued from day to day, is constitutionally derelict for keeping a thinly-disguised standing army in times of peace that has been gradually growing in recent times, all while, as citizens burdened and excluded from benefits under the unfair legally-enforced arrangement, "We were never asked".

For shame, globalists! For shame, America!

VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 03:06, 17 February 2020 (EST)

Vargas Milan is a self-nominated editorialist for Conservapedia Talk:Main Page, who is eligible for the Pulitzer Prize.

What is Dataclarifier doing?

In Conservapedia article Mysticism, he has entitled one section: "Protestantism as a form of Gnostic Christianity". Gnosticism is heretical! I don't feel that is appropriate!

Worse, he makes a major three-step error to back up this assertion. He begins with a description of what he calls a "relativistic" approach in Protestantism. Is this only Protestant approach? Everyone knows it is not. Is it even a Protestant approach at all? The author he goes on to cite as an example is Joseph Campbell, who is not even a Christian!

Secondly, in between he states, "The Historical-grammatical method (Literal hermeneutic) of orthodox catholic biblical hermeneutics directly contradicts this [relativistic] approach."

Fine. When you click the link to Historical-grammatical method (Literal hermeneutic), which he also wrote in its entirety, you find the method is not "orthodox catholic" at all but established by Dr. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism himself, in a break with "orthodox catholic" Bible interpretation!

Finally, the link to the source he cites to prove this that he includes, shows this is no substitution error of attribution, but it indeed proves Luther is the founder of the Historical-grammatical method (Literal hermeneutic).

So to sum up: Dataclarifier goes out of his way to make a point of insulting Protestantism for supposedly not using the very Bible interpretation method that the founder of Protestantism actually broke with Catholic tradition in establishing!

So I ask again, what is Dataclarifier doing? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 11:18, 17 February 2020 (EST)

Yes, we have the same cut'n paste in Salvation. I inquired at talk. It appears nothing more than an attack on Protestantism and does not further an understanding of Salvation.

Elsewhere, in extensive discussion, Dataclarifier has admitted point blank to denying the authority of scripture. So I have no qualms about reverting wholesale any contributions on the subjuct of scripture, or quoting scripture as a source. Myself and others have likewise found blatant misuse of scriptural passages.

I'd recommend engaging him on talk. If he fails to respond in a reasonable amount of time, or spams the page with hypertext and circular responses, just revert wholesale.

Mysticism I can't find in my Strong's Concordance, so I don't really have any interest or understanding of the subject. But attacks on Protestantism like that should probably be dealt with in Essay space.RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:22, 17 February 2020 (EST)

I think you checkmated DataClarifier, and he may have resented it, and when he developed vivid fantasies of frustrating authority figures, he transfered them to you and decided to carry them out one day. Perhaps with the help of the DavidE account and perhaps to hamper Conservapedia by isolating and entangling one of its officers. A Parthian shot that ended prematurely. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 14:33, 17 February 2020 (EST)

Here are the article pages with the "Protestantism is Gnosticism" paragraphs he pasted onto, if an admin would like to do some kind of bulk reversion in easily defined parts (main body and leftovers), because that is how I might do it.:

Gnosticism Protestantism

Christianity Liberal Christianity

Mythology Historicity of Jesus

Resurrection Salvation: declarational salvation and ontological salvation

Eternal security (salvation) Salvation

Great Apostasy Heresy

Mysticism Antinomianism

Sola spiritu Anabaptist

Bogomil: Bogomilism Cathar

Albigensians Neo-Gnosticism

Anarchism

I guess that's all I can do without risking complicating the use of Admin tools. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 14:52, 17 February 2020 (EST)

Thanks. Good work. I'm going to revert all entries related to Biblical terms, pending his response at Talk:Salvation. The rest maybe you could undo, and if he seeks to edit war rather than engage on the Salvation Talk page, a short block may be in order. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:06, 17 February 2020 (EST)

• The Gnostics were a group active in the second century who wrote spurious texts intended to undermine other people's religions. "Gnostic Christianity" is a phrase created by National Geographic to get people interested in the Gospel of Thomas. PeterKa (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2020 (EST)

Yes, this is a very large topic. And one can't do justice to it without a fullscale, proper examination of the History of the Christian Church in India. So from the First Century you have the problem of attaching a Greek word to describe Christian teaching in the multi-lingual Indian subcontinent - a task I readily admit too big for me to even begin qualifying sources from the First Century onwards. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:40, 17 February 2020 (EST)

Peter, Elaine Pagels used the phrase "Gnostic Christianity" in the 1981 edition of The Gnostic Gospels or earlier. This book made a media splash and was the National Geographic Gnostic media feature of its time. It had a lot of smearing together of ideas, and Pagels built a career on it. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:31, 18 February 2020 (EST)

And thank you for sharing that description of Gnostics. I've never seen it before, and by my using it as a hypothesis, it makes so many unconnected ideas I've had about Gnosticism fall into place as an explanatory device. Do you think they had cultural Marxism in the second century? VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:51, 18 February 2020 (EST)

Summary of the argument (from Essay:_Water_baptism_cannot_save,_the_Church_cannot_save,_Born_again_by_faith_alone):

::"[RobSmith] say,

The argument seems to be:

• The Bible, or Word of God, is not authoritative;
• Salvation is dependent upon church membership;
• While baptism qualifies a person for adoption into God's family, it is no guarantee; salvation still must be earned by good works, or at least the sacrificial death of Jesus is insufficient to cleanse one of certain sins.

Dataclarifier's response (after much redundant spamming alleged to be "intellectual and scholarly"):

"Your analysis of the argument is a fairly accurate summary,"

Based on his own words, all contributions in mainspace articles with the Template:Christianity are questionable. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:31, 17 February 2020 (EST)

Here's my take on summarizing User:Dataclarifier's doctrinal error in discussing the nature of Christianity: User:Dataclarifier has supplanted (by his own words) biblical teaching with histories of the sinful nature of man since the time of Christ, as if it is the authoritative Word of God. This clouds the message of the gospel of grace and salvation. It's an old Satanic trick, as old as the Bible itself (the serpent tempting Eve, Satan misquoting the bible to Jesus in wilderness, etc. etc. etc.). RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:00, 17 February 2020 (EST)

For example: his exhaustive study of Bogomil: Bogomilism is about as interesting as the History of the Origins of Spaghetti, and does nothing to further the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But it looks intellectual and authoritative. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:14, 17 February 2020 (EST)

Gnosticism was a heresy. Protestantism is not a heresy. I just deleted the material and oversighted it. Conservative (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2020 (EST)

There is a reason a portion of history is called the Reformation. What happened during this period? Some things were reformed!Conservative (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2020 (EST)

Thanks. I rvv'd all else except the rant still on the Salvation page. I gave him 24 hours to explain it. If it he fails to engage properly, then it'll be reverted. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:44, 17 February 2020 (EST)

I got rid of the rant.

I could attempt to put in the Catholicism article the fact the many prominent Protestants have asserted that the Whore of Babylon in Revelations is the Catholic church. I could also mention that the identification of the Pope as the Antichrist was written into Protestant creeds such as the Westminster Confession of 1646. But I just don't see the point of it as it would never stay in the article given that there are Catholic Conservapedians who are consistent editors and the fact the owner of the website is a Catholic.

Dataclarifier needs to end his jihad against Protestantism at this wiki because none of the spaghetti he is throwing against the wall is going to stick. There are too many consistent and prominent editors of Conservapedia who are Protestants and they are not going to stand for it.Conservative (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2020 (EST)

He's confused the history of sinful man in the Christian era with biblical teaching and the Word of God. This unclean spirit has a grip on him RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 18:25, 17 February 2020 (EST)

Do you think he's doing it to scandalize? Maybe it's his way of defiling what he doesn't like. Thanks everyone for all your help. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 19:45, 17 February 2020 (EST)

I still consider anti-Papism as a form of bigotry, but the more he posts the more I understand why the UK House of Commons passed anti-Papist legislation. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 20:32, 17 February 2020 (EST)

“If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened." - Donald Trump, 2016[20]

"A survey of more than 42,000 people in 41 different countries conducted by YouGov.com revealed that President Donald Trump is more admired than Pope Francis."[21]Conservative (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2020 (EST)

Just as an FYI, speaking as someone who IS Catholic, we Catholics aren't fond of Pope Francis, especially when he's gutting many of our sacraments (and there's evidence that Benedict XVI was forced to resign by Obama and his cronies in order to install Francis.). Pokeria1 (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2020 (EST)

I will also make a bit clear that DataClarifier does ultimately have a point, especially after Conservative inferred that Catholicism was inherently authoritarian as was the Russian Orthodox church, and implied that Protestantism isn't authoritarian, not to mention how RobS pretty much stated in one of the earlier talks that Christians don't view themselves as a religion and even implied that the church stopped existing since after Jesus ascended into heaven and insisted on a more relativistic approach under the guise of a personal relationship. Quite frankly, if Jesus didn't want Christianity to exist, he would never have gone as far as to even state that Peter act as the foundation of his church, as I pointed out earlier in an old thread on the Talk page. Your comments in those places certainly don't help dissuade his claims. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2020 (EST)

We're back to the authoritative words of Jesus: My kingdom is not of this world; where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am also. Now you can reject the words of Jesus and think Christianity is some political movement akin to all the other Satanic political entities that have governed the planet since time immemorial, or you can have simple faith (trust) in God's word. Those who openly reject the authority of the logos, and/or add more to it to water it down - there isn't much question which side they are on.

I'm gonna get blunt here - a doctrine that preaches that a pope, Mormon President, Ayatollah or Caliph speaks for God and replaces the words of Jesus isn't just in error, it's in rebellion against God. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:59, 18 February 2020 (EST)

One more statement of faith: Dataclarifier repeatedly alleges that the essence of Christianity is being a do-gooder. It is not. Romans 4:5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. The essence is trusting God (faith).

What is faith? Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding - is a much clearer and straight forward definition of faith than the substance of things hoped for...etc. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 14:10, 18 February 2020 (EST)

Except Jesus also told Peter "You're the rock upon which I shall found my church", essentially making Saint Peter the first pope. That is wholly in contradiction with what you essentially claimed. By making Peter the rock, that essentially means Jesus made a political entity with the church. He would never have founded Christianity, certainly not make Saint Peter the foundation of it, otherwise. In fact, he would have slaughtered humanity just to ENSURE there IS no political movements even in his name, and since his kingdom is NOT of his world anyways, it's no loss for him either. If you're going to use that as the authoritative words of Jesus, you must accept that bit as well about Peter being the first Pope, since that ALSO came from Jesus's own authoritative words. And no, the essence of Christianity is to obey God's will absolutely, obey the ten commandments without question, not to mention the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers, all of which came DIRECTLY from God via Moses (with the only exceptions being those Jesus himself removed, such as the dietary restrictions on pork and presumably shellfish). You can't have it both ways. In fact, to be blunt, using your argument, Jesus by even MAKING Saint Peter his first pope was in open rebellion against his father as well. After all, if his father didn't want any political parties of ANY sort, viewing it as Satanic, then Jesus shouldn't have made Saint Peter the rock upon which he built the Christian church. It's that simple. In fact, he would have done to humanity what Jimmy Carter did with the Shah of Iran, leave his followers to die just to ensure there IS no church, no political party to be had. And for the record, listen to yourself, your statement about how Jesus doesn't want political parties is EXACTLY what DataClarifier is referring to when he called Anarchism a form of Christian Gnosticism. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2020 (EST)

Nah, don't think so. Acts 1:6 Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? The followers still didn't get it. The followers still were walking in the flesh - even after all Jesus had been through. (IOWs, the followers were not spiritually born. Unless you are born again, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.)RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:15, 18 February 2020 (EST)

The essence is faith - knowing that whatsoever He had promised, He was able to deliver, i.e. the resurrection. Faith in the resurrection. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:19, 18 February 2020 (EST)

Faith in the resurrection is the only doctrinal difference between Christianity and Orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Judaism even preaches grace. There are those however, even within Orthodox Judaism, that teach there is no afterlife. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 15:30, 18 February 2020 (EST)

Oh, I believe Jesus resurrected himself, alright, and quite frankly, I'm pretty sure if Jesus didn't want any politics, he would NOT have formed one with Christianity. In fact, he'd leave his followers to die at the Romans specifically to ensure no politic could ever be formed even in his own name. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2020 (EST)

When we speak of the resurrection, we are not speaking only about the first born from the dead. We are speaking about YOU being resurrected from death to life by faith in Christ. Behold, he is a new creature. Today is the day of salvation. The Resurrection begins the moment you are spiritually born, it does not occur after the spirit departs from a corpse. This is eternal life in Christ. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 17:18, 18 February 2020 (EST)

Statistically, Protestant countries have less corruption than Catholic countries ( Article on Protestant vs. Catholic religion and corruption).

In addition, here is data related to countries, Protestant missionaries and democracies/republics:

"Woodberry already had historical proof that missionaries had educated women and the poor, promoted widespread printing, led nationalist movements that empowered ordinary citizens, and fueled other key elements of democracy. Now the statistics were backing it up: Missionaries weren't just part of the picture. They were central to it...

Areas where Protestant missionaries had a significant presence in the past are on average more economically developed today, with comparatively better health, lower infant mortality, lower corruption, greater literacy, higher educational attainment (especially for women), and more robust membership in nongovernmental associations.

In short: Want a blossoming democracy today? The solution is simple—if you have a time machine: Send a 19th-century missionary."- Christianity Today, Surprising Discovery About Those Colonialist, Proselytizing Missionaries, January 8, 2014

As far as authoritarianism, on the whole, Protestantism and Protestant countries are less authoritarian. In my estimation, churches that follow the biblical model of authority via a pastor overseer/elders[22][23] are doing things correctly. There are Protestant churches where the pastor is authoritarian and there are nonexistent elders or weak elders leadership, but I would argue that is unbiblical.Conservative (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2020 (EST)

Except God himself IS authoritarian. How else could he rule over humanity without being an authoritarian? If he weren't authoritarian, he'd be a dithering dullard, and you know that's obviously not the case. Besides, I can name plenty of protestant sects, even ones helmed by John Calvin and Martin Luther, who are exceptionally authoritarian by your definition. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2020 (EST)

Our eternal destiny is still an individual choice. it's not dependent upon membership in a fellowship or because your parents sprinkled water on you as a child.

I'm sometimes amused by the preaching and testimonies I hear in Christian churches. For example, take the book of Exodus. In sum, God's people were protected from the plagues, witnessed God's mighty power in parting the sea and destruction of their enemies. Yet they still bowed down to worship the Golden Calf. What does this teach us about the rebellious heart of man? Yet I hear endless testimonies from contemporary Christians how somehow they have stronger faith than the eyewitnesses to God's mighty power - whose carcasses fell in the wilderness. Do these people even read their bibles with any understanding? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:59, 18 February 2020 (EST)

The Apostle Paul says to have peace with all men, if possible. In my personal life, I have productive relationships with Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc. and fairly recently had a cordial relationship with an atheist (who was aware of my atheism articles).

Biblical Protestantism does not dispute that God is the ultimate authority and it argues that God is a just and benevolent authority. That does not negative the biblical model of church authority among Christians.

Also, Calvinism very much stresses the sovereignty of God.

The data does show that biblical Protestantism does have a very positive effect on societies. And this makes perfect sense given Jesus' teaching about a good tree producing good fruit. On the other hand, there are plenty of corrupt Catholic countries. Ireland is a decent country though. And Ireland is a beautiful country as well. I know there has been violence/friction between Catholics/Protestants in Ireland, but there is evidence that Catholics/Protestants have influenced each other in Ireland.[24] On the whole, Anglicanism is a weak form of Protestantism and its foundation was weak as well (King Henry VIII not being able to get annulment). So the type of Protestantism which often influenced Ireland was not ideal.Conservative (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2020 (EST)

As far as biblical Christianity, the matter of personal choice and salvation is not unanimous. There is Calvinistic/non-Calvinistic Protestantism.

This much is agreed on. God definitely does the calling and so He is the initiator.Conservative (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2020 (EST)

There is one cultural concept in many Catholic countries that I like to taunt atheists with. The concept of machismo! Olé! Olé! Olé! See: Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?Conservative (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2020 (EST)

The Catholic/Protestant split, both on the continent and in England, largely originated over real estate and beginning of corporate law (See mortmain). The Papacy held land deeds that they acquired from dead people. Local princes wanted the real estate for rents and tax revenue. Some men of God, Martin Luther for example, exposed the doctrinal fraud of the papacy's claims. In Ireland, the Irish sided with papists largely as an ally against their British oppressors, not out of any religious or doctrinal position. Much of it degenerated into political squabbles on the continent and in the British Isles, but the fraud of the breakaway, Unorthodox Roman Church was exposed. The Unorthodox Roman Church doubled down on error, adding more books to bible, making claims Peter and Pope (fill in the blank) had the authority of Christ, etc. etc. etc.

Baring Reform Protestant clergymen, the rest was a power grab between popes and princes. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 17:34, 18 February 2020 (EST)

Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo? had the view counter reset. I estimate it has had over 100,000 page views.

It apparently got under the skin of the author John Grant who cited it in his book.[25] An agnostic/atheist at a forum who goes by username Hokulele wrote about the article: "Although the "Does Richard Dawkins have Machismo?" article is funny."Conservative (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2020 (EST)

Moral supremacy

Moral supremacy is the doctrine that those who have suffered the most, as a determining factor, deserve to rule over those that haven't—even if the suffering is self-inflicted, inducing the fabrication of oppression narratives that compete alongside the American black historical experience to make sure blacks don't get all the spots in liberal organizations.

It will never get discussed in that way, as it would be self-defeating (a too obvious demonstration that it leads to a political rule belonging to the same species of oppression complained about), but a repeated oppression narrative is simply inserted when an opposing political view arises that needs to be checked when it occurs at a politically inconvient time, [for example at a time], like [when] distracting from a new different narrative while it's beginning to harden. Hence, moral supremacy is the unexamined basis of intersectionality. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 04:55, 19 February 2020 (EST) VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 19:52, 19 February 2020 (EST)

User Not Democrat template

Could one of the admins here lock this new user template I created to keep it from getting vandalized or otherwise messed with by any ill-intentioned trolls? Northwest (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2020 (EST)

Done Karajou (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2020 (EST)

Righteous, thanks. :D Northwest (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2020 (EST)

Guidance counselor

I'm curious. Has anyone ever heard of the Occupational Outlook Quarterly? VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 01:41, 21 February 2020 (EST)

It's mentioned HERE for historical reasons.

Given that the Occupational Outlook Handbook is online, its not surprising that the Occupational Outlook Quarterly appears to have ceased publication.Conservative (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2020 (EST)

What I mean is, if it's available in any form at all, and it has been, why did shoals of college students take out large student loans in the Worst College Majors to go to expensive colleges and expect to pay the loans back quickly, if they have competent high school guidance counselors and could look up expected job demand and salary?

Likewise, why are businesses complaining there aren't enough qualified applicants if they can raise their salaries over the course of any three months (quarterly) of the year and attract more students to what must then be seen as the "Best College Majors" of the time through that same publication?

I never learned of the publication from my high school guidance counselor—didn't need to; I learned about it from the government advertising it on TV beginning in grade school!

Was this a marketing failure? Or did it fail some other way? Supposedly we billed future generations $6-8 trillion to prevent a depression; shouldn't we have at least gotten out of it some reality to a reasonably polled "occupational outlook" for the students entering college at that time?

This all looks like people warping the yardstick and then "measuring out" their adversity for their own share of government goodies or getting rid of the yardstick altogether like it never existed and trusting the adversity fishermen not to tell tall tales about size of the fish they caught when they try to sell them at the market? Or in today's oppression culture, probably the size of the fish that bit them. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 05:43, 21 February 2020 (EST)

MPR: "replacement conspiracy"

MPR reads, "drop in its fertility rate to a below replacement level of births similar to Europe" I suggest modifying it to "'drop in its fertility rate similar to Europe" The mass shooting in Germany yesterday is attributed to a "right wing terrorist" motivated by "The Great Replacement conspiracy theory", according to German state TV. [26] The Great Replacement is the title of the New Zealand mosque shooting manifesto; "Jews will not replace us" was chanted by Charlottesville neo-nazis. We shouldn't use this term, "replacement". There are other ways to communicate the consequences of a drop in fertility. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 07:28, 21 February 2020 (EST)

The cold hard facts

Look, let me warn you in advance: if Bloomberg offers to pay me $10,000 to call one of you guys a loser, I'm taking it.

Let's hope black voters are less accommodating in their politics than me toward Democratic presidential candidates, like RobS recently claimed. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 08:51, 21 February 2020 (EST)

"Given the cash that Bloomberg is throwing around, you can set the countdown clocks now for a surge of 'former Republicans' in the media to develop a 'strange new respect' for the diminutive geriatric billionaire purely out of their 'pragmatic principles'". —Buck Sexton

VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 08:54, 21 February 2020 (EST)

Klo-butcher ought to be cashing in on SC blacks right now (despite NAACP opposition); elsewise their choices are breathing life into Biden's corpse, bending over for Bootyboy, or sanctioning stop n frisk Bloomberg. What's not being reported is mainstream Blacks' wholesale rejection of communist liberals and progressives like Sanders and Warren (and by extension, Obama). RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 08:58, 21 February 2020 (EST)

Cold hard facts are, Blacks and Hispanics are the "moderates" of the Democratic party. That's why there are no moderates left in the Democratic party. Blacks and Hispanics oppose the Planned Parenthood genocide of their race. That's why the communists, Booker and Harris, had no Black support. That's why Blacks and Hispanics are leaving the Democrat party. That's why insiders pin their hopes on a RINO racist. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 17:21, 21 February 2020 (EST)

You said Booker and Harris were torpedoed by Democratic white racists not Democratic moderate minorities.

And who is this RINO racist? You do know RINO means Republican In Name Only. So how can the Democrats be running a candidate with a Republican "name"?

I would encourage readers to allow Rob to answer next week if he likes and in the meantime give him the benefit of the doubt, given the amount of knowledge he has been shown to have exhibited over long periods of time. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 20:32, 21 February 2020 (EST)

Booker and Harris, who had maybe 4% between the two of them, were torpedoed by white racists lack of support and minority pro-family, God-fearing anti-socialists.

Why do you think we call them RINO? cause they are racist democrats and Republican in Name Only. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 21:33, 21 February 2020 (EST)

Mighty Bloomberg checked at last by fate, and it's not pretty

"Twitter suspends 70 Bloomberg-boosting accounts for violating company policy" — New York Post. (h/t @Ethics13) VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 04:24, 22 February 2020 (EST)

Speaking of Mighty Bloomberg, what gave Conservative the idea to link to that Mighty Mouse video? It's not as if the theme song has replayed in my head over 30 to 40 times ever since then or anything. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 04:32, 22 February 2020 (EST)

• This is Twitter saying, "Hey Bloomberg, where is our money?" PeterKa (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2020 (EST)

The contrast is interesting. Bloomberg, who regards Trump as an amateurish billionaire rival. has shown himself as the product of the insular world of New York City with no understanding of the outside world; and Trump who was schooled in both the New York and national media markets and among the New York lobbying class hasn't even slung a shot at this Goliath yet. Like Hillary, Bloomberg's stumbling over his own money, power, and ego. Critics say that about Trump, but thus far it's proven illusory. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 07:50, 22 February 2020 (EST)

This is a Must Watch! RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:01, 22 February 2020 (EST)

Don't count Michael Bloomberg out in terms of winning the Democratic primary. Bernie Sanders had a heart attack. Sanders said doctors recommended he do more walking and get more sleep. Will Sanders do that during a presidential primary campaign?

Yes, Michael Bloomberg might win the Democratic primary over Sanders assisted by the Grim Reaper. I know the Grim Reaper has his faults, but if there is one thing that can be said of the Grim Reaper is that he is persistent!Conservative (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2020 (EST)

I would also point out that anger and heart conditions don't go well together.[27][28] Does Bernie Sanders ever sound like he is angry? Don't count the cool, calm and collected Michael Bloomberg out! Even under withering attack by Elizabeth Warren during the Nevada debate, Bloomberg did not get angry or break a sweat!Conservative (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2020 (EST)

You're thinking in terms of an old fashioned honest election, with an honest media, and no IC interference where voters get to decide the Democratic nominee. Those rules don't apply anymore. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 02:17, 23 February 2020 (EST)

Rob S overturned?

Understandably, Nevada has a lot of low-income service workers, but still? 54% of Hispanic primary voters picked Bernie in Nevada primary entrance poll. Blacks, 28%. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 05:42, 23 February 2020 (EST)

Bernie's winner halo and his economic "arguments" (class warfare and "free" stuff) trumped race. Also, see my arguments in this section.Conservative (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2020 (EST)

Yes, no, and maybe. You have to look participation rates by demographic group. To say, "Blacks voted blah blah blah" is meaningless. You have to look at the Democrat primary participation rate of blacks at its peak in 2008 and 2012; then compare it to 2016 and 2020. What you will find is apathy in a shrinking base. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 16:19, 23 February 2020 (EST)