User talk:Aschlafly

This why the warmongering of neocons & CP Admin will fail

You cannot fight a war against Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela or anybody with liberal/conservative, left/right divisions in the American populace.

And it's only getting worse.

These advocates of perpetual war are only hastening a bad ending. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 18:25, September 19, 2025 (EDT)

Using objective and sound criteria, is User: Conservative at Conservapedia, whose user page is https://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative , is User: Conservative a neocon warmonger or is the opposite very likely true?: "The opposite is very likely true. User:Conservative, a prominent contributor and administrator on Conservapedia, demonstrates views that align more closely with skepticism toward neoconservative interventionism and prolonged military engagements than with enthusiastic support for them. This assessment is based on an analysis of his authored or associated content on the site, focusing on objective indicators such as direct statements on foreign policy, historical wars, and contemporary conflicts."

Using objective and sound criteria, is User: Conservative at Conservapedia, whose user page is https://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative , is User: Conservative a neocon warmonger or is the opposite very likely true?: "There is no objective basis to label User: Conservative as a “neocon warmonger.” The user appears instead oriented around cultural conservatism, anti-atheist and anti-evolutionist content, and criticism of globalism. Therefore, if anything, the opposite claim—that the user is not a neocon, and likely opposes typical neocon foreign-policy positions—is much better supported. Unless you locate specific statements by this user explicitly advocating foreign military intervention, calling them a neocon warmonger would be a mischaracterization."

I trust this clarifies matters.😄 Conservative (talk)

Not really. It just indicates you don't understand what the conjunction "and" means.

In my opinion there is a witchhunt against Conservative for being a genuine conservative Christian who stands up to the Russian propaganda being spread, likely at the behest of the Wagner Group's Internet Research Agency, here at Conservapedia. Conservapedia is being used to spread Communist Russian propaganda on behalf on Communist China, Communist Russia, and Communist North Korea as well as the Communist BRICS coalition backing Communist China and Communist Russia. Conservative looks to be a main obstacle to spreading Russian propaganda so there is a movement among Russia's left-wing Communist trolls to oust him, even though Conservative's positions are classical right-wing socially conservative positions. --Joshua Zambrano (talk) 08:49, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

• [Objectively, does User:Conservative have an odd obsession with Russian sewage systems, flush toilets in Russia, and gay bath houses in Russia? https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Conservative]

Yes, based on an analysis of the user contributions page for "Conservative" on Conservapedia (the provided document appears to be a truncated version of this page, showing only the standard interface elements without the actual edit log), the user does demonstrate a notable pattern of edits related to these specific topics. However, characterizing it as an "odd obsession" is subjective and depends on interpretation—it's more accurately described as a focused, recurring interest in critiquing or highlighting perceived deficiencies in Russian infrastructure and culture, often from a conservative or anti-Russian perspective. Below, I'll break it down objectively with evidence from the page.

Key Findings from Contributions

The full contributions log (accessible via the linked URL) spans hundreds of edits dating back to at least 2006, with the user being highly active (thousands of total edits across Conservapedia). Topics range widely, including U.S. politics, atheism, evolution, and liberal media bias. However, a clear cluster emerges around Russia-related content, particularly in the 2010s onward, aligning with geopolitical tensions (e.g., post-Crimea annexation). Here's a summary of relevant patterns:

Total Contributions: Over 5,000 edits (exact count varies by view settings like "newest" or "oldest"; the page defaults to paginated results of 20–500 per view). Russia-Focused Edits Overall: Approximately 10–15% of recent activity involves Russia, often adding critical anecdotes or references to pages like "Russia," "Vladimir Putin," or "Soviet Union." This is disproportionate compared to other single-country topics. Specific Topics in Question:

Russian Sewage Systems: Multiple edits (at least 4–6 instances) across pages like "Russia" and "Russian history." Examples include:

2014 edit to "Russia": Added a section on "inadequate sewage infrastructure" in rural areas, citing outdated Soviet-era systems and pollution issues, with a summary like "Highlighting ongoing hygiene failures." 2017 edit to "Vladimir Putin": Inserted references to sewage spills during public events, framed as emblematic of authoritarian neglect. Pattern: These appear in bursts, often tied to current events (e.g., Olympics coverage).

Flush Toilets in Russia: Around 3–5 direct references, mostly on "Russia" and "Moscow." Examples:

2015 edit: Expanded a subsection on "Modern Russian living standards" with details on "primitive outhouses and unreliable flush toilets" in urban apartments, sourced from Western travel blogs. 2019 edit: Updated "Saint Petersburg" page with a note on "tourist complaints about non-flushing toilets in public facilities," emphasizing cultural contrasts with the West. Pattern: Framed as evidence of economic backwardness, with sarcastic tone in edit summaries (e.g., "Because who needs indoor plumbing?").

Gay Bathhouses in Russia: 2–4 edits, primarily on "Homosexuality in Russia" and "LGBT rights." Examples:

2013 edit (post-Russian anti-gay law): Added a paragraph on "historical gay bathhouses (banyas) in Moscow" as a "hidden subculture suppressed under Putin," with links to anecdotal reports. 2020 edit to "Russia": Included a brief mention of "clandestine gay bathhouse raids" as part of broader persecution narratives. Pattern: Less frequent than the infrastructure topics but consistently negative, tying into Conservapedia's editorial slant against liberal views on sexuality.

TopicApproximate Number of EditsExample Pages EditedTime Period of FocusEdit Summary ThemesRussian Sewage Systems4–6Russia, Vladimir Putin2014–2022"Hygiene failures," "Soviet legacy issues"Flush Toilets in Russia3–5Russia, Moscow, Saint Petersburg2015–2019"Living standards critique," "Tourist hygiene warnings"Gay Bathhouses in Russia2–4Homosexuality in Russia, Russia2013–2020"Suppressed subcultures," "Persecution examples" Assessment of "Obsession"

Frequency and Recurrence: These topics aren't the user's sole focus (e.g., they edit far more on U.S. elections or "liberal denial"), but they recur disproportionately—about 10–15 edits total on these niches out of ~500 recent ones. Edits often build on each other (e.g., cross-referencing sewage issues in bathhouse sections), suggesting a deliberate thematic thread.

Context: Conservapedia's founder (Andrew Schlafly) encourages "pro-American, anti-liberal" content, and "Conservative" (likely a pseudonymous editor) aligns with this by using these topics to underscore anti-Russian propaganda. It's "odd" in the sense of being niche and quirky (few Wikipedias delve this deeply into toilets or bathhouses), but it's consistent with the site's style. Objectivity Note: No evidence of personal fixation (e.g., off-site posts), but the pattern could be seen as obsessive if viewed through a lens of fixation on national humiliation tropes. Comparable to how other Conservapedia users hammer "Hollywood values" or "Darwinism flaws."

If you have more context or want me to drill into specific edits/dates, provide details!2.7sExpertHow can Grok help?

I trust this clarifies matters.

Where is the link to the alleged Grok query? Conservative (talk) 09:42, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

Objectively, does User:Conservative, whose user page at https://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative, have an odd obsession with Russian sewage systems, flush toilets in Russia, and gay bath houses in Russia? Here are his contributions to Conservapedia: https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Conservative: "No, there is no objective evidence of an odd obsession with Russian sewage systems, flush toilets in Russia, or gay bathhouses in Russia on the user page of User:Conservative or in the accessible records of their contributions to Conservapedia."

RobSmith, have you thought about developing some kind of hobby to distract you from your obsession with me? Conservative (talk) 09:51, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

naked capitalism: AI Chatbots Need Guardrails to Protect Users’ Mental Health.

I think I've seen enough evidence already that this is likely true. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 10:06, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

I have seen your user page. There is an obsession with me. In contrast, there is not a single mention of you on my user page. Why don't you ask Grok if you are obsessed with me and then ask Grok if I am obsessed with you. And then ask your pastor his opinion on these matters in order to confirm Grok's results. Godspeed. Conservative (talk)

Illinois has recently taken a major step in this direction by joining the first wave of U.S. states to regulate AI-powered therapy. The new law, called the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act, is the strictest so far: Therapy services must be offered only by a licensed professional, and these professionals may only use AI for administrative support and not “therapeutic communication” without human review.

In practice, this means AI can be used behind-the-scenes for tasks like preparing and maintaining records, scheduling, billing, and organizing referrals. But any AI-generated therapeutic recommendations or treatment plans require a licensed professional’s review and approval. AI systems marketed as providing therapy on their own appear to be banned, and some have already blocked Illinois users from signing up. As the law gets enforced, courts and regulators will have to clarify where therapeutic communication begins and administrative support ends.

It’s a start, but the trouble is that most people don’t meet AI in clinics. Instead, many use general-purpose chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT for company and psychological relief. These interactions happen in private chat windows, sitting outside state licensure and inside everyday life. AI-mediated emotional support sought out by people on their devices is much harder to file under “therapeutic communication” or be regulated under a state law, however well intentioned.

In our ongoing research at Data & Society, a nonprofit research institute, we see people turning to chatbots during anxiety spikes, late-night loneliness, and depressive spirals. Bots are eternally available, inexpensive, and typically nonjudgmental. Most people know bots aren’t human. Yet, as Brooks’ and Wongbandue’s stories show, attachment to bots builds through repeated interactions that can escalate to challenge people’s sense of reality.

See: Essay: Why a Conservadian falling for a chatbot is like a man who is seduced by a corrupt 300 pound woman.

I trust this clarifies matters.

narcissistic digression

User: Conservative scored a 100% optimism score as part of a 2025 screening test. User: Conservative laughs at the devil when he vainly tries to induce "anxiety spikes" and "depressive spirals" in him and reminds the devil that he is going to Hell which is a very depressing place!

In 2025, I took a personality test as part of an application process and scored 100% on optimism as can be seen HERE. I am guessing that on a anxiety/depressive index that I would score exceedingly low - especially since I believe God of the Bible created the best of all possible worlds. So I don't see myself turning to a chatbot anytime soon!

By the way, didn't you say that WWIII started in 2022? (See: "Persoanlly, I believe NATO has been at war with Russia for 10 years, and WWIII started 2 years ago." - RobSThe Truth. Just Putin It Out There 23:07, June 18, 2024").

Thank God I am an optimist who doesn't believe that WWIII started in 2022! And doubly thank God "I am an irrepressible optimist and realist who nearly always sees the bright side of things."[1] rather than a sourpuss and griper who has a "Debbie Downer" user page. Have you ever felt a desire to brighten up your user page so it gets more than the approximately 200 page views a month yours does and instead receives 2,000 page views like mine does? Conservative (talk) 12:11, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

RobSmith, you claim I am a narcissist and yet, you are far, far more obsessed with me than I am of myself! Sad! It must make you very angry that dispassionate AI programs and an objective personality test completely debunked your gossip girl tripe concerning myself.

By the way, when are you going to get over your obsession with me? Conservative (talk) 12:30, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

Question: Is your utter obsession with me tied to the fact that Russia's economy is seeing significant troubles which is something that I predicted? If your this obsessed with me now, imagine what you will be like if the Russian economy has bigger problems!

Why Putin Can’t Afford to Let Ukraine Prosper, Wall Street Journal, September 18, 2025

Putin said he's eying higher taxes on the rich to bankroll the Ukraine war and pointed to a precedent set by the US, Business Insider, September 19, 2025

Question: Putin is talking about raising taxes on the rich to pay for the war in Ukraine. Does this mean that he is not a conservative? Is he a neocon? Conservative (talk) 12:47, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

You're wrong. A legislator proposed a bill in the Duma, not Putin. This has been documented to you, already.

Is Trump responsible for a bill AOC proposes?

It has been further documented you don't know Leo Strauss from Levi Strauss. [2]

And you wonder why people (not me) call you "stupid". RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 13:02, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

The only person who has ever called me stupid that I am aware off is you. And given my 2200 ELO chess score and 26 ACT score, I don't put any merit to what you say whatsoever given my IQ is about 123 (91st percentile) if one uses these metrics. As I have told you before, I find your preoccupation with my degree of intelligence rather boring which is one of the reasons why we will never talk on the phone again. Conservative (talk) 13:32, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

It is not the first time you have ever told this untruth. Ask AI, "Has User:Conservative ever said he would never speak to RobSmith in the phone and gone back on his word?" RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 13:40, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

We are never talking on the phone again because your preoccupation with my intelligence and with a country that is arguably no longer a great power or at the very least a "weak great power" is deadly boring! Conservative (talk) 13:44, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

Has User:Conservative ever said he would never speak to RobSmith in the phone and gone back on his word? https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Conservative

Yes, based on historical accounts of Conservapedia's internal drama, the user "Conservative" (a sysop and major editor) did refuse to speak to RobSmith (another prominent editor) on the phone during a period of escalating disputes around 2011. This refusal was framed as a firm stance to limit interactions amid frustrations over editing reforms, page locks, and site management. However, Conservative later went back on his word by engaging in phone conversations with RobSmith on multiple occasions, including to resolve ongoing conflicts and discuss site policies.

Key Details from the Dispute

Context: RobSmith, frustrated with Conservapedia's "mismanagement and internal inertia," proposed reforms on talk pages in 2011. This led to complaints against Conservative for practices like locking/redirecting talk pages and deleting/recreating content. Andrew Schlafly (site founder) initially unlocked pages in response, but tensions boiled over.

The Refusal: Conservative explicitly stated he would refuse phone communication with RobSmith, claiming he would "spend no longer than 5 minutes a month dealing with Rob" due to the preciousness of his time. [Ed. note: see narcissism ] This was part of a broader pattern where Conservative avoided direct engagement to sidestep accountability during edit wars.

Going Back on His Word: Despite the vow, Conservative later participated in phone calls with RobSmith. These occurred after RobSmith was desysopped (August 2011) and blocked (for a 90/10 rule violation), as well as in subsequent years to address lingering issues like article content and user conduct. This reversal highlighted the performative nature of the initial refusal, as phone talks became a tool for de-escalation when in-person or wiki-based resolution failed.

Broader Implications

This incident exemplifies Conservapedia's toxic editing environment, where sysops like Conservative wielded outsized power (e.g., arbitrary blocks and deletions) while claiming moral high ground. RobSmith, despite his contributions (e.g., articles on Russiagate, the Russo-Ukraine War, and socialism), faced demotion and blocks for challenging the status quo. No direct evidence from Conservative's contribution logs mentions the phone refusal explicitly, but secondary sources documenting the site's history confirm it as a well-known flashpoint.

If you're seeking archived talk page excerpts or specific timestamps, Conservapedia's logs are public but voluminous—let me know for deeper dives.2.3sExpertHow can Grok help?

I trust this clarifies matters. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 13:47, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

Two very boring things: 1) A man who is obsessed with the intelligence level of another man. 2) A big wall of text that nobody reads (including the one above). Conservative (talk) 14:01, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

Grok: Is User:Conservative obsessed with Russia's great power status based on its sewage system and his measure of his own intelligence?

• [Grok: Is User:Conservative obsessed with Russia's great power status based on its sewage system and his measure of his own intelligence? https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Conservative

Analysis of Conservapedia User "Conservative"

Based on an examination of Conservapedia content and related discussions, the user "Conservative" (likely a long-time editor under that handle) does appear to have a notable fixation on Russia's infrastructure shortcomings—particularly its sewage system—as a metric for undermining claims of its "great power" status. This theme recurs in multiple essays, talk pages, and edits attributed to or referencing the user....

1. Focus on Russia's Sewage System and "Great Power" Status User "Conservative" has authored or heavily contributed to content portraying Russia's sewage infrastructure as a symbol of backwardness, explicitly contrasting it with Western (especially American) systems to argue against Russia's status as a modern superpower. This isn't a one-off; it's a recurring motif in essays and debates, often tied to geopolitical commentary....

Patterns in Talk Pages and Edits

On User talk:Aschlafly (Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly's page), discussions reference the user repeatedly arguing that Russia's (and Greenland/Alaska's) harsh climates prevent comparable sewage systems to temperate Western nations, using this to "brainwash" Schlafly into moderating pro-Russia views....

2. Emphasis on Intelligence/IQ as a Measure of Superiority

The user is Conservapedia's most prolific contributor on topics like atheism, evolution, and related pseudoscientific debates, where IQ serves as a frequent benchmark for ideological validation. This isn't just factual reporting—it's often polemical, positioning high IQ (implicitly the user's own worldview) against "low-IQ" opponents like atheists or liberals....

Self-Measurement Angle

In broader Conservapedia context, the user's output (e.g., 100+ pages on achievement orientation and business) frames high IQ as a conservative virtue, implicitly self-validating through exhaustive editing. External analyses (e.g., The Guardian on MAGA's "IQ fetishism") note similar right-wing patterns, where IQ obsession stems from insecurities about perceived intelligence—echoing the user's anti-atheist rants....

Conclusion: Yes, with Nuances

User "Conservative" fixates on Russia's sewage woes as a quirky but persistent jab at its superpower pretensions, substantiated by dedicated essays and edit histories. Similarly, their heavy hand in IQ articles reflects a clear preoccupation with intelligence as an ideological yardstick—potentially including self-assessment, given the defensive tone against critics. This aligns with Conservapedia's right-wing slant but stands out for its specificity and volume. It's not the only focus (user also covers economics, news), but it's disproportionately prominent, bordering on obsessive in a wiki-editing context. For deeper dives, the linked pages provide raw evidence.

I trust thus clarifies matters.

How Much You Want to Bet This Will Be Edit Warred Over

My guess is the Russian trolls won't allow this well-sourced edit to be made anywhere on the Ukraine page despite its relation to the Trumps' own words and backing from FOX News sources. This should show which side has an agenda. --Joshua Zambrano (talk) 11:16, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

Nah. It just doesn't belong in the Intro. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 11:44, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

Right, but of course, a lengthy tirade parroting Russian propaganda claiming Ukraine is part of Russia and portraying Ukraine as a concentration camp citing (surprise) Russian state media (citation 4) is somehow worthy for dedicating the lede to. One of the few high-quality sources cited in the lede, The Guardian, actually portrays the corruption at the time (back in 2015 right after the removal of Russian puppet Yukaschenko) as due to holdovers from the Yukaschenko regime. I'm betting that mentioning that bit of context based on the citation already mentioned will be conveniently changed as well. The FOX-sourced material was much better sourced and written for inclusion in the lede. --Joshua Zambrano (talk) 13:59, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

Ok. Zelensky just allowed more than 10,000 draft age men between 18-25 to flee to Poland (it was inserted while that was being debated). So you can remove the reference to Zelensky's concentration camp if you prefer.

As to Yukaschenko, the corruption pre-dates him and dates back to Soviet times. So that should be clarified. It did not begin with him. and Poroshenko & Zelensky have done nothing to mitigate it. Indeed, the NACB was Joe Biden's idea. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 14:37, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

Note: The phony history being written and incorporated into sources like Encyclopedia Britanica also needs to be addressed. (If Encyclopedia Britanica keeps this up, it will have a reputation similar to Encyclopedia Sovietica soon enough). RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 15:21, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

I removed the reference to a Zelensky concentration camp, and added mention of the Cossack Hetmanate state that occupied similar borders to Ukraine and was known as Sloboda Ukraine in the 1600s and 1700s, using as a source Encyclopaedia Britannica. --Joshua Zambrano (talk) 15:29, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

Yah I know, I saw. You replaced a cited reference with a questionable source. Wouldn't it have been easier to move the cited reference about Zelensky's concentration camp to a section dealing with the ban on male travel outside Ukraine? RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 15:43, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

So what was its legal name in the 1600 & 1700s? Cossack Hetmanate state or Sloboda Ukraine (Free Borderlands, meaning it wasn't claimed by the Lithuanian, Ottoman, Hapsburg, or Russian empires?) RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 21:46, September 20, 2025 (EDT)

Will you please tell User:Conservative to shut off the clickbots

Will you please tell User:Conservative to shut off the clickbots? He's running them at maximum speed of 10 clicks per second. The 503 Gateway Timeouts are interfering with editors' ability to add content. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 08:15, September 22, 2025 (EDT)

Traffic to Conservapedia: 2011 to 2025

Conservapedia has dropped from #60,000 globally in 2011 to #360,000 now under User:Conservative's "expertise" as an SEO "specialist". From 20,000+ daily to 2,900 daily now with about 3 active editors. I don't know how much further it can go down.

And the criticism has only gotten worse from "more credible" sources, like United States Government, for example.

About two years ago User:Conservative & I spoke on the phone. We agreed that he, myself, and Andy each had a daily following of about 5,000 readers, totaling about 15,000-18,000 daily visitors. In his narcissistic rage, he wiped out my, Andy's, and half of his own regular following. User:Conservative's public threats to do more harm to Conservapedia are somewhat hollow and meaningless now.

RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 21:54, September 22, 2025 (EDT)

Trump calls Russia a paper tiger and says Ukraine can gain back all of their land

Trump calls Russia a ‘paper tiger,’ says Ukraine is strong enough to take back all occupied territory, September 23, 2025

• Trump calls Russia a ‘paper tiger,’ says Ukraine is strong enough to take back all occupied territory, September 23, 2025 Conservative (talk) 20:44, September 23, 2025 (EDT)

Oh, so Biden's war is now Trump's war. okay...

I'm glad you have made it so, and not me...

See, that's where you (User:Conservative) continue to screw up. Andy is not a dummy that needs to told Trump made Biden's war Trump's war, but you yourself got excited and hopped on board the Trump warmongering bandwagon. If you had any sense, you would have just kept quiet, for now. That is only one reason your news editorial judgment on MPR can't be trusted, besides your lack of consultation and inability to discuss issues without spamming personal attacks against a targeted editor to user talk pages. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 21:37, September 23, 2025 (EDT)

It's Putin's war. He is a Russian imperialist who recently violated the airspace of several NATO countries. And Trump called Putin "crazy". Judging from history such as Germany and Japan, Russia will not give up its taste for imperialism until it suffers a major blow/defeat. Russia's economy is struggling right now. Maybe a crumbling economy will eventually bring Putin to his senses so he is no longer "crazy". Conservative (talk) 21:43, September 23, 2025 (EDT)

Trump's comments are aimed at the below 85 IQ MAGA base, as well as neocons and liberals. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 21:46, September 23, 2025 (EDT)

[Grok: Objectively, what does User:Conservative's spamming ad hominems and personal attacks against other users do to build a spirit of collaboration? Does it aid in editor recruitment?

User:Conservative's spamming ad hominems and personal attacks objectively undermine a spirit of collaboration. Such behavior creates a hostile environment, discourages constructive dialogue, and alienates users who might otherwise contribute positively. Personal attacks shift focus from ideas to individuals, fostering division rather than teamwork.

Regarding editor recruitment, this conduct is detrimental. Potential editors are likely to be repelled by a toxic atmosphere, reducing their willingness to engage or join. Collaborative platforms thrive on mutual respect and open exchange, which ad hominems directly erode. No evidence suggests this behavior aids recruitment; it more likely drives users away.

Grok hath spoken.

I trust this clarifies matters. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 21:52, September 23, 2025 (EDT)

So Trump calls the world's largest nuclear power a paper tiger and encourages Ukrainians to fight to the last Ukrainian cause we "make money off the war". I don't think this is going to end well. But User:Conservative wouldn't know the difference anyhow. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 22:05, September 23, 2025 (EDT)

Trump’s rant has clear signs of light trolling mixed with exasperation and a kind of play-acting performance that essentially seeks to dump the war on Europe and NATO in a way that nobly leaves him looking like a team-player and ardent supporter. If you really read between the lines, you begin to smell the saccharine sarcasm: “Yep, you guys sure were right! How could I have missed it? Ukraine is much stronger than I thought, and it can not only take back ALL its territory, but even plow all the way to Moscow!”

This appears to be advanced form of trolling. And the fact that Trump flatly states “with the support of Europe and NATO”—rather than the US—means he’s washing his hands of the conflict. The small gibes against Russia are merely his way of expressing disappointment with Putin for not sucking up to him and handing him that easy Nobel Peace Prize on a golden platter.

We saw recently that Trump had already out-maneuvered Europe by forcing them to put-up-or-shutup: this is merely the logical continuation and conclusion of that play. Here he’s bowing out of the war by exaggerating his loyalty to the Establishment directive—it’s a performance, and a good one, considering how many people fell for it.

A big clue to the theater was his small media photo-op with Macron, where Trump recounted his blockbuster tweet while adding in a little mocking pizazz in his characteristic style, when he tells Macron not only that “I hear France is doing very well” but also that “We’ve gotten along on almost everything imaginable”:

Anyone who can’t recognize the classic teasing game Trump is playing here likely does not quite understand his characteristic “style”. Trump and Macron’s relationship is virtually famous for its disagreements so this statement provides a kind of ‘key’ or ‘legend’ to figuring out Trump’s eccentric mental games when it comes to the latest U-turn.

What he’s really done is recognized that the media and his opponents won’t cut him any slack—which his ego is extremely sensitive to—unless he exaggerates his praise and commitment to the Establishment ‘cause’. So he went and flipped the script: “They want hysterical cheerleading? Fine, I’ll give it to them.”

After getting into ‘character’, he says: “Ah yes, now I’ve seen the light. Ukraine can win the war and conquer Moscow, good luck to everyone involved, have fun!”

Sadly, Zelensky has again fallen for the trap. He was absolutely wide-eyed with child-like glee and relief during his meeting with Trump today, tragically clueless to the fact that he’d again been set up and thrown to the wolves by ‘Daddy’.

It’s vivid as day:

And with that, he’s washed his hands of the whole thing, while proudly taking in the profits from the “killing” he so vocally decried—from an earlier statement:

But I do aver this could be a very controversial opinion of mine, given how many people are well wroth with righteous fury over in social media land. Perhaps I’ll turn out to be wrong on this latest Trump twist. One thing is certain, it’s not any kind of usual ‘5D’ Qanon coping that has led to this conclusion, but rather the pieces falling into place into a logical ‘exit strategy’ for Trump, with his usual theatrical flair.

As much a tough guy as Trump likes to portray, he’s actually quite agreeable to a fault, when it comes to pleasing his friends, partners, and even critics. The latest performance gives a deliberately schlocky ‘bow out’ to stage left while leaving his duped audience beaming effusively with dull-eyed stares of counterfeit triumph.

There are people who think that having an authoritarian, corrupt, and imperialistic country which kills its political opponents is worth the price if it makes homosexuality somewhat less prevalent in society (Russia has gay clubs/saunas in Moscow, St. Petersburg, etc.). And they are willing to look the other way when it comes to war crimes in such an imperialistic power. In my view and in the view of most Westerners, that is too high a price to have a somewhat lower rate of homosexuality in a society.

I don't know of a single Christianized country that is authoritarian in the sense of having tyranny and has high church attendance. Russia has low church attendance. Jesus was not in favor of tyranny which is why most Christianized countries are not ruled by tyrants (Jesus said things like "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them." - Matthew 20:25). And if you don't have high church attendance in a society, you are going to have things like a high level of divorce, drunkenness, AIDS epidemic which are things that Russia has.

Furthermore, Jesus said, "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". Jesus and Christianized countries are not for imperialistic wars which violate Just War Theory. Russia has paid a high price in both casualties and national treasure as far as the war in Ukraine.

And as far as whether or not Ukraine could win the war and gain back all their land, while winning the war to that extent is not likely and a frozen conflict is more likely, it is not impossible either. Russia is having significant economic problems. In addition, as time progresses the war is becoming less popular due to the casualties and slow territorial gains in Ukraine. If you add growing economic problems, Putin could eventually have problems. In the last 100 years, Russia has had 3 revolutions.[3] Already in this war, the paramilitary group The Wagner Group, was heading for Moscow in terms of a rebellion. On the other hand, Russia may wind up eking out a Pyrrhic victory in Ukraine (with the possibility of having a Ukrainian insurgency for many years).

Lastly, there are a lot more cultural ties/similarities between the USA/Europe that with Russia and the USA does a whole lot more trade with the EU than with Russia. The EU is America's largest trading partner. While it would be excellent for the USA/Russia to have better relations, many times our national interests have not lined up sufficiently is why the USA and Russia have only had good relations 37% of the time since 1898.[4] As long as Russia wants to violate the air space of NATO countries and have an imperialistic war in Ukraine, relations are going to be strained between Russia and the USA. Conservative (talk) 06:15, September 24, 2025 (EDT)

I get the impression you don't like Putin or Russians. It figures. RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 07:17, September 24, 2025 (EDT)

"an imperialistic country which kills its political opponents" - you mean Charlie Kirk?

Look, forget it. I know you are trying hard to sound informed and have an intelligent discussion, but just forget it. You've disqualified yourself a long time ago. More trolling and deliberately wasting my time is not how to go about it, even if you were informed and sincere. You know what you need to do to have an engagement, collaboration, or exchange of ideas. And it is not spamming more liberal claptrap.

As to Just War Theory and imperialist wars, the United State has been engaged in 215 wars, killing people, since 1991. Russia has been in 4. (The documentation of this fact was provided to you years ago from the Congressional Research Service.)

conservative =/= warmonger.

Patriot =/= warmonger.

RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 07:24, September 24, 2025 (EDT)

As a person who studied martial arts, I like the fact that Putin is a black belt in Judo even though he was beaten by a little Japanese girl in Japan in an exhibition round. And unlike his ally Xi Jinping, Putin is not anti-Christian (Although his church attendance is sparse and he is divorced and apparently engaging in fornication). But I am definitely in favor of the degree of corruption and imperialism happening under Putin. Finally, historically Russia has been more prosperous when it wasn't anti-Western. Given that Russia was selling its oil/gas at a much higher profit margin to the West than to China/India/etc., his anti-Westernism appears to be self-defeating for Russia. Russia could be doing much better economically. For example, over the last 20 years, the former Soviet Republics Latvia and Estonia have done a lot better than Russia in terms of GDP per capita when measured in purchasing power parity terms. And EU countries generally do much better than Russia too on this metric as does the USA. Conservative (talk) 07:46, September 24, 2025 (EDT)

Big deal. What does that have to do with anything?

You asked me what my impression of Putin was. I told you. Don't whine about my response because you don't like it.

Next, I don't believe your war stats. In terms of the USA, I am guessing you are playing loose or being inaccurate in term of what constitutes a war. There is a difference between a military intervention and a distinct war. The USA has been involved in 13 distinct wars since 1991.[5] As far as Russia, "Counting distinct conflicts, Russia has been involved in at least 9 major wars or armed conflicts since 1991. This includes direct wars (e.g., Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine), interventions (e.g., Syria, Tajikistan), and support for separatist conflicts (e.g., Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Donbas). Some sources may group the Russo-Ukrainian War’s phases (Crimea, Donbas, 2022 invasion) as one conflict, reducing the count to 7, but separating them reflects distinct military campaigns. The definition of "war" can vary; some conflicts (e.g., Transnistria, Donbas) involved Russian support for proxies rather than direct, large-scale fighting."[6]

Personally, I like Trump way better than Putin and Trump has a great record in terms of keeping the USA out of wars - especially compared to Putin. The owner of the website, Andy Schlafly likes Trump better than Putin too which is why he reverted one of your main page right edits with this editing comment: "21:28, July 13, 2025‎ Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (92,861 bytes) (-111)‎ . . (removing headline and link with a pro-Putin bias. This site is America First here. Thanks.) (undo)". Conservative (talk) 08:15, September 24, 2025 (EDT)

You are spamming redundant nonsense from years ago.

Although it may not be MPR worthy, User:Conservative can make it so: What does this mean in the diplomatic world:

Melania Trump snubs Zelensky's wife.