Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,716
edits
Changes
Talk:Main Page/Archive index/142 (view source)
Revision as of 18:26, September 18, 2016
, 18:26, September 18, 2016no edit summary
::A mad man elected by mad people. 6 months is going to feel like 7 more years.--Jpatt 11:05, 18 July 2016 (EDT)
::A mad man elected by mad people. 6 months is going to feel like 7 more years.--Jpatt 11:05, 18 July 2016 (EDT)
::Don't forget the Mass Media's likely involvement in agitating and rooting for the BLM protestors to do so. At least here in Atlanta, the major networks generally entered breaking news last week regarding the BLM protestors gathering near the Governor's Mansion. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:50, 18 July 2016 (EDT)
::Don't forget the Mass Media's likely involvement in agitating and rooting for the BLM protestors to do so. At least here in Atlanta, the major networks generally entered breaking news last week regarding the BLM protestors gathering near the Governor's Mansion. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:50, 18 July 2016 (EDT)
== Something all Americans can agree on: Hillary's guilt ==
From Christie's post-speech interview with NBC:
:O'DONNELL: You incited this crowd to get on their feet, to talk about her, to say guilty over and over again. Do you think that is unifying the party in a way that's good for the country?
:CHRISTIE: Yes, yes I do. And I think you do, too.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/19/nbcer_vs_christie_do_you_think_prosecuting_hillary_is_unifying_country_christie_yes_and_i_think_you_do_too.html] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:29, 20 July 2016 (EDT)
== Clinton's "Seizure" ==
Snopes has an article on the video: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-seizure-video/ It's already over a month old, and if you watch the other video they've included which shows the thirty seconds or so leading up to the reaction, it makes sense. She had just answered a question from the reporter over her left shoulder, and was immediately hit with a barrage of questions/microphones from the three reporters in front of her, causing her to jerk back in mock surprise. It makes sense in context. [[User:MatthewT|MatthewT]] ([[User talk:MatthewT|talk]]) 00:07, 25 July 2016 (EDT)
:Scopes does make a good case on this matter and a better case than [[Vox Day]] (who cites Snopes).[https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/07/hilbot-needs-reboot.html] So I removed the news post.
:As far as her health, an excellent case can be made that the public needs to know more about her traumatic brain injury.[http://www.conservativecrusaders.com/u-s-news/watch-hillary-clintons-traumatic-brain-injury-public-must-see-her-medical-records/]
:I don't believe the mainstream news organizations are doing adequate reporting as far as her health and her various scandals. Where was the Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein like investigative reporting when it came to the DNC favoring Hillary over Sanders? The ''Washington Post'' has a large team of reporters digging into the various dealings of Trump. Why not the same degree of effort for Hillary? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:34, 25 July 2016 (EDT)
== Here's a gauntlet ==
[[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=next&oldid=1265319 User:Conservative challenges PZ Myers to... something or other.]
Here's two for User:Conservative:
# Prove PZ Myers has any awareness whatsoever of you or your blog
# Provide evidence the "Question Evolution" booklet for middle schoolers ever existed.
[[User:KenSr|KenSr]] ([[User talk:KenSr|talk]]) 16:41, 25 July 2016 (EDT)
=== Response to gauntlet challenge ===
Four points:
1. The User: Conservative account has been used by several editors and is being used by more than one editor. So your "You" and "Your" are wrongheaded.
2. Setting aside whether or not the [[Examining atheism]] blog is run by a member or members of the User: Conservative account, the blog post located [http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2016/07/pz-myers-doesnt-understand-military.html HERE] cites Myers citing the Examining atheism blog.
3. Upon further reflection, Myers wasn't widely recognized as the fifth horseman of New Atheism movement although he tried to "self-dub" himself as the 5th horseman. Furthermore, the New Atheism movement is dead. [[Freethoughtblogs]] is bleeding profusely in terms of its web traffic as can be seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Freethoughtblogs_alexa_2016.png HERE].
I guess I mentioned Myers on the front page out of reflexive nostalgia. But I removed him from the front page as he is a has been of a dead atheist movement. Global google searches for Myers has plunged over the years and the trend is downwards.
Myers isn't all that interesting as a person, but he has the potential to be interesting. However, right now he is in a secular leftist rut of uninterestingness (see: [[Atheism and inspiration]]).
4. The User: Conservative account cited the Question Evolution blog. You haven't show a link between the blog editors and the User: Conservative account in terms of a significant connection.
Also, you don't know if the "Question Evolution Book for Middle Schoolers" will soon be published or already has been published or if some tragic accident happened to the individual who was working on the book that will delay or prevent the book from being published. Do you think the book has or will be titled the "Question Evolution Book For Middle Schoolers". That is not exactly a catchy title. How would you know if the book has already been published or not? The book publishing industry is a large industry and there is self-publishing as well.
I know desperate evolutionists are obsessed with propping up their failing evolutionary [[paradigm]] and various evolutionists were upset that they could not satisfactorily answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists], but I think this obsession with the creation of a creationist book for middle schoolers is a desperate and petty act to gain some kind of victory.
There is no victory. You cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and [[global creationism]] is growing rapidly and creationism is even spreading in secular Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe]
I hope this clarifies matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:11, 26 July 2016 (EDT)
:I'd say you both clarified and (in Army terms) smoked him! This made me curious though; which editors use the Conservative account? If that's mod-only intel, please signal this to me by deleting this entry. --Pious (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2016 (CDT)
::I would prefer not to say who the editors of the User: Conservative account are.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:13, 26 July 2016 (EDT)
== France Cathedral terror attack. ==
Considering that France just had a terror attack occur within a cathedral that resulted in the beheading of a priest by ISIS, I'm surprised there isn't any coverage on here. You do know that Christians, even if they were catholic, had just been attacked by ISIS, right? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 20:13, 26 July 2016 (EDT)
== Britian's foreign secretary on foreigners ==
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson will have an interesting relationship with the next U.S. president, whoever it is. On Hillary: “She’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.” On Trump: “the only reason I wouldn't go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.”[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/boris-johnsons-foreign-strained-relations/491237/] All the same, he may a better relationship with the U.S. president than the leader of Turkey. His poem about Erdogan having sex with a goat won once won a prize of £1,000.[http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/boris-johnson-wins-the-spectators-president-erdogan-offensive-poetry-competition/] (I learned that "Ankara" rhymes with "thankera." Thankera Boris!) [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:57, 26 July 2016 (EDT)
== Examining Atheism ==
I notice that all links to this site have been deleted from Conservapedia and the site itself has had all it's posts deleted. what happened?--[[User:SammiL|SammiL]] ([[User talk:SammiL|talk]]) 12:04, 27 July 2016 (EDT)
:The blog owner pulled down the blog with no warning or explanation. Conservapedia obviously couldn't keep links to a former blog on the main page.
:It may forever be a mystery to why that blog was pulled down. The vast majority of people will not notice the blog was pulled down. It was a very new blog and post New Atheism being a dead movement, there appears to be little public interest in atheism.
:With Europe waning in influence, atheism collapsing in China and Christianity growing rapidly in China, I see a bleak future for the promulgation of atheism.
:Here is what the French philosopher Jun-Luc Nancy (who is probably an atheist based on the people who significantly influenced him) said, "In fact, there is no “West” anymore, and instead there are techno-economic poles of power whose visible heads are the United States of America and the Non-United States of Asia, but whose possessions and actions are found almost everywhere, and wherever there are resources to be exploited. Europe no longer has a consistency of its own, and it is subjected to this division of world powers."[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elena-cue/interview-with-jeanluc-na_b_10964130.html]
:The USA has a lot of evangelicals and now evangelicalism is growing quickly in China (see: [[Growth of evangelical Christianity#Growth of evangelical Christianity in China|Growth of evangelical Christianity in China]]). I think the Protestant work ethic is help causing these countries to be dominant powers. See: [https://tifwe.org/the-protestant-work-ethic-alive-well-in-china/ The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:16, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
::It occurred to me this morning. Given the economic dynamism associated with evangelical Christianity, the Protestant work ethic and the higher fertility rate of the religious over the irreligious to make this economic dynamism sustainable (irreligious have below replacement level of fertility. Also, replacement level of fertility makes the immigration of Muslims unnecessary. No: Muslim extremist violence/terrorism/high spending to monitor Muslim extremists in country/Cologne like sexual assaults, etc.), it makes atheist Bill Nye's claim that creationism will hold a nation back scientifically ridiculous. A more religious/creationist America does better than secular Europe as far as: technological/scientific innovation, new patents, innovative products/service being launched, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:30, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
:::My mistake, I thought it was your blog, signs such as SS Atheism being changed to HMS Atheism on Conservapedia and the blog almost simultaneously led me to this confusion as did the the almost identical presentation and writing style. I appologize for getting it wrong.--[[User:SammiL|SammiL]] ([[User talk:SammiL|talk]]) 12:44, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
I merely said the blog owner pulled it down without explanation. I didn't say whether or not it was a blog I contributed to or not. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:16, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
::Was it because PZ Myers tore it to shreds? [[User:RyanFT|RyanFT]] ([[User talk:RyanFT|talk]]) 09:05, 29 July 2016 (EDT)
:::Myers couldn't rip a wet paper bag to shreds. That is why he refuses to engage in debates with strong proponents of theism or biblical creation.
:::Of the few and declining number of people who know who Myers is post New Atheism dying as a movement, he is known for being shrill, mean-spirited, contentious and illogical (argument by assertion, attacking strawmen, etc.). Myers has critics from the atheist/theist camps who point out his frequent bouts of unreasonableness.
:::While Myers did make a legitimate criticism about a portion of one of the articles at that former blog (namely, the point about differentiating atheism from the atheist movement), he descended into secular leftist madness in the rest of his blog post.
:::The author of the blog mentioned in another related blog "Combating atheism" that the [[atheist movement]] had a schism and is imploding. In addition, it was mentioned that the [[global atheism|global atheist population]] is a dying breed and in terms of global market share it is declining and this trend is expected to continue. Furthermore, it was mentioned that there is nothing exciting happening with the atheist population and it is receiving significantly less news coverage than during its [[New Atheism]] era. I will post an excerpt from this Combating atheism blog post directly below.
::::"Lately, the major news outlets have sparse reporting on the topic of atheism. And the few news stories they do have are often negative towards atheism or boring stories reporting on trivial matters. In short, "Atheism: The excitement is not raging."
::::There will be no glorious future battles in relation to atheism vs. religion, but rather a slow global attrition of the dying breed of atheists. This will be combined with a withering away of atheist influence in the media and the educational systems of the world.. The 21st century will be a horrible century for militant atheists and antitheists.
::::The growth of atheism in the twentieth century began with a bang due to the militant atheism associated with the Russian Revolution and the subsequent formation of the Soviet Union. The decline of atheism will be death by a thousand cuts due to demographic changes in the global population (See: [http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]).
::::Periodically, I may choose to post to a newly created blog entitled Examining atheism. However, reporting on the losing atheist movement "team" could quickly grow to be tiresome, so it will be infrequent after awhile (given the amount of infighting going on they can hardly be called a team). I posted an initial post to the blog Examining Atheism so people would not go to an empty blog.
::::Today, this blog received over 1,400 page views which is not bad for a new blog with only 14 posts. At the same time, given the current state of affairs, a blog named "Examining atheism" is a better fit. In the 21st century, the rickety building of atheism won't be able to withstand the gale of the global resurgence of religion - especially the gusts of wind caused by the global growth of evangelical Christianity and the global growth of creationism."[http://combatingatheism.blogspot.com/2016/07/new-atheism-is-dead-atheism-movement-is.html]
:::So the most reasonable explanation for the blog largely disappearing (its main page banner is still there) is that the blogger no longer wished to blog on the decline of global atheism via death by a thousand cuts. The blogger said: "Atheism: The excitement is not raging." And it is true that atheism is very boring (see: [[Atheism and inspiration]]).
:::Blogging is often best suited to topics which are exciting and have many newsworthy things happening within them. People often expect blogs to have fairly frequent blog posts. Evidently, the Christian blogger in question found the topic of covering the decline of atheism by death by a thousand cuts to be too boring for a blog! If only atheism were as exciting as [[Evangelical Christians|Evangelical Christianity]] which is true and experiencing global market share growth! See also: [[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for Christianity]] and [[Growth of evangelical Christianity]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:36, 29 July 2016 (EDT)
By the way, over the years various people have humorous criticisms of Myers' folly. One of my favorites is [[Ray Comfort]] video recording Myers emphatically saying humans are fish.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ] It was like a scene out of the 1960's comedy "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" which featured a man being granted his wish to become a fish. Of course, Conservapedia pointing out how an overweight Myers had noticeable difficulty descending from the triceratops ride for kids at Ken Ham's Creation Museum was humorous too. If only Myers understood the field of [[applied biology]] better. He would have never allowed himself to become overweight! See: [[Essay: PZ Myers embarrasses himself at the Creation Museum]]
::::A tip for you. If you are going to carry on with the line that the blog was not yours and User: Conservative has more than one editor you really do need to sort out your pronouns.--[[User:SammiL|SammiL]] ([[User talk:SammiL|talk]]) 16:56, 29 July 2016 (EDT)
I explicitly said up above: "I merely said the blog owner pulled it down without explanation. I didn't say whether or not it was a blog I contributed to or not."
I and the other editors of the User: Conservative account rarely discuss our off wiki activities.
微乎微乎，至于无形；神乎神乎，至于无声；故能为敌之司命。 :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:42, 29 July 2016 (EDT)
:Of course, alternative explanations could be: 1) A change of tactics/strategy on the part of the author/authors of Examining Atheism. After all, the internet is a big place and there are a myriad of direct/indirect ways of affecting the atheist movement. 2) Perhaps, the author/authors of the Examining Atheism feel global atheism is imploding and the best course of action in terms of reporting it is benign neglect. Most people rarely think about atheism (and have no desire to) and often atheist PR efforts are designed to be provocative (see: [[Atheism and public relations]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:55, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
== Might Trump win in a landslide? ==
No, but he can win with a degree of comfort. I cannot find the link right now but out of the swing states, Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, N Hants, Virginia etc only Virginia currently leans towards Clinton. Sanders polled over 13 million votes in the Dem contest and perhaps half of them will not vote for Clinton. Most will not vote for Trump either but will vote for Jill Stein severly damaging Clinton's prospects. Trump has to be favoutie right now and I think he will "Pull a Leicester", ie. rank outsider (mid 2015) to champion.--[[User:SammiL|SammiL]] ([[User talk:SammiL|talk]]) 21:13, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
:A lot of liberals dislike both candidates, so certainly a number of them will not be voting, or will vote minority party. I can't say Trump will win in a landslide, or even that he will win, though. Trump has a lot of enthusiasm behind him, but as Rush Limbaugh says, "the Clintons always pull through." I'm afraid that through the gender card, fraud, and bribery, Hillery Clinton will win anyway, even after loosing Sanders votes. I hope not, but a large number of her supporters are behind her simply because she is a woman. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 09:34, 29 July 2016 (EDT)
== The archive index ==
I believe that Cons's rebuild of the archive index is correct, and JPatt's reversion is incorrect. The archives go up to 141, not 131. Please check this. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:39, 30 July 2016 (EDT)
== Some food for thought about patriotism, optimism, and American exceptionalism, from the Dem convention ==
There is an interesting article on the "Talking Points Memo" website. [http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/conservatives-agree-dnc-was-disaster-for-gop] This is a liberal website, but the article was a collection of comments from conservative writers, radio hosts, and such. The gist of the article was that the Democratic convention was about patriotism, optimism, and American exceptionalism, things that used to be the property of Republicans. Republicans used to own these positive themes, while Democrats were spouting tree-hugging pot-smoking nonsense. But this time, Democrats were chanting "USA! USA!", whereas Republicans had been chanting "Lock her up! Lock her up!"
Interesting quote, from John Podhoretz, former speech writer for Ronald Reagan: "Take about five paragraphs out of that Obama speech and it could have been a Reagan speech. Trust me. I know."
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:54, 30 July 2016 (EDT)
:Technically, people were chanting "USA! USA!" at the RNC, too. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 13:45, 30 July 2016 (EDT)
::That could be. I didn't watch either convention; just a few clips from news sites. The comment about the chants was from the cited article, not from me. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:12, 30 July 2016 (EDT)
:::What a weird party the Democrats have became. If racist police and class division don't destroy us, global warming will. But be happy -- Obama is president! Obama's quest for a legacy trumps all else. Justified or not, the country is in a dark mood now. The wrong track number is at 68 percent.[http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/us-right-direction-wrong-track] The sunny DNC is almost certainly bad politics. But with a second FBI investigation rolling along, Hillary has no choice -- Obama owns her. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 12:53, 3 August 2016 (EDT)
== Trump's poll numbers plummet ==
With the nomination safely his, Trump has gone back to being Trump, a man who has decidedly mixed feelings about allowing presidential politics to cramp his "politically incorrect" style: See "[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/08/04/a_rigged_outcome_trump_may_be_engineering_it_himself_131421.html A Rigged Outcome? Trump May Be Engineering It Himself]." His poll numbers have gone through the floor. His favorables are 34 to 59[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html] and he is almost 7 points behind Hillary in the matchups.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html] Some of this is Hillary's post-convention bounce. But mostly Trump can blame himself. Traditionally, the independents make up their minds in early September. So he still has few weeks to turn this around. We saw this all before in June, so we know what he has to do. Start reading professionally written speeches off a Teleprompter. Keep the focus on Hillary. Do fund raising and run TV ads. Turn the Twitter account over to a staffer. In short, get your eye back the ball, Trump. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:27, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
:Only if one believes what liberal polls say - which, to be honest, I don't. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 09:34, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
::The DNC had the last convention. In thirty days, the post convention bounce issue will be settled. In addition, I doubt many people are closely following politics during the summer.
::The five main remaining issues are: the debates; fundraising; media coverage and the public's response to it; ground game; and will Trump be more disciplined in his attacks.
::Trump could easily win the debates, but I am not sure about the last four. In addition, Trump wins on enthusiasm of his followers, but Hillary may have enough foot soldiers to drag enough Democratic voters across the finish line.
::A six issue is various old/new/revived scandals upsetting the apple cart. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:17, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
A good read on the recent polls. [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/08/03/another-transparent-media-polling-prediction-comes-to-pass/#more-119702]--Jpatt 11:04, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
The [[liberal media]] are smearing [[Donald Trump]] with everything they have now, an it's like the famous [[George Foreman]] versus [[Muhammad Ali]] championship bout. Foreman, who was the hardest puncher in boxing history, threw everything he had at Ali for multiple rounds:[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-foreman-on-death-of-boxing-legend-muhammad-ali-rumble-in-the-jungle/]
{{cquote|I thought I'd knock him out in one or two rounds, but about the third round, I'd hit him, and he fell on me. I thought, 'That's it.' And he started screaming, 'That all you got, George?! Show me something!' And I knew then I was in the wrong place at the wrong time," he said.}}
The liberal media has immense power, but it lacks patience. It is making the mistake of immunizing Trump against criticism when it would count. Come October, Trump will be down by only 5 points and there will be nothing left for the media to criticize him with. Then the middle class comes roaring back for Trump.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:20, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
:If Trump loses, the Republican Party has a tradition of candidates running a second time. Maybe he will run again in 2020 if he loses. Nationalism/anti-immigration and tougher trade agreements are ideas that are picking up steam in Western politics and my guess is that Hillary will be a disaster if elected. In addition, her unpleasant personality could easily doom her to being a one-term president.
:Trump saying if he loses his candidacy will have been a complete waste of time would seem to indicate he may not run again though. On the other hand, he might relish running against her a second time and beating her. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:52, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
::It is only August, so Trump could turn things around if he decides to be more judicious in who he counterpunches and how he counterpunches. Contrastly, he could rile up enough moderate Republicans/voters or somewhat moderate Republicans/voters to make a second run impossible.
::On the other hand, since Trump became the nominee once fairly easily, he could theoretically do it a second time.
::A lot depends on how close this presidential election is on whether Trump or Hillary can run again. My guess is that Hillary could only lose in a landslide if she was a disaster in the debates. For that to happen Trump would have to do a lot of debate preparation and/or win the debate by alpha-male bravado and populism. Alternatively, Trump could get under Hillary's skin and cause her to lose her temper and expose her inward nastiness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:35, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
:::Hillary and Trump are both unlikely to run again, in part because of their ages. Also, there is not a tradition (not in the last 40 years) of a presidential contender losing and then winning in another try. Many examples without success: Al Gore, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Michael Dukakis, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:15, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
You could easily be right.
I thought about their ages. Trump has a lot of energy and is in good health. Hillary's health is not the best, but she has a lot of ambition. Plus, it's a woman's turn as far as [[identity politics]] goes. But the farther we go out, the more it will be a Hispanics turn as far as racial/gender politics due the growth of the Hispanic population. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:45, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
:Another thing Trump has going for him is his ability to stir public interest as can be seen by this [https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=hillary%20Clinton,Donald%20Trump Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Google trends graph] where more people are doing Google searches on Trump. I don't think 4 years would diminish his star/celebrity power much. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:58, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
I would put the odds of Trump running again to be less than 20%. I don't think he will want to put himself through the aggravation again. Also, potentially losing a second time might be a gamble Trump is unwilling to take due to his "winner brand".
There could be more celebrity presidential candidates in the future though.
And if Trump wins, it appears as if Cruz will still run in the 2020 primary.[http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/288563-rnc-official-cruz-will-run-in-2020-even-if-trump-wins] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:11, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
== Hillary is not mentally ill ==
Hillary is not mentally ill. She is just evil and a manifestation of the immature/selfish baby boomer generation. If elected, she may be the last baby boomer to be elected president of the United States. George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the 2016 election candidates display poor leadership and are a reflection of the baby boomer incompetence and immaturity. Trump has some good ideas and is a smart man, but his narcissism/egotism/immaturity (which is very common in baby boomers) causes him to engage in battles/behaviors which are unwarranted.
[[Psychology]] has way too much influence in the United States and is dominated by a lot of pseudoscience that cannot be replicated in experiments.
Liberals try to tar their opponents with bogus charges of mental illness/instability. Let's not do the same. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:02, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
:Agreed, I would not go as far as saying she is evil but she is deeply unpleasent and she is in politics to benefit one person, Hilary Clinton. This has been proved time and time again when she has used her high profile to charge $100 K for an after dinner speech. She also cannot be trusted, I do not think she showed criminal intent over the E_Mail scandal but she did act with criminal neglegence. She should be attacked on these issues, crocked Hilary.--[[User:SammiL|SammiL]] ([[User talk:SammiL|talk]]) 14:40, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
::She's in politics to benefit one person and she can't be trusted. She sounds like an evil person to me! Crooked Hillary!!![[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:45, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
:::Sorry, crooked not crocked. I love Trump's names for his rivals, crocked Hilary, little Marco, low-energy Jeb, lying Ted:) He does seem to have some respect for Sanders though.--[[User:SammiL|SammiL]] ([[User talk:SammiL|talk]]) 14:53, 5 August 2016 (EDT)
What's good for the goose....Well if you watch the video, they make a very convincing case. When will Hillary release her medical records? It's important.--Jpatt 14:55, 5 August 2016 (EDT)