Talk:Main Page

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for discussion only of Main Page content and feature items. For discussion of other issues relating to the Conservapedia community please see: Conservapedia:Community Portal

Archive Index

Don McGahn, Trump's Judas?

Aside CNN chief Jeff Zucker and Trump himself, no one did more to get Trump elected president than Don McGahn, author of the Supreme Court list and now White House counsel. Yet if today's New York Times expose is to be believed, he is also the head of the impeach Trump movement. McGahn goes back a long way with Rod Rosenstein, which explains Rosenstein's appointment as deputy attorney general. Trump has already tried to fire McGahn six times for leaking, according to this article. It seems he can't be replaced. The lawyers Trump offers the job to are all too afraid of Mueller.[1] PeterKa (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2018 (EDT)

Put the crack pipe down and stop reading the New York Times. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:57, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
McGahn supposedly sees John Dean, Nixon's turncoat White House counsel, as a precedent for what he is doing. PeterKa (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
Mueller would need poop on McGahn to cause him to flip like Dean did (as he's tred with Flynn, Manafort and Papadopoulos, but there is no there there with those guys). Mark Felt, an inside Deep Throat, would be more accurate. The NYT article is one more example of shoddy fake news, brainwashing, and unresearched information from the Deep State Ministry of Propaganda. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:21, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
Trump has already produced a tweetstorm on this story: "The failing @nytimes wrote a Fake piece today implying that because White House Councel Don McGahn was giving hours of testimony to the Special Councel, he must be a John Dean type “RAT.” But I allowed him and all others to testify."[2] This is even nutter than the NYT's version of events. It's an obvious conflict of interest for someone to act as both an attorney and as a witness in the same case. PeterKa (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
Yep. More fake news. NYT, Wapo, CNN, MSNBC etc. have two years of fake news to walk back. MSM are complicit in the collusion hoax. They had the recently released Carter Page FISA application in their possession since March 2017. Christopher Steele briefed them beginning in July 2016. They knew the dossier was a fraud since at least September 2017. If you want the news, read the Obamagate timeline. It is becoming recognized as one of the few authoritive sources on the factual record over the past two years. It will only become a more authoritive resource as events unfold. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:02, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
It's often said that Trump has farmed out judicial selection to the Federalist Society. But in fact McGahn and his assistant Leonard Leo are the key players. See "A look at the list helping Trump reshape the Supreme Court." In the past, judicial selection has been done by DOJ. Given how successful Trump's drive to reform the courts has been, it's no wonder the NYT is anxious to smear McGahn. PeterKa (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
It's an effort to keep the collusion narrative alive. The NYT has had the full unredacted Carter Page FISA warrant application in its possession since March of 2017. When WaPo confirmed in September of 2017 that the Steele allegations that the warrant was based on the were paid for by Hillary Clinton, they never reported the facts.
Brennan admitted as much the other nite to Rachel Maddow - he never had any evidence of Russian collusion up to the day he left office.
NYT, WaPo, and the MSM have invested too much in lies. They have not been hoaxed by Brennan, Comey et al about the IC meddling in the election, they are complicit. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:11, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
Furthermore, it should be noted this felonious leak came from the Mueller office, according to Guiliani.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:59, 21 August 2018 (EDT)

Cohen pleads guilty, Trump's detractors on Internet credit Cohen's story presupposing a Trump felony.

Sorry for this not being on Main Page Right yet, but I xxthink I can safely predict a protracted quarrel for many days ahead with the usual invincibly ignorant suspects. I think this is all hot air when, in the worst case scenario, I mentally compare it to the, 3rd degree?, campaign finance "felony" that Dinesh D'Souza committed before whom no one had ever served jail time. I recently saw it alleged that President Obama didn't report or pay back $2 million in legally disallowed contributions from his campaign and also saw Senator Clinton's unreported and statutorially excessive $1 million in campaign contributions from the Clinton Foundation earlier. VargasMilan (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2018 (EDT)

Not to mention the campaign donations Clinton made from a Hollywood Gala during the Octs, even brazenly admitting it on Stan Lee's video chat. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
It's intended to form the basis of impeachment articles. Problem is, it's all fruit of the poisonous tree from illegal FISA abuse. That's why Cohen's office was raided. Cohen could prove the Obama administration misused the FISA database. They seized his evidence. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:29, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
I keep hearing about the frustration of these actors. The MSM has already recently reported on a John Edwards court precedent set against the FEC in his favor in the case of Edwards' pay-off of a mistress with campaign money—so they can put Cohen on the front page with an implicated Trump, but they can't really emphasize it without evoking the public to recount their memory that shows the MSM themselves disproved Trump and Cohen's dealings regarding Stormy Daniels rose to the level of a precedented jail-punishable crime, if, that is, we are forced to assume there was any wrong-doing to begin with. It's just another allegation where the evidence (in this case, of the threshold of criminality) never materializes. Rightly (or even wrongly), the news-consuming public has grown to believe the MSM's multiple accusations against Trump is just a game to these outlets—Trump's approval rating hasn't budged at all.
When it comes to the Obama evidence, I heard talk about how Cohen owned a safe which ostensibly held secret documents. Of course, if Cohen believed he couldn't leverage the documents [into a tortious-interference type counter-charge, given the documents' significance], his commitment to employing them in a legal case can be expected to be reduced, especially when you see Cohen hire a former Clinton crony as an attorney (Lanny Davis). VargasMilan (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
I thought the mainstream media couldn't get more hysterical, but Cohen-Manafort day proved me wrong. Mueller's team is trying get as much as they can done before the midterms. The senate leaders have agreed to replace Sessions as attorney general after that. Assuming the GOP retains the House, the red scare that has gripped our nation for the past two years may finally subside. PeterKa (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2018 (EDT)
You'll never prove Trump mishandled campaign donations. That works on 99.8% on politicians in scandals. Trump didn't have donations. He spent his own money and sold for-profit MAGA hats. Campaign finance violations is somethingg liberals do, and Democrat voters sometimes respond to. Mueller is preaching to the choir.
John Edwards mishandled other people's money, in the same way Wasserman Schultz mishandled Sanders donors contributions to the DNC. Trump is free to spend his own money anyway he sees fit. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:23, 26 August 2018 (EDT)
- The issue is quite simple: Trump is not dependent on bank loans and donations. Trump had a positive net worth. In any transaction, Trump acts as a guarantor; he does not need loan approval. He is not acting as a trustee or executor of an estate. Trump spent $600 million of his own money, which no creditor or trustee had a claim. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:42, 26 August 2018 (EDT)

General Franco really is still dead

It may sound like a follow up to the immortal 1970s SNL skit, but this is Time magazine: "Spain Will Dig Up Dictator Franco's Remains and Remove Them From Memorial to Civil War Dead." PeterKa (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2018 (EDT)

The center-left is quickly nearing collapse in Europe. Most of Europe's center-left governments have been replaced. Spain is a remnant of the center-left politics. But it will not be able to hold out long term or even midterm.Conservative (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
Have you noticed that the frequency of secular leftists posting at Conservapedia has greatly dimminished post Trump's election victory? They are too demoralized and too busy talking to their psychiatrists to post to Conservapedia! See: Secular leftists and psychogenic illness. Sad!Conservative (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
I can see a headline in this: Sub-dhimmi status seekers dimminish posts post-Trump. VargasMilan (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2018 (EDT)

John McCain, RIP

I was a McCain fan when he ran against Bush in the 2000 primaries. Like Churchill, McCain was born to be a war leader. But the opportunity never came. After he saved the filibuster in the Gang of 14 incident in 2005, it occurred to me that he wasn't necessarily such a great leader in peacetime. When he ran for president in 2008, at first we expected Hillary to be the Dem nominee. McCain slicing his way through her would been something to watch. When it came to Obama, his heart was just not in the fight. Why didn't he use the Jeremiah Wright's "God damn America" tape? He was too afraid of being called a racist to do what needed to be done. The biggest McCain mistake of all was endorsing the banking bailout just before the 2008 election. PeterKa (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2018 (EDT)

Hmmm, I seem to remember he was a racist and snitch according to the same people singing his praises now. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:33, 26 August 2018 (EDT)
McCain's military service is obviously something to admire, but pretty much everything else he did hurt the country -- from voting for ObamaCare (despite claiming to oppose it), to refusing to resign from the Senate despite it being clear that his time in Washington was effectively done (he missed pretty much every vote in the last few months), to running a weak presidential campaign, and having no interest in bringing American POWs home. He supported foreign interventionism, securing other countries' borders, but opposed actually securing our own and looking out for our own people first. I wonder if the MSM will give Trump the same type of coverage when he dies? --1990'sguy (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2018 (EDT)
These two articles, days apart, tell you everything you need to know about his duplicity, and the media that carries water for him, as well. Never mind the fact his chief staffer quit days ahead of McCain's support (and getting funding) for the Libyan war -- quit and went to Libya as a private arms trafficer.
No wonder he got along so well with Hillary at that time - Sidney Blumenthal did the same thing. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:32, 26 August 2018 (EDT)
We should add this, if it hasn't been added yet. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2018 (EDT)

Polls unchanged by latest media spasm

Cohen paid a whore and ran corrupt cab company. Manafort didn't pay taxes he owed from years ago. Despite the MSM's antics, the American public isn't blaming Trump: "NBC/WSJ poll: Trump approval 'remarkably stable' after a stormy week of bad news." In fact, Trump's approval numbers have been stable since May.[3] Mueller, your time is ticking away. After the midterms, we get a new attorney general. PeterKa (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2018 (EDT)

Whaa...? You think the MSM, the DNC, and the Mueller team set the agenda, even after shaddow banning? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:16, 26 August 2018 (EDT)
Everything Republicans do is "worse than Watergate" and every Republican is worse than Nixon. See how many times John Dean and the MSM have pulled this gag over the years: "It’s, Yawn, ‘Worse Than Watergate’ Again." PeterKa (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2018 (EDT)
Last year on the talk page of Deep state coup, Rob S mentioned a record high of sealed indictments across the country. Who is going to co-ordinate the court proceedings to which these indictments pertain if Jeff Sessions is gone?
Jeff Sessions' Justice Department carried out a mass arrest of a medical fraud ring. There is a good likelihood that it involved immigrants who know nothing about how a real republic operates and think the only difference between the banana republics from which they hearkened and the United States is that by being larger and richer, its law enforcement agencies are less likely to detect their fraud. And so they pursued the golden opportunity to apply the same techniques they used to recriminate against the poorer bribery-centered banana republics from which they hearkened to the United States with the expectation of enjoying a Robin Hood type popularity so long as they kept up the right bribes.
So this is really a two-fer on Sessions' part. Now he is thought to be assessing the suspicious actions of an alternative energy company like the one in the Solyndra scandal, about which I imagine on some level most Americans are still sore.
If there are those who think Sessions is moving too slowly, Ann Coulter noted that he is at least carrying out Trump's campaign promises, popular ones at that, and doing more than just jaw-boning. VargasMilan (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2018 (EDT)
John Huber is overseeing the investigation. There's about 46,000 unsealed indictments now.
As to Sessions: Trump missed an opportunity here. By firing Sessions he could dump everything on him before the election, like saying it was Sessions idea to separate families, and he, Trump, put a stop to it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:14, 26 August 2018 (EDT)
That went over the head of those who don't know that those policies began during the Obama administration. VargasMilan (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2018 (EDT)
Separation has been the law since at least 1996. Sessions was the first to enforce it. Firing Sessions (which he's gonna do anyway) before the election is sn opportunity to blame Sessions for the negative blowback.
We're witnessing a strange moment in the American system. The next AG will be appointed by McConnell, Grassley, and Schumer (once the Kavanaugh vote is in the bag). McConnell, Grassley and Schumer will agree on a name (possibly a list of 3-5 names), send it to Trump for his approval, and Trump will make the formal announcement. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:16, 27 August 2018 (EDT)
It's unusual for the senate to dictate to the president on appointments and administrative issues, this isn't the first time. The Senate Judiciary Committee behaved much the same way during Watergate. If you want to go back to the 19th century, there was the Tenure of Office Act. This act allowed the Radical Republicans in Congress to push Johnson aside and run the country in 1866-1867.
Sessions and Rosenstein did not know each other before the election, I have to wonder how Rosenstein go to be deputy attorney general. Perhaps all that surveillance the Deep State was doing turned up compromising material on Sessions. PeterKa (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2018 (EDT)
IG Mike Horowitz touched on some of this. Tash Gauhar will be called to testify soon. The background on her to 2006 is quite interesting.
It should be noted, in the Valerie Plame affair, Jimmy the Weasel was Deputy AG; according to an FBI leak, the original target was Karl Rove, so John Ashcroft had to recuse himself cause Rove managed one of Ashcroft's Senate campaigns. Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald as special counsel. Of course Rove was quickly cleared, and they went after Cheney's chief of staff on a process charge. Ironically, Fitzgerald is now Comey's personal attorney. But the Sessions/Rosenstein scenario is reminiscent of the Ashcroft/Comey scenario a decade earlier. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:38, 28 August 2018 (EDT)
The latest: Rod Rosenstein has flipped (to Trump!) and is now going after the SDNY. Meanwhile, CNN is tricked into blowing its third major story within a space of ten days. Bear in mind, I don't pretend to fully understand these developments, and of course there are some who would like to keep these stories submerged. VargasMilan (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2018 (EDT)
DOJ (and this applies to Mueller) has a regulation that bars them from taking action 60 days prior to an election if it's likely to have a political impact (some people claim Comey violated this prohibition when he notified Congress of the Weiner laptop; generally the rule applies to issuing subpeaonas, indictments, etc.). So in another week, Mueller has to go dark. Now, House and Senate congressional committees may have similiar rules regarding subpeaonas or issuing reports (I think) however hearings can continue unless I'm mistaken.
The DOJ would not be prohibited from moving against people who do not hold office, Comey and Brennan, for example. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:58, 28 August 2018 (EDT)
F.Y.I. When there was impeachment proceedings swirling around Rosenstein, after (because?) he kept giving redacted FBI reports and appeared to be slow-walking information requested by the Congressional sub-committees, Trump intervened and stood up for Rod Rosenstein. I missed that report; if I had seen it, I would have suspected that Rosenstein had duped Trump through his ability and willingness to explain to Trump the technicalities of what was going on.
Rosenstein sent Cohen's case to the SDNY, and they proceeded to charge him with criminality that wasn't statutory law. I didn't know whether it was all or just some of it. And then of course Cohen pled guilty.
Is this a big deal? I've heard talk/threats by liberals on Twitter that Mueller's cronies were raising the possibility that Trump would be charged with "Conspiracy against the United States", while there is no such statute. Nixon's articles of impeachment contained the non-statutory charge "abuse of power". I've never thought that impeachment had to include actual laws and that the "misdemeanor" in "high crimes and misdemeanors" was to be taken in a broad sense.
Evidently Cohen had claimed there were three different occasions where Trump had lied about what he knew about connections he had had with Russians. He told CNN, and we might have thought he did because Trump made some kind of dismissive remark about Cohen, who had hired Clinton crony Lanny Davis as a defense lawyer. After CNN reported them, Cohen, through Lanny Davis, retracted them all.VargasMilan (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2018 (EDT)

Liberal media wanting Pope Francis to resign.

To be fair, Michael Voris of Church Militant wants Pope Francis to resign as well, and not because the latter was pro-life (actually, if anything, him being pro life would have been a reason for Voris to want him to remain pope). Actually, it's because of his overall causing a lot of problems with the Catholic Church, in particular how he's handling the resurgence of the sex-abuse crisis (which deals with homosexuals in the priesthood preying on vulnerable men). And if it means anything, Voris supports Trump. Not saying that the liberal media didn't want him to be removed from office for pro-life reasons, but I do know there are some conservatives among Catholicism that want him removed for reasons that have nothing to do with Francis's views on pro-life (and personally, I find his support for pro-life measures to be a bit redeemable of him, and I must admit, given the very hard left policies he's been pursuing, I'm actually surprised he actually adheres to pro-life issues, since I expected him to gut the pro-life movement.). Pokeria1 (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2018 (EDT)

I think that is short-sighted for any conservative to support the liberal media's effort to force the Pope to resign, even though I disagree with him on numerous political issues.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2018 (EDT)
LifeSiteNews.com has plenty of stories about the prominent conservative Catholic (former Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò — the Holy See’s former ambassador to the United States) accusing Pope Francis of covering up a prominent pedophiles misdeeds and him demanding the Pope's resignation. LifeSiteNews.com is very conservative and very pro-life.
If I am not mistaken, LifeSiteNews.com is run by conservative Catholics. At the very least, it has a lot of conservative Catholic staff.
While the Catholic Church has some conservative positions, Pope Francis takes some very liberal positions. And I do know that Pope Francis criticized Trump for his border wall position.
The recent spate of pedophilia scandals and the controversies surrounding it is the biggest thing to hit the Catholic Church since the the Reformation. It is very newsworthy.Conservative (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
My two cents: Impeach him. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:28, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
There is no mechanism to impeach a Pope. And I don't believe a Pope can be excommunicated by his fellow Catholics. I think a Pope could only excommunicate himself.
Regardless, the pedophile problem within the Catholic Church goes back to the 1950s/1960s as it normally takes about 30 years or so for a victim to go public due to the shame (The reports of pedophilia by priests started coming out in the 1980s and then gathered momentum in the 1990s). The Catholic Church has had about 30-70 years to cleanup this problem, but it hasn't done it due to clericalism, etc. Clericalism is still very strong in the Vatican so even if the Catholic cardinals could impeach the current Pope, they would not.Conservative (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
  • The New York Times today has an article swinging for Francis and denouncing his critics as "conservatives."'[4] So they are interpreting the controversy the same way as LifeSiteNews. Reminds me of the leaked Podesta emails proposing a "Catholic spring."[5] PeterKa (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
Pope Francis is sufficiently liberal/left on the political spectrum that he will never resign. Why? Liberals always double down.Conservative (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
The Vatican politburo could whack him, like they did John Paul I a few days after he delivered his "God is mother" speech. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:31, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
I read a book review for a book about Pope John Paul a long time ago that had a fairly secular perspective and only remember it saying that he inspired more petty disagreements than the cardinals would have liked to admit, and in the social awkwardness that followed his health was compromised by a misapplied kind of benign neglect. VargasMilan (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
He lived a total of, what, 9 days? His only papal announcement was an attempt to reconcile with feminists and the budding New Age movement. Vatican bureaucrats put a stop to that, got a cold warrier in John Paul II to work with Reagen to hasten the demise of the Soviet Union.
Today they put a Marxist in charge to rally the poor and oppressed masses as a cover-up for the greedy Vatican banking scandal - the churches refusal to pay damages to sex abuse victims who won Civil damages. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:55, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
The quote:
"He is our father; even more he is our mother."
This early example of gender identity disorder in 1978 got a Pope dead, real quick. Odd, this Pope has made far crazier pronouncements and has got away with it, so far. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:16, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
Now, theologically speaking, John Paul I was correct. 'El shaddai' is a name of God, usually translated God Almighty. The Hebrew 'shad' is a woman's breast; so you can imagine what a more literal translation is. 'The All Sufficient One' I once heard a Rabbi translate it. But the market in 1978, that received the Pope's inaugural statement, probably wasn't ready for this kind of unprovoked controversy, in the eyes of the permanent Vatican burraucracy that runs the church. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:54, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
John Paul I was pope for 33 days, not 9, and the idea that he was murdered was a KGB disinformation campaign. He died of a heart attack. He had suffered chest pains the night he had died, was being treated for heart disease as Archbishop of Venice, and according to accounts, almost turned down the Papacy because of his health, but decided that, if God had picked him to be Pope, he didn't have the right to refuse.--Whizkid (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2018 (EDT)
He was dead 9 days after he said "God is our mother;" if it wasn't an inside job, the good Lord put a stop to that junk before it got out of hand.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:43, 2 September 2018 (EDT)
Hmm. Maybe, but you'd think that if God were mad enough by his comments to kill him (when God doesn't kill people who say or write worse things), He'd do it before the Pope had actually made the comments so they weren't out there. And, if this were God doing it as an example or something, you'd think that He would kill the Pope in some way that it was obviously a divine message, instead of giving a man with a bad heart a heart attack. But I suppose the Lord works in mysterious ways.--Whizkid (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2018 (EDT)

Free markets

If you’re so bothered by Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twittercensorship”, wouldn’t the conservative response be to develop competitors to those services and let the free market decide, rather than call upon the government to impose burdensome regulation in the form of a fairness doctrine directed at the internet? JackE (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2018 (EDT)

Do a text search for "monopoly", "restraint of trade", "platform" and "publisher" on this page where the conditions of a free market are discussed and why some of those conditions today possibly are not being met. VargasMilan (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
Trump and social media companies: "All he really has to do is strip them of their protections against liability for content. Since they are clearly not content-neutral operations, they have no right to limitations on their liability." - Vox Day[6]
Also, Trump Considers Regulating Google by Dr. Steve Turley
There is growing momentum to address this issue.
Given that a right-wing U.S. presidential candidate was elected to office and that right-wing politics is growing in Europe, the social media companies should have addressed their political bias earlier. Did their pride cometh before their upcoming fall?
By the way, Bing and Yahoo, generally give higher rankings to Conservapedia atheism articles than Google. Will the U.S. government lock horns with Google and cause them to lose market share? It took years for IBM to recover after locking horns with the U.S. government (For IBM it was related to an anti-trust legal case).Conservative (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
Using social media websites run by leftists to spread conservatism: "Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs." - Sun Tzu
I do think conservatives should develop competitive social media websites. Bitchute.com, a competitor of YouTube (which is owned by Google), is growing its market share.[7]Conservative (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2018 (EDT)

It's all about surveillince technology and population control. Apple, Google, and the Communist Party of China are leading the way in developing the technology. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:02, 30 August 2018 (EDT)

China's new silk road initiative will cause foreign ideas to seep into China. For example, outside of China, the Chinese government has far less control of overseas Chinese missionaries, foreign missionaries, internet, news organizations, etc. China's new silk road will go into Africa which is one of the most religious areas of the world. The Chinese atheistic communists might have less and less control over people's thoughts in the years to come. And the Chinese persecution of Christians may just fan the flames of evangelism (persecution creates martyrs, etc.). Conservative (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2018 (EDT)
China’s Belt and Road: Exporting Evangelism? Aided by the networks created by the Belt and Road, Chinese missionaries are heading abroad, much to Beijing’s dismay.[8]Conservative (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2018 (EDT)
You wanna make money? Invest in an Iranian company building cell phone towers in Africa, like Clinton advisors do. Places like Nigeria and Zaire. It's a huge market. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:34, 31 August 2018 (EDT)

JackE, thanks for your input. As a result, I am now using RSS feeds to read news articles and other articles from publications that are worthwhile reading. In addition, I installed two more replacements for Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox. Yesterday, I uninstalled Firefox from my main computer. Conservative (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2018 (EDT)

"I want Trump to 'destroy the media'"

Briefly: you read about the things the media is doing that Ann Coulter sets down in her list and how they are reduced to living vicariously—while they yet feign studied contemplation about how what they are showing in video and in print all fits into today's world—in the watching of the sight of their leftist buddies now explicitly cursing America, but you can't help but have your attention drawn further to the remembrance of what Rush Limbaugh had to say about them both some years back: "They've still got a long way to go before they hit rock bottom." VargasMilan (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2018 (EDT)

How Warren became an American Indian

The University of Pennsylvania reclassified Elizabeth Warren from "White/Caucasian" to "Native American or Alaskan Native" on Dec. 6. 1989. Seriously, here is the official record. Warren did not claim to be a Native American when she was hired by Harvard in 1995. Perhaps it's one of those, "It comes and it goes" kinda things. There are an enormous number of White Americans who claim to have a bit of Cherokee ancestry -- something Warren still claims she has. There are "Cherokee ancestry" stories in my family as well, so I am familiar with this issue. Claims of this type are suspicious and there is no good reason to think that the Cherokee intermarried more than other tribes did. Even if the stories Warren was told by "my mammaw and my pappaw," as she puts it, are true, it wouldn't make her an American Indian. For that, you need an ID card from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The BIA issues these cards based on recognition by a tribal authority. PeterKa (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2018 (EDT)

The first Native American woman in Congress is half Norwegian; she's being outspent right now by a look alike for the New Mexico fracking industry. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:59, 2 September 2018 (EDT)

"Anonymous" White House resistance

If the anonymous White House official who denounced Trump in the NYT thinks he do a John Dean and become a media hero, he's got another thing coming: "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration." Sorry anonymous, but the fact is that the MSM hates principled conservatives like you way more than they hate the Donald. I think we can cut the "anonymous" charade as well. The article was obviously written by White House Counsel Don McGahn. Hey McGahn, thanks for your work on judicial nominees. But no one likes a backstabber. PeterKa (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2018 (EDT)

What makes you think it was McGahn? There are many officials who could have written that op-ed. Personally, I think someone from the National Economic Council or National Security Council wrote it -- not Bolton or Kudlow, but one of their deputies (who I think would qualify as a "senior official"). The NEC, in particular, has a lot of establishment globalists, inherited from Cohn, but who Kudlow chose to keep. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2018 (EDT)
After the Steele Dossier and over 100 years of leftists treachery, who believes the claim that the author is a senior official in the Trump administration? I will only believe this claim if there is sufficient evidence and so far there isn't. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence. And to top it off there is the audacious and fishy claim in the op-ed that Trump's cabinet contemplated invoking the 25th ammendment allegedly due to Trump's irrational behavior. Trump can be mercurial, but he certainly can also be a shrewd dealmaker (and as a result, it appears as if the USA is going to have more favorable trade relations with the European Union and Mexico).
And Chief of Staff John Kelly says that Bob Woodward attributed a fictitious quote to him.
Trump's critics have a big problem when it comes to believability.
We do know the results of the Trump administration so far are far superior to his two predecessors (low unemployment, 4% GNP growth, less burdensome/duplicate regulations, etc.).
This is just sour grapes from a denialist (or denialists if multiple people created the op-ed) that cannot come to grips with the results of the 2016 election.Conservative (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2018 (EDT)
I was taking the NYT's word for it that the author really is a "a senior official in the Trump administration." But RedState makes the case that this is more likely a lower ranking employee, for example a speechwriter. After the reading the article itself, it seems rather thin given all the fuss it has generated. PeterKa (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
If there is any question that the types of misinformation campaign we witnessed in the 2016 camapsign are not going on in the 2018 Midterm elections, this (the first in a series to dominate news cycles) should end those doubts. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:54, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
Stylistic analysis suggests the author is older, conservative, and male.[9] I guess that rules out Omorosa and Nicky Haley. PeterKa (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
It ought to be obvious this is not a person acting alone. Sure, there may be a mole, but the op-ed itself is likely crafted by a team of deep state ghost writers, then handed to the editors of NYT. The damage is aimed at sowing distrust within the White House staff itself, moreso than just an effort to smear Trump publicly like the pee-pee memo. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 05:33, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
It is a common practice for a reporter to use this type of jargon just to massage the ego of a source: "Who Is a Senior Administration Official? It Depends." As a gag, one reporter called the White House and asked to speak to a "junior administration official." No one called back. PeterKa (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
If it truly is a senior "senior official", I would guess Kevin Hassett or Kellyanne Conway (yes, I know the person in charge of the NYT's tweets called the person a "he"). They're both people who would praise the tax cuts and deregulation, but who presumably hate Trump's other policies, such as trade and migration. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
Bottom line: it still all stems from illegal FISA surveillance of the Trump team which harassed and blackmailed all Trump staffers (those originally close to him, or who came on board afterward) who were harassed and blackmailed out of the Administration without being criminally charged. Certain vacancies had to be filled by qualified people not necessarily onboard with the Trump agenda (this has been known since Flynn was executed). It's part of the ongoing coup. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:57, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

Dispute over foreign policy priorities

The issue is quite simple: Trump is a threat to the NATO alliance. For this cause, UK intelligence and other alleged "allies" meddled in the 2016 election.

Strategic thinkers have to prioritize threats. There are three candidates (not necessarily in any particular order):

A. China.

B. Russia.

C. Islamism.

The late Bush administration and candidate Mitt Romney in 2012 settled on Russia. Why? (a) Russia historically has played foil and the American people might accept it; (b) the military industrial complex has to be fed; (c) disrupting trade relationships with China in exchange for naval, conventional, and nuclear arms race with China is a bad idea; and (d) integration with Islam is preferable to prioritizing an unending jihad with third world speerchuckers while ignoring the conventional and nuclear capabilities of Russia and China. Besides, war with all of Islam is unwinnable, and we have solid standing agreements with Russia on a no first-strike policy cause both of us realize the US-Russia near-monopoly on nuclear weapons is the only thing keeping Chinese conventional and nuclear capabilities in check. So the Russian vassel state has to play the role of "bogeyman" to prevent China from feeling threatened.

But Trump & Flynn wanted to make radical Islamic terrorism the number one strategic threat, cozy up to Moscow to help them fight the jihad within their own borders, and make China feel threatened with a NATO ally on their 4000 mile border.

Additionally, if the US stopped paying for European defense and started paying their own healthcare costs, European Social Democracies would have to start paying for their own defense and couldn't provide free healthcare anymore. The whole house of cards would come tumbling down

While the US and Russia realize that together we can never compete with a fully modernized Chinese Navy and Army, our combined nuclear forces is the only thing we both have to defeat them. For this cause, the US & Russia are both committed to maintaining, by a constant process of modernization, our level of nuclear weapons, while never ever ever allowing China to catch-up in quanity or quality of modern nuclear weapons, no matter how many billions of dollars of cheap junk they sell at Walmart that gets translated into a proportionate-to-population, modern, standing military.

Personally, I think it's a mistake to get sucked into pro-Trump anti-Trump arguments on social and domestic policy. The focus should remain on trade, foreign policy, and reform of corrupt DC law enforcement and intelligence institutions. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:00, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

This article features a comprehensive style analysis and points the finder at Jon Huntsman, U.S. ambassador to Russia. Huntsman ran in 2012 as Obama's puppet GOP presidential candidate. So he is an old hand when it comes to piously betraying the conservative cause. The author uses the word "lodestar" to describe McCain. Kissenger used this word at the funeral service. PeterKa (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
  • As far as foreign policy goes, IMO the threats we need to focus on are Iran and North Korea. China is a threat only to the extent that they are financing the North Koreans. The origin of the "China threat" meme is not any sort of threatening move by China. Back in the 1980s, the media was hugely invested in the idea that Japan was a threat. After Japan went bust in 1990, the fear mongering industry needed a new target. So the old fears about Japan were transferred to China. The authors of the top Japanphobic books rewrote their material so they could sell equivalent Chinaphobic works. The Pentagon needs money for their weapon systems, so they played along with this charade. Really, modern China is almost entirely focused on money. You don't make money by going to war. The Chinese are way less excited about the South China Sea dispute than say, the Drudge Report or The New York Times. PeterKa (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
The key word is priority. Iran & N Korea do not possess 3,000 warheads, neither are they likely to ever. Neither do they have the potential to have a GDP to build and maintain a military establishment with conventional or nuclear forces to rival the US. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:14, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
Even after China catches up to the US in terms of military technology, it can't go to war with us directly because we are their No. 1 customer. But if blame for an attack can be shifted to those crazy North Koreans, Beijing can have its cake and eat it too. PeterKa (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
Things have now changed drastically and fundamentally. Even if Trump were assassinated or removed tomorrow, there's no going back to the status quo. China's dependence on the West has been exposed.
The key takeaway is since Nixon & Kissinger, the US & Russia agree neither can prevent China from emerging as the world's dominant economy and conventional military. Only US & Russian nukes insure US & Russia's survival. Both of us will never allow China to compete in the nuclear weapons sphere with it's new found wealth. Russia is play-acting as the bogeyman; however, the US moreless forces Russia to spend more on modernization and upgrades which is more difficult for Russia than it is in the US, as their domestic consumer evonomy suffers to maintain high levels of defense spending (as it did throughout the Cold War). RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:04, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
  • Honestly, if the U.S. is able to completely secure its borders and establish military dominance in space (preferably through the Space Force), it would be possible for us to completely end our internationalist/globalist foreign policy and withdraw all our foreign troops/aid/alliances/etc. and still be completely safe from outside threats. Problem is, the establishment has no interest securing our borders and opposes the creation of a space force -- they're willing to spend billions of dollars countering Iran, Russia, and North Korea when, IMO, there's a less costly, pro-sovereignty solution. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

"The U.S. outpaces all other nations in military expenditures. World military spending totaled more than $1.6 trillion in 2015. The U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the total. U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world, combined."[10]

The Afghanistan War is a boondoggle. Russia and the Brits did not tame the Afghanis. Neither will the USA.

Why does the USA have 35,000 troops in Germany while the Germans are still not meeting their NATO financial obligations in terms of military spending? On top of this, Germany is bringing in all kinds of Muslims immigrants who are hostile to Western values. And the icing on the cake is that Germany will be getting a lot of its oil from Russia soon.

America needs to pay down its enormous national debt and spend less on the military. It needs to update it infrastructure. Most empires crumble from within.Conservative (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

The Afghan war is about controlling the $60 billion a year heroin trade (other than that, there's nothing to "win"). If the US doesn't control the global heroin trade, here's your choicess: the Russian KGB , Taliban/Al Qaeda groups, or the Chinese. The Russians may not want to do it after their experience in the 1980s. However the idea of allowing Islamic extremists to do it is unacceptable to the US, Russia, and China. And no one wants to see China, for the first time in its 3,000 year history, send troops armed with modern cruise missiles, aircraft carriers, and the latest technology outside its historic territorial borders. So, we're stuck with Afghanistan with nothing to "win", unless we can come to an agreement with the KGB & Russian mafia to take it back off our hands, so long as they (a) don't use it you subvert and destroy our society, and (b) don't use the profits to fund terrorism or armed conflict with us and possibly some allies. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:53, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

No, cut the budget and retreat into isolationism

Growing the economy and paying down the national debt should have a laser focus. If the United States gets to a point where the citizenry in many states are paying a lot more into the federal government than they are getting back, the risk of states engaging in succession goes up. The USA is already a deeply divided country. Also, limiting leftist/liberal indoctrination in schools/universities, etc should have a high priority as well given its divisive nature. For example, if a university student is getting school aid, the university should be forced to give students statistics related to students finding a job in that particular field before they sign up for that major.
The Afghan War is a costly distraction. And Donald Trump has a point about America and its recent wars. He said, "When are we going to start winning wars again"? The USA is not going to win the Afghanistan War. The terrain is very tough and Islamic extremists are fanatical.
"We have to win or not fight it at all." - Donald Trump.[11]Conservative (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
There is no way to "pay down the debt" without repealing the Social Security Withholding Tax (thus ending the program as it now exists) and entitlement reform (EBT, Pell Grants, Foundation Grants, etc etc etc). "Pay down the debt" is deceptive rhetoric that should not be used to mislead voters unless you are prepared to say exactly what you mean.
Answer my question: Who do you trust to manage the global heroin trade - the KGB, the Taliban, or China, without using narcotics as a weapon to corrupt American society and armed services as the Chinese did during the Vietnam war, or recycling profits into another 9/11 attack? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:12, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
At this point, American society is moreless immune from Afghan heroin, Big Pharma having been licensed to take over what previously was an illegal business, and now fuels the opioid epidemic. However, legalized marijuana in the United States has led to Mexico being a net importer of US grown marijuana, putting generations of Mexican pot growing families out of business. A few are beginning to cultivate the much more profitable opium poppy. So in the future between Big Pharma & Mexican opium growers, North America doesn't need Afghan heroin. Afghanistan is an EU, Russian, Chinese, Indian, and African problem. The EU & NATO are unwilling or incapable of managing the problem; nobody wants to see China, India, or Iran rise to be a corrupt global military hegemonic force capable of flooding countries with narcotics to defeat them. That leaves the Russian KGB/mafia as the only acceptable choice if the US were to withdraw from Afghanistan. But nobody wants to refight the 1980s Anti-Soviet jihad, either. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:48, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

A favorable cost/benefit ratio for the American taxpayer is not there as far as the Afghanistan War (a war we will never win). A basic rule of economics is that resources are scarce and you have to use them optimally. For example, it would be great if the USA spent $4 trillion dollars on cancer research this year, but unfortunately it would be a budget breaker and unlikely be an optimal use of resources.

Second, the USA could pay off the federal deficit fast by: Cutting the military budget by 50% (The USA does not have to have an empire and be the policeman of the world - especially in Afghanistan); selling off as much public lands as is feasible; eliminating as much non-essential services as possible (NASA does not need to go to Mars, etc.); entitlement reform (People used to work until they could no longer work) and respect the U.S. Constitution in terms of state's rights. The Tenth Amendment declares, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." For example, why is the federal government telling local schools that they cannot teach creationism? It's none of their business. And the taxpayers should not be paying federal government employees to regulate this matter (namely, Supreme Court justices, etc.). If you look at the history of colonial America they had states which favored various religious traditions and the states had varying degrees of tolerance (Puritans, Quakers - William Penn and Pennsylvania, etc.).[12]

If the USA continues to have a federal government full of busybodies who love to lord their power over the states, the USA may break up in the 21st century. It could happen as early as the first half of the 21st century. Conservative (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

China won the Vietnam war by flooding South Vietnam will cheap dope, getting American serviceman hooked, bringing it home to their wives, girlfriends and families. America didn't have a dope problem before the Vietnam war; Anerica's dope problem today, which has infected the whole culture, is the legacy of the Vietnam war.
And modern Chinese culture and history knows this very well; every Chinese family was affected by the Opium Wars. Dope is a weapon used to subjugate people.
It would be irresponsible to ignore the lessons of history and why a military establishment exists to walk away from Afghanistan as you suggest. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:55, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
If the USA wasn't spending so much money on the military, a wall could have been built on the Mexican border decades ago which would help stem the flow of drugs into the USA. In addition, more money could be spent on border control (which could include drug interdiction).
If school vouchers were given to religious schools and the feds didn't interfere with schools, maybe their wouldn't be so many failing schools which helped cause so many failing crack/drug filled neighborhoods. People with lower skills are less employable.
If the US government didn't reward single motherhood via their screwed up welfare system, maybe there wouldn't be so many wild, fatherless kids on drugs.
And the sad truth is that the USA is lowering their standards in the military due to the USA's obesity problem and the USA's problems with poor parenting/schooling. See: The decline of the Marine Corps and The U.S. military has a huge problem with obesity and it's only getting worse - Military Times.
Americans shouldn't have to pay for bloated military budgets to support an empire. And the American taxpayers should certainly not be paying to support fat military personnel who have weak characters. Nor should taxpayers support incompetent military personnel with integrity issues. America should sparingly get involved in military conflicts and the soldiers who fight those wars shouldn't be incompetent and shouldn't be fat asses. The USA should have a smaller, leaner and more competent military. Fact: 17,000 United Nation soldiers were not able to stop a massacre occurring in Sara Leone, but about 100 mercenaries were able to do so (see: Executive Outcome - Army for Hire. Conservative (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
You are arguing the Ted Kennedy "peace dividend" to expand government spending on social programs at the end of the Cold War. Americans did not agree to a 42% tax rate to fight the Cold War just for the sake of having 42% percent of GDP consumed by government when the war ended. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:16, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

America currently has an extravagent "guns and butter" economy. History teaches us that this cannot go on forever. An unlike ancient empires, which plundered countries after a war, America typically winds up getting little to nothing after its wartime victory. In fact, America helped build up Europe after the expensive endeavor of WWII via the Marshall Plan.

America has to decide if it is going to be Sparta or a pared down version of socialist Denmark/Sweden (even Sweden is now shifting to the right politically). It cannot be both. And given that America is unlikely to plunder like ancient regimes did, the Spartan model is rather antiquated.

Maybe artificial intelligence and robotics will someday cause an economies productivity level to soar so high that an extravagent "guns and butter" economy is more feasible. But right now, it is not feasible and America's $21.48 trillion debt is testimony to this fact.

And one thing for certain, America should not tolerate incompetence and unfitness in its military. The fact that America's military has a growing problem with fatness/incompetence and is currently not winning a war that has dragged on longer than any other war, namely the Afghanistan War, certainly would point to America needing to reexamine its military endeavors.Conservative (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

History.com has an article entitled Why It’s So Difficult to Win a War in Afghanistan. The article states: "Logistically, the terrain makes it difficult to move people and equipment." Afghanistan is a mountainous country. Imagine a country with an army that is getting fatter and fatter trying to win a war in mountainous country. You don't have to imagine. That is what the USA is trying to do now. America is going to have to toughen up if it expects to win wars in the future. Right now, America is losing to a bunch of skinny and nimble Afghani Muslims in sandals. Sad!Conservative (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

Winless wars and global leadership

There has been nothing to "win" in any war since Korea. Truman fired MacArthur because Truman refused to "win" the war the same way Truman "won the war" against Japan. It is perpetual war for perpetual peace. Survival is "winning."
I doubt Americans are prepared to sit still when China gains a UN Security Council Resolution to put Marines ashore in Los Angeles and occupy the port of Huntington Beach to safeguard China's national security and vital strategic interests because of chaos and lawlessness in California.
That day will come.
So forget the idea of trash talking America's leadership role in the world or suggesting defense spending should be used for social programs like education because Americans are resigned to big government and high taxes.
Back to the original point: The issue right now is bringing all elements of the Executive Branch under control of the President, including the Department of Justice and other elements of the IC. If we, the baby boomers and millennials fail at this, America ceases to exist as a constitutional republic and democracy. No other issues rival in importance. Our government is at war with itself. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:21, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

China has a far less big military budget than the USA and they are becoming very influential via their investments around the world. And should their new silk road initiative be completed, their economic influence will only grow. China's military budget is about a third of the USA's. Singapore has a GNP per capita that is about 33% higher than USA citizens. Yet, Singapore doesn't have military bases all over the world and they certainly don't have a lot of soldiers in Germany. I would rather be wealthier than having bragging rights about the size of my countries military.

The very astute, American billionaire, venture capitalist Jim Rogers says China will become an economic powerhouse but there will be some ups and downs along the way. And the Christianization of China that is occurring at an explosive rate would help China economically (Protestant work ethic, etc.). Many are predicting an Asian Century. China is expected to have the largest Christian population in the world by 2030. The Chinese communist have recently begun persecute Christians to a much higher degree, but that could easily fan the flames of Christianization (create martyrs, etc.).

Anyways, I don't buy into "perpetual war". Sun Tzu, one of the greatest military stategist there ever was said, "What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations." This is especially true since the USA does not plunder nations it conquers.

Lastly, I don't buy China attacking the USA mainland via their military. China has been doing very well via Chinese investing in Canada/USA and also having a small army of lobbyists in Washington.Conservative (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

China as a threat to the USA

Look, Conservative, do I really have to remind you of what happened when Clinton and Obama tried to gut our military, cut it down to size, and what THAT resulted in? 1. Clinton's attempts ultimately resulted in the September 11 terrorist attacks (not to mention various other terrorist attacks such as the USS Cole bombing and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, precisely BECAUSE al Qaeda sensed weakness), and 2., Obama's gutting the military ended up making the War on Terror even worse on our end. So no, gutting our own military, which is what you are essentially suggesting, is a VERY bad idea. I do agree we ultimately have to toughen up our soldiers, do more to actually win rather than simply survive, but the best way to do that is to implement a more rigorous training program as well as get battlefield engagement rules out of the way, NOT gutting the military. And BTW, with that attitude regarding the Afghanis and our losing, we might as well have declared World War II lost when we had problems in The Battle of the Bulge or even Iwo Jima, or even the Battle of Gettysburg. Heck, you might as well root for the Vietcong while you're at it, especially after the Tet Offensive, or heck, how about Che Guevara, since a lot of liberals were praising him as some sort of one-man army and gifted strategist when he was more like a moron and a coward in reality, saw even less combat than an Armchair General, and the only "real" battlefield success he had was literally due to a bribe, a bribe that the conductor of a train had cheated Che out of. You're sounding less Conservative and more like a Liberal, if you ask me. And if China truly doesn't even NEED a military as you seem to imply, why are they doing massive military buildup? Technically, a country that doesn't even NEED to build up its military to exert its influence in the world would logically NOT try to build up its military. And as far as the Chinese Communists, the guy currently in charge of China if anything made it VERY clear that neither he nor China as a whole is going to give up on Marxism in the near future, and if anything they're going to double down on it. And considering Pope Francis is refusing to even ATTEMPT to speak on behalf of the Chinese Christians, let alone provide any aid for them, openly or secretly, I can't say I have any real hope that the Chinese Christians are even going to survive, let alone succeed even via martyrdom or even successfully Christianize China by the end of this century. At least the Eastern Bloc Christians had John Paul II and various other Popes actually ATTEMPTING to aid them in secret if not openly when surviving the USSR and its satellite states. Even the pope during World War II at least saved enough Jews in Europe that one of the Chief Rabbis of Rome not only converted to Catholicism, but even chose as his Christianized name said Rabbi's original name specifically as thanks to that pope for his actions in saving Jewish people. The Chinese Christians don't even have that. Heck, the Coptic Christians aren't having that either. And can you PLEASE stop calling that "Protestant work ethic"? The Monks developed the concept long before Martin Luther entered the scene. And quite frankly, the only way we can come close to succeeding in regards to your suggestions, where we actually CAN have an opportunity to have laser-focus on all those infrastructure bits, is effectively to reduce everywhere in the world BUT America into a pile of rubble, that way we won't HAVE to focus on anyone but ourselves. And let me tell you, that is a horrible idea. And you can forget isolationism as well: We did that during the 1930s, not only did that NOT get us out of the recession at the time, but thanks to FDR getting elected, that only made it even WORSE, and then there's the problem posed by how the Communists managed to make inroads in our infrastructure precisely BECAUSE we did isolationism. Pokeria1 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
Donald Trump put a stop to the growth of the Chinese military and worldwide investments with a trade war and tariffs. As to China occupying the Port of Huntington Beach and the Panama Canal to defend their vital strategic interests under established International Law precedents by Western powers - such as the Moroccan Crisis or Boxer Rebellion - in the absence of Trump's tariffs it most definitely would happen in coming decades the next time the 1992 L.A. riots erupt since America has proven itself ungovernable and has forfeited noits sovereignty. It's just a matter of China's military reaching proportionate-to-population qualitative parity with Russia and the U.S., which neither Russia nor the U.S. can stop. Free trade only hastens and facilitates that day. `RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:23, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
RobS, how does the USA footing the bill for a lot of troops in a rich country like Germany protect the USA from terrorism? It doesn't. So your cutting the military budget is going to cause terrorism is a red herring. Judicious cuts can be made. And considering the porous border on Mexico, cutting back on the military to build a wall across Mexico is a far better means on protecting the USA from terrorism, crime and drugs. Lastly, the financial risk of a huge federal government debt causing a financial risk and being a contributing factor to melting down our economy is far higher than the Chinese invading the US mainland. Another Great Depression would certainly impair the USA's ability to fund a military should a big emergency occur. The military budget can and should be cut. Domestic budget cuts could be made too. Americans need to pay down the federal government debt before it wreaks havoc on the USA economy. Conservative (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
Have you forgotten about how Germany is being swamped with Muslim terrorists? And that's not even getting into Putin's Russia as well. Or heck, the fact that right now, for Marx's Birthday, a German town, Trier, has actually managed to raise a statue for Karl Marx and honored him (and donated by the Chinese, no less), not to mention Juncker has actually dedicated Marx's birthday as a day of celebration. Either way, we CANNOT just remove our forces from Germany, not while Islamic forces are posing as refugees and swamping them, anyway. Until we land a decisive and permanent victory against both Islamism and Marxism, we CANNOT disengage our forces, such would be total suicide for us and our allies. I do agree that we should build a wall to Mexico, especially given the influx of illegal immigrants that needs to be curbed immediately, but it should NOT be done at the expense of the military and our defense (actually, if anything, the funding from ObamaCare should be used for the wall. Kill two birds with one stone.). Again, do I really have to remind you of what happened when Clinton and Obama made their defense cuts? That led to disaster, both times. I'm not willing to let any funding for the military be cut, because I only see another 9/11 happening as a result. Besides, part of the reason we had a hard time with Vietnam was precisely BECAUSE LBJ gutted military funding in favor of the Great Society programs that led to black lives being broken. And if it was such a high risk, please explain why there are reports of China actually building up its military forces? And let's not forget that the primary reason the Great Depression got as bad as it did was precisely BECAUSE of those welfare programs you're suggesting we implement at the expense of the military, the whole New Deal bit. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

The post 1960s growth in the size of the USA's government spending is madness. The USA's military/non-military government spending needs to be cut back.Conservative (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

I agree regarding non-military government spending needing to be cut back, but the military spending? No, we cannot do that. Yet again, Clinton did exactly that kind of cut you were proposing, and that alongside his not taking out Osama Bin Ladin led directly to 9/11. Same goes for Obama and his gutting military spending, which led to several terrorists leaving Guantanamo Bay and the efforts in Afghanistan becoming even WORSE than under Bush. You should remember, since you lived through both times, especially the Obama debacle regarding military cuts. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
@Conservative: your question is uninformed. How does having 25,000 troops in South Korea under the Truman Doctrine of containment of expansion of Soviet communism in a world where the Soviet Union ceased to exist two and one half decades ago make sense?
The answer is people need leadership. As in any nation, corporation, or classroom, people need leadership. Like it or not, the planet needs leadership. America either leads the planet, or submits to Chinese, Islamic or Marxist leadership. Competition is an inherent human trait. If America retrenches to the Rio Grande, it will have to either violently fight to get back what it willfully gave up, or submit to Mexican drug cartels, Chinese communism, and Islam. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:47, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
Don't know if your South Korea question was rhetorical or not, but to answer the question, that's because while the Soviet Union is dead (kind of), Soviet communism is more than still alive in the form of North Korea, and that's not even getting into Maoist Communism from China. Pokeria1 (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
Good point. Retrenchment from the Korean DMZ to the Rio Grande would bring an alliance of Mexican drug cartels, the Chinese People's Liberation Army, and North Korea to the other side of the border wall. Think it's a joke? When Russia pulled out of Afghanistan, the jihad spread within Russian borders to Chechnya - with the same fighters on both sides. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:26, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
RobS, the planet has an overseer/leader. His name is God.
Second, we now live in a multipolar power world and China via its added wealth via Christianization and opening up its economy is going to be a bigger and bigger player. If America is going to be an economic leader in the 21st century, it cannot be hamstrung by a bloated government that overtaxes its businesses/citizens. The USA needs to trim its military/non-military spending and pay down its national government debt. If you doubt we live in a multipolar power world, then ask yourself why have we been in Afghanistan so long and still not achieved victory?
Not only is America spending too much on it military/non-military government spending, but Americans are eating too much and many of its soldiers are overweight. This whole situation speaks of a lack of discipline. America needs to be a mean, lean, wealth generating machine and not the biggest debtor nation in the world with a lot of overweight soldiers. Conservative (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
God is the leader of the planet, yes. Unfortunately, while he may be leader, far too many nations aren't heeding him, and considering God isn't, I don't know, blowing up various people for rejecting him, not even caring if they're still alive and have yet to enter the pearly gates when doing so, he comes across as weak, unfortunately. As far as your point about Afghanistan, technically, we've been in South Korea for even LONGER and still have yet to actually ACHIEVE an actual victory (and no, simply setting up a DMZ and preventing North Korea from invading the south is NOT the same thing as a victory. A real victory would have us completely wipe out Communism from North Korea). Believe me, compared to South Korea, our time spent in Afghanistan is nothing. And besides, it's pretty much for the same reason why we barely made much inroads within the Vietnam War until Nixon actually brought a decisive victory on that front (or at least, we DID get one, until Congress stabbed us and our allies in the back in the aftermath of Watergate). The guys managing the war imposed far too many ridiculous rules of engagement stuff on the war effort and were unwilling to let our soldiers do their job. You want a decisive victory? Let the soldiers do what they are supposed to do and win the freaking war with no strings attached and no restraints holding them back. And like I said about China and Christianization, there's very little chance Christianization is going to come any time soon. At least during the Cold War and even World War II, the Popes and various other religious groups have actually ATTEMPTED to provide open or secret aid to its various parishes and other parishes. China's Christian groups right now are being backstabbed even by Pope Francis. And no, we really shouldn't gut the military defense budget. As I have stated for I believe the fourth time now, which you clearly have not looked at, Clinton and Obama gutted the budget for the military several times during their presidency, and each time, that led to a far worse situation, and left our allies, if not us directly, at a massive disadvantage, even being attacked multiple times in the case of 9/11, the Cole Bombing, and the 1993 World Trade Center attack. As far as your point regarding obesity, speak for yourself, I if anything am massively underweight (I only am barely reaching the minimum BMI index, and otherwise am practically skin and bones.), not even close to becoming obese. Again, I agree we should get rid of the debt that we've incurred, cut down on government spending, but the military spending is OFF LIMITS regarding being cut. Or do you actually want another 9/11 to happen again? Pokeria1 (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
@Conservative: "China...[is] opening up its economy is going to be a bigger and bigger player. If America is going to be an economic leader in the 21st century, it cannot be hamstrung by a bloated government that overtaxes its businesses/citizens."
Not sure where you've been the past two years, but China now is undergoing massive layoffs because of Trump's tariffs and America is booming with Trump's tax cuts. The tariffs mean American consumers no longer are paying for cheap Chinese junk to build a modernized Chinese military to compete with our own - while having to pay for our own and constant upgrades to meet competition from the Chinese military purchased with profits from cheap junk sold in America. (IOW, prior to Trump, the American consumer has been paying for both the U.S. and Chinese military). China is not Brazil - it is not under the U.S. security umbrella - and neither they nor we should expect it to be. On the same subject, this today from the WSJ is well worth the 4 mins. (I could add more if anyone wishes to comment on China recently securing a 99 year lease for its base in Ceylon in the Indian Ocean, and what this means for future peace and security of the world). RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:39, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

America is overstretched militarily. America's military is in too many places.

And it is a disgrace that the USA's southern border is porous. It shows a lack of priorities. While the USA has a lot of troops in wealthy Germany, the Germans plan to buy a lot of oil from Russia. Let the German's do more to protect Germany.

Next, I said China will have its ups and down as far as its trend of ascension. For example, it is too highly leveraged now. Please read the article Growth of Christianity in China as this will help show why I am bullish on China. In addition, read The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China. Christianity has seen explosive growth in China. It may be too late for the atheistic Communists to suppress it effectively.

Lastly, most empires have fallen from within. During the Cold War and even post Cold War, not enough was done to stop Culture Marxists from infecting American public universities and the rest of the educational system. It could easily be argued that not enough effort/funds were used to address enemies from within and too much on America's military. The Soviet Union largely fell from within due its own dead weight (inefficient economic system, corruption, etc.). Conservative (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

And those cultural Marxists have now grown up to be FBI agents, like Peter Strzok. As I said, our government is at war with itself. And if you don't fight this war, they win. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:07, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
Oh, I agree that we definitely should have gotten rid of the Cultural Marxists from the get go, and we still have an opportunity to do so (heck, if anything, we have even MORE of an opportunity right now and should seize that opportunity right now), and I definitely agree that we should do more to protect our Southern Border. That much was NEVER in question. My problem is your idea that we should gut our own military to do those things because, like I said earlier, gutting our military is the WORST way to go about it (it made the Vietnam War nearly impossible to win under LBJ when he cared more about his Great Society programs than, you know, actually WINNING against the Communists in Vietnam which was the only reason we even BOTHERED to go there in the first place, not to mention Clinton and Obama's gutting of the military defense fund and trying to reduce our military size significantly has harmed us and our allies even more, even led directly to 9/11 in the case of Bill Clinton). And as far as China is concerned, again, considering the Chinese government is working overtime to wipe out any Christian sects that AREN'T under its control, and Pope Francis is if anything giving permission for the Chinese government to continue the persecutions, I have a LOT of reasons to be cynical about the Chinese Christians' chances of even survival, let alone success in actually Christianizing China. At least during the Cold War, the Christian sects in Eastern Europe still were actually backed by the Pope and aided in secret if not openly. Besides, like RobSmith pointed out, the government's in a de-facto civil war with each other, so it's best to just make sure to throw out the RINOs and Liberals ASAP and get to work in fixing America. Oh, and also booting out the UN as well. Pokeria1 (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
I never said "gut" the USA military. I merely indicated spending significantly less. HERE is a color coded map of countries by their percentage of GNP spending on the military. I believe the USA should have spending as a percentage of national GNP similar to China and Australia. The USA has two big oceans and Canada in terms of some of its key borders.
Some of the savings could be used to strengthen the USA's southern border and the rest to pay down the US's national debt. Military invasion is a method to change the politics of the nation of the country being invaded. Illegal immigration into the USA combined with amnesty changes American politics and shifts it to the left (It is a form of invasion). The legal immigration policy of the USA needs to be more intelligent as well. Conservative (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
What do you THINK the result of significantly cutting spending on the military is going to be? It's going to gut it, plain and simple. After all, Obama and Clinton cut military spending and that turned out badly, even led to 9/11 in the latter case. And besides, I really wouldn't use China as an example of how we're supposed to do the budget, considering that, as I pointed out earlier, they actually HAVE upped their military spending (and in fact, if it weren't for Trump's trade war with them, they'd probably be spending even MORE on military). Heck, I wouldn't even use Europe as a good example especially considering how they're not even BOTHERING to remove the so-called "refugees" from invading their turf (and bear in mind, going by the same map, Germany and France has even LESS military spending in the GDP than we do, which if anything REINFORCES why we should never cut military spending.), to say little about how they're doing absolutely NOTHING to curb the Marxist trend (Juncken actually honored Karl Marx in Germany right now, and don't get me started on how Triers actually had a statue of Karl Marx prominently displayed right now, when if anything they should have refused China's sale of it and smashed it to bits.). And for the record, I don't disagree with you at all regarding the illegal immigration bit, it definitely needs to be curbed, as well as it being invaded. I also agree that legal immigration needs more intellect as well, especially when we've got enough problems on that front as it is. But cutting military spending is NOT the answer to that (less military spending didn't help France or Germany in that regard, or the whole of Europe, even). Pokeria1 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
I'm not certain you can say LBJ gutted the military. Yes, they did rob Peter (NATO preparedness) to pay Paul (Vietnam war). But LBJ was of a generation that firmly believed in militant Keynsianism. Just as in WW2 they funded the Manhattan Project and the troops simultaneously, so too the felt they could fund NASA & the troops. They felt the more government spending the better, so Johnson threw in California's E.P.I.C. program of the 1930s as blueprint for the Great Society on top of the military and technological research funding. Balancing the budget was furthest from these peoples minds. The stagflation of the 1970s was the hangover from the liberals drunken sending binge. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:53, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
Well, he certainly cared about his Great Society programs than he did in actually WINNING the Vietnam War. Pokeria1 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
That's an interesting point. Johnson considered the Vietnam war part of his Civil Rights program, thinking Americans would pull together in common cause against a common enemy, until Martin Luther King went over to Russia's side. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:23, 15 September 2018 (EDT)

Morgan Stanley security chief Rick Rescorla (who worked in the World Trade Tower) repeatedly warned the G.W. Bush Administration about terrorists are going to fly a commercial jet into the towers, but he was ignored (despite the fact that a van blew up in the basement of one of the towers that was full of explosives). Before 9/11 occurred, I read a story in USA Today about "air rage" and people going into the cockpit of an airplane. I said to myself, why aren't American jet plane cockpits secure? And then when a jet plane hit the first tower, G.W. Bush was like a deer in the headlights. 9/11 was a failure of the executive branch and the CIA/FBI. And my guess is that 9/11 was also partly a failure of American Middle East foreign policy.

In addition, 9/11 was a failure of the USA's immigration and VISA policy. There have been too many Muslim terrorists in the USA, due to a poor immigration/VISA policy.

Lastly, I didn't read the 9/11 report, but they probably have a lot of good advice on preventative measures against terrorism.Conservative (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

After the 1993 bombing, Clinton was criticized for treating terrorism as a law enforcement rather than a national security problem - using the FBI and DOJ lawyers rather than the Pentagon and CIA to fight it. Clinton didn't want a foreign crisis to interfere with Democrat's chance of getting re-elected after living through the 1960s and later seeing what happened to Jimmy Carter in the Iranian hostage crisis. The 9/11 Commission Report and creation of Homeland Security kept that mold of treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem. Since Clinton, the liberal communists have controlled the DOJ & FBI. Under Obama, the entire FISA apparatus is now directed at Republicans, rather than Al Qaeda, the KGB, Mexican drug cartels, and weapons smugglers whom it was designed for. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:16, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
@Conservative: That sounds like you got your information from Fahrenheit 9/11. Actually, the FBI claimed it could not corroborate the claim that the terrorists were going to fly a commercial jet into the towers, THAT'S why they didn't act on it. You can read about it here. But I do agree, it was ultimately a failure regarding muslims, Middle Eastern policy, and immigration/VISA policy. That DOESN'T mean we should gut the military. And besides, 9/11 ultimately happened due to Clinton (and let's not forget the FBI being in shambles was because of Clinton basically conducting a purge and implementing yes-men to the position).
@RobSmith: Huh. Clinton didn't want to destroy chances at reelection, eh? I thought he wouldn't have cared at all about America considering he apparently helmed various anti-American protests if The Clinton Chronicles is of any indication. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
In life, you have to balance risks. Right now, given the size of America's national debt and its current spending habits, there is a significant risk of the nation having another Great Depression by the mid 2030s or possibly earlier. That would severely impair America's ability to fund a military and other matters. It could also cause a global economic depression which could spark some major military conflicts. T he clock is ticking and AmericPokeria:a needs to prune back its military/non-military spending rather than kick the can down the road.Conservative (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
@Conservative: your peeing in the wind worring about the national debt. Every one minute of labor adds 15.3% of that pay to the national debt from 160 million workers that must be repaid at retirement age. The harder we work, the more debt we create. It's a structural flaw that is too late to fix. You can't eliminate the source of the debt - the Social Security Withholding Tax, now. Especially since 68 million baby boomers will never allow it. SS reform is the third rail now more than ever. We're resigned to ever increasing cycles of inflation as the only means to reduce it.
@Pokeria: See Legacy of Ashes: "No President cared less about foreign policy than Bill Clinton."RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:19, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

Private debt vs. public debt

Read the article: U.S. debt addiction threatens national security, author of the article is U.S. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, September 11, 2018 (General Schwartz served as the 19th chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force and is president and CEO of the nonprofit Business Executives for National Security)

"if unlimited borrowing, financed by printing money, were a path to prosperity, then Venezuela and Zimbabwe would be top of the growth tables." - Irwin M. Stelzer, American economistConservative (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

You have private aggregate debt confused with public national debt (i.e. government debt). The only relationship between the two is on interest rates. IOW, greater government borrowing squeezes out competition for a limited savings pool and slows private borrowing with higher interest rates. Low interest rates is a sign the government is meeting its obligations and the sign (by modern standards) of a healthy economy. What should be avoided however, are permanent commitments to future spending such as Obamacare and/or guaranteed bailouts (which is what Obamacare promised) to insurance companies to write policies on pre-existing conditions. Obamacare was identical to FNMA - just as it guaranteeed banks bailouts to write mortgages on non-credit worthy borrowers, so too Obamacare guaranteed bailouts to insurance companies and damn the consequences when they go broke on pre-existing conditions. The insurance salesman or mortgage broker makes their commission at the point of sale, the whole industry goes broke, the taxpayer and consumer gets screwed in the long run with greater poverty and more government debt, and Democrats holding office get to pretend they are heroes for solving a crisis they created. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:53, 13 September 2018 (EDT)
If the USA government spends like a drunken sailor on defense/non-defense spending when it already has an enormous federal government debt now, it will cause economic problems and cutbacks later. This is especially true with an aging population and an aging infrastructure which the USA currently has. This is a simple and straightforward issue.Conservative (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2018 (EDT)
You know what you just proposed is EXACTLY what ObamaCare was meant to do, right? Or how about that being what Obama and Clinton have done with military defense spending. And you DO remember that was EXACTLY why we are in such a massive debt, right? Like I said, removing defense spending and getting rid of it is a BAD idea, debt or not. Pokeria1 (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2018 (EDT)
User:Conservative is making a cultural Marxist argument that predates the 1960s: the money spent on the military is better spent on food stamps, while ignoring the realities of the world. He's beginning to sound like Alger Hiss on the Nye Committee. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:08, 13 September 2018 (EDT)

RobS, you are entirely incorrect about my commentary. I clearly said the USA should significantly cut back on military spending AND non-military spending. In other words, BOTH forms of spending.

Secondly, RobS if anyone has been acting as a leftist, it the person who deleted my commentary on "China/Growth of Christianity/Protestant work ethic" on this talk page because his own argumentation on this matter was weak (Robs, I noticed your deletion of the China/Christianity/Protestant material and I restored it). The left often resorts to censorship when the facts are not in alignment with their own argumentation. Weak! Weak! Weak!Conservative (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2018 (EDT)

If there was a deletion, it was accidental. My apologies. But you have repeatedly made the quid pro quo argument:
  • "America needs to pay down its enormous national debt and spend less on the military. It needs to update it infrastructure...."
  • "USA could pay off the federal deficit fast by: Cutting the military budget by 50%..." (a Cold War peacenik argument)
  • "If the USA wasn't spending so much money on the military, a wall could have been built on the Mexican border decades ago..." etc etc etc
I hope you can handle constructive criticism: Don't try to take on the Left with their own illogic and technique yet, you're not ready for it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:22, 13 September 2018 (EDT)
I can't speak for RobS, but I definitely didn't remove your commentary on it, nor did I have ANY desire to do so (though that being said, I strongly disagree with your claim that eliminating any criticism up to and, yes, even including censorship, is weak. Actually, if anything's truly weak, it's constantly capitulating to ANY form of criticism to the extent that you capitulate to an unruly mob. Just look at what happened to King Louis XVI and his cabinet regarding their treatment of criticism and being excessively tolerant of it. Oh wait! You can't! The leftist mobs slaughtered him and the others thanks to his excessive tolerance of their ideas!). However, we should NOT cut back on military spending, that is just a recipe for disaster. Let's not forget, it was thanks to Clinton cutting military spending that September 11, the Cole Bombing, and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred. And let's not forget that Barack Obama cut military spending by an excessive amount, and how THAT made our fight against al Qaeda even WORSE for us. Now, not spend any MORE unless it's necessary, fine, I can agree with that, but NO cutting spending, ESPECIALLY not during a wartime situation. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2018 (EDT)

RobS, 1) America won the cold war. And its biggest nation state rivals are Russia/China. Russia is unlikely to recreate the Soviet Union given its currently problems, etc. China's military is far inferior to the USA. By 2030, China could have the biggest population of Christians in the world which might make them less likely to attack the West (See: Growth of Christianity in China). 2) Barack Obama was elected wide largely because the nation shifted to left thanks to significantly high immigration (both legal and illegal) coupled with amnesty. Having a wall and a more sensible immigration policy is merited. On top of this, terrorist/criminals can come across America's porous southern border. Most U.S. mass shooters are more likely to be immigrants and/or the sons of immigrants.[13] Cutting back the military budget and building a wall with some of the savings is a prudent policy. 3) America does have a crumbling infrastructure. Having an even more enormous debt down the pike and an infrastructure problem is certainly not a recipe for economic success. 4) On top of this, an aging population is going to spike care for the elderly plus lower the number of people in their peak earning years. Furthermore, there is likely going to be a big drop in real estate prices once the baby boomers sell more and more of their homes. It is better to tackle the federal budget now rather than have a crisis later when conditions will certainly not be opportune (a more aged population). 5) Nations with unmanageable debt and/or high inflation (money printing) have greater difficulty in funding a defense.Conservative (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2018 (EDT)

1) No, America has NOT won the Cold War. Yes, it did beat the USSR by causing it to implode, AND freed Eastern Europe. However, we still have the Communists in China to get rid of (and I would NOT underestimate their military capacity, especially when there's a lot of evidence suggesting that they if anything are actually increasing their defense budget, and besides, a large part of the reason why they are a threat right now is because Clinton sold military secrets to them in exchange for campaign cash.), not to mention North Korea, Vietnam (after we blew it regarding the Vietnam War no less), Cambodia, Laos, Angola, and Cuba. Oh, and also Venezuela as well. It's also debatable whether Communism is even dead in Russia. Last I checked, keeping Marx's statue up, not to mention Lenin's mausoleum up and running, is not a sign that Marxism is dead. And considering Western Europe is embracing Marxism (heck, Triers, Germany actually got a Karl Marx statue from the Chinese), it's pretty clear Marxism's STILL rearing its ugly head. Until Marxism as a whole is completely and utterly destroyed, the Cold War is STILL ongoing. And yes, that ultimately means we STILL cannot cut the defense budget. And as far as China and any growing Christianity, Xinping or whoever the guy's name was has made it clear they aren't going to give up on Communism and if anything are going to double down on it, and unlike during the Cold War where the Christians in Eastern Europe at least were supported indirectly by the various Popes, Pope Francis has all but abandoned them to their fate. Even regarding Christianity tenacity, it's gonna take a miracle for them to even SURVIVE the persecution with one remaining, let alone defeat the Communists and throw them out of power. Last I checked, the point of the Cold War is to utterly destroy Communism, not JUST the USSR. 2) I agree with that, and I even agree that we should build a wall (part of the reason I voted for Trump after all, that and he of the candidates showed the most promise to overturning Roe v. Wade ESPECIALLY via his VP pick.) specifically to cut down on the immigration problem (though that being said, we also would need to put in a wall on the Canadian border as well, not to mention do EXTENSIVE airport security and background checks). But that does NOT require gutting the military, and if anything, that's just going to make it worse (Obama gutted the military, and even Clinton gutted it, certainly the funding in both cases, and that just made things worse both in the short and the long run, up to and including 9/11.). 3) Like I said, don't disagree with that, but that is NOT the way to solve it. You want to solve the whole crumbling infrastructure? Try gutting ObamaCare and other Government waste. 4) See 3) above. 5) That if anything is actually even MORE of a reason why we shouldn't gut our military, and instead we should just gut government programs we don't actually need. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2018 (EDT)
America lost the Cold War when the communists took over the White House in 2008. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:04, 13 September 2018 (EDT)

"Although most of NATO’s members do not meet the 2 percent target agreed to at the 2014 Wales Summit.." - The Hill, 8/24/18[14]

"According to calculations by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, US spending on NATO and the defense of Europe amounts to $30 billion, or just over 5 percent of its defense budget." - September 2018[15]

Trump's wall on southern border: "Estimates range from as low as $8 billion to as much as $67 billion or more, depending on whom you ask and the number of miles of wall that get built." - Fortune magazine, 2018[16]

If the USA had let the Europeans defend themselves for about 2 years, the USA could have paid for the border wall across Mexico.

America should cut its military and non-military federal budget.Conservative (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2018 (EDT)

Should happen is right. But this is the real world. You don't have a consensus in the GOP. You're unlikely to ever have a consensus in the GOP. You'd need a bipartisan consensus to do it. You're not likely to even be in the majority, which isn't enough anyway to do it. Like Obamacare, the next Congress or a future Congress can reverse it. I'm trying to avoid discussion of an economic contraction, but basically you're saying, "the United States should have a recession," which a future Congress will attempt to reverse with a "stimulus." So the whole point is moot. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:06, 14 September 2018 (EDT)
I said the USA is going to have another Great Depression. Many people in the Austrian school of economics are predicting it. And many of those same people predicted the 2007/2008 recession. While no school of economics is perfect, the Austrian school of economics has a better ability to predict economic recessions/depressions.Conservative (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2018 (EDT)
FYI: The National Bureau of Economic Research measured the dates of that recession occurring from December 2007 to June 2009. Obama and Congress passing the porkulus bill probably caused that sharp decrease in GDP to end.
And the government spending transfusion by those two branches of government, placing us in another eight or nine trillion dollars in debt over the next seven years, along with a justifiable hit to the United States' credit rating, kept the otherwise dismal U.S. economy from contracting any further, meaning there has been no recession since then.
But as liberals were fond of saying a certain phrase about George W. Bush's economy, even then, Obama and Congress presided over a "jobless recovery" with a shrinking labor force participation rate. VargasMilan (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2018 (EDT)
A collapse in government spending, i.e cutting "military and non-military spending," would trigger a recession (reductions in both consumer and investment spending). In the long run, it might be healthy. In the short run, it would be both politically and economically devastating. This is Econ 101 of the Austrian school. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:48, 14 September 2018 (EDT)
Maybe Trump could tweet: "We can't go back to failed Obama-era policies of driving up the debt! By now, we may even need to let the currency deflate if we're going to keep our promises to those getting Social Security!" VargasMilan (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2018 (EDT)

Monetary policy and job creation

It is argued that the US federal government caused the Great Depression.[17][18]

Given the USA's federal government spending and its ability to print fiat money (money not backed by gold and/or other assets), the Great Depression 2.0 (or hyperinflation) will likely be caused by the USA federal government too.Conservative (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2018 (EDT)

A gold standard retards job growth; using a fixed standard (known gold supplies have grown very little since ancient Egypt, literally) makes it difficult to meet new payrolls. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:17, 14 September 2018 (EDT)
I clearly did not say merely gold as far as backing a currency. I said, "money not backed by gold and/or other assets".Conservative (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2018 (EDT)
Any job creation program is inflationary because you need to print money for new payrolls. MAGAnomics, tariffs, and the corporate taxcut to create jobs for Americans is inflationary. This will naturally lead to tensions between workers and pensioners, the disabled, and others living on fixed incomes. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:41, 15 September 2018 (EDT)

Whodunit?

It's possible that James O'Keefe will soon reveal the identity of the anonymous official: [19] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2018 (EDT)

Rich Galen says it's either John Barron, John Miller, or David Dennison. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:54, 14 September 2018 (EDT)
Peter Ka recently said here he read an article saying the unelected cabal member who wrote the New York Times editorial was probably Jon Huntsman. Did Rich Galen reject that possibility?
Regardless, James O'Keefe teased a new story that 1990's guy linked to above that he would be releasing in the week beginning this Monday (Sept. 17, 2018) by asking his audience if it wouldn't be great if we could see some of the faces of the members of the faceless Deep State. VargasMilan (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2018 (EDT)
Joking aside, Galen makes a plausible case it was Trump himself, just to tweek the NYT and embarass them as they claim to know who it is. Galen tears up the contents of op-ed. And we've seen Trump do this nunerous times, calling into talk shows, his medical records, or making a fool out of Rachel Madcow with his tax returns. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:57, 15 September 2018 (EDT)

Trump Blues by Carman

This is one of the best songs I've heard in a while -- enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QElYpGDFSuE --1990'sguy (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

Caution: Sixty days of rage ahead

The Dems are planning to seethe with rage from now until the midterms, according to Axios. This year's election is shaping up to be the most consequential midterm since the Reconstruction vote of 1866-1867. The latest Cook Report forecast gives House Republicans 202 seats compared to 192 for the Dems.[20] The GOP has an edge in almost all of the 42 "toss up" seats, so we could be looking at quite a red wave. Cook forecasts the new Senate as 51-49 Republican. My own district (WA-06) is rated as solidly Dem in terms of both the local House race and the Senate race. PeterKa (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

The ability to bounce back after many significant defeats is a key to long term victory. How emotionally resilient are Democrats? Will they be able to withstand multiple big defeats over a period of years? In addition, the ability to: pull yourself together and understand why you were defeated; study the opposition and know thy enemy; and come up with a rational plan to eventually win, is a key to long term victory.
Although it is certainly possible, I have my doubts that the Democrats will bounce back due to the midterms.
For more information, please see:
Essay: Liberals are pantywaists. They have a weak ideology. They will be defeated.
Morale of the atheist movement
The tearful and rage-filled Democrats should listen to Mahalia Jackson's song Trouble of the World.
"No more weepin' and wailin'. No more weepin' and wailin'. No more weepin' and wailin'" - Mahalia JacksonConservative (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

Both parties are increasingly fragmented, the Democrats suffering a two-way split and the GOP a three-way split. The good news is, traditional establishment Democrat voters, and moderate voters not loyal to name brand (let's call them 'non-aligned moderates'; 'Independent' is an organized party in some states) do not want to partner with Social Democrats who are becoming the new Democrat establishment. While most everyone of any stripe recognizes the race baiting Democrats traditionally use to smear opponents, the danger lies in far-left progressive extremists masquerading as moderates, of which Barack Obama is the model they follow. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:46, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

  • National Review has a battle plan to win the midterm: Paint the Dems as the party of flag haters and Kaepernick fans. You'd think the Dems would be focused on winning the midterms at this point. But they just can't stop telling us how wonderful Kaepernick and "protesting" is. America hates Kaepernick. The Kaepernick ad forced Nike’s net approval rating to plunge 34 points last week. See "The Party of Kaepernick." PeterKa (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
Personal income up, poverty rate down. Let the haters hate. Stay away from social issues. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:28, 13 September 2018 (EDT)

Romping in Sweden

Finishing second isn't really romping. You're giving away the idea you don't really understand European politics or a paiamentary system. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:49, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

The latest::"Sweden's Democrats in 2nd place with 19.2% Social Democrats biggest but worst score since 1908 with 26.2%". RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:53, 9 September 2018 (EDT)
Live link. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:34, 9 September 2018 (EDT)
It's 3rd place now. But on the bright side, the "center-left" (far-left) and "center-right" (big business globalists) have about 40% each, meaning it's a hung parliament. They'll either form a grand coalition, revealing the Sweden Democrats to be the only non-uniparty, or they'll ask the SD for their votes. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2018 (EDT)
Preliminary update: Disaster. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:45, 9 September 2018 (EDT)
According to the above results, 28% SD + 19% Moderates + 4.4% Green = 52%, leaving the Sweden Democrats out, and Alternative for Sweden no seats. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:50, 9 September 2018 (EDT)
The Moderates are in a coalition with several other parties. It's essentially all of them vs. the Sweden Democrats. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2018 (EDT)
Sweden Democrats are in the same position AfD, no one will coalition will them. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:54, 9 September 2018 (EDT)
For really stupid reasons. But on the bright side, even though no one will form a coalition with them, they need to adopt more sensible policies just to stay in power. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2018 (EDT)
Socialists win; talk of election rigging beginning.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:02, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

Left bloc 143, Right bloc 143, Sweden Democrats 63. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:41, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

Great catch. Posted.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2018 (EDT)
  • Romping in Sweden....Makes me think of the PewDiePie classic "This is how we hunt in Sweden." ("What did I say about pigs defying gravity? WHAT DID I SAY?") I laughed so hard it still hurts. PeterKa (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2018 (EDT)

What happened to the crying liberal?

Janna DeVylder, "the crying liberal," is the face that of those who just can't live in the America Trump has restored to greatness. The image is here, for those who have forgotten it. She runs a design studio in Sydney, Australia these days. "When everyone gets a trophy, you don't know how to lose," the meme-makers jeered. "I’m not crying because we lost. I’m not crying because there’s no trophy. I’m crying because we are losing our collective humanity,” she responded.[21] The ancients admired the Stoicism of Cato, who fell on his sword in Utica rather than live a world ruled by Caesar. PeterKa (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

Why I don't believe in "science"

Or at least not the science of highly politicized questions like global climate and sex differences.

Are men and women different? Not only is that staple of 1990s comedy no longer a joke, you can't discuss the question in a scientific journal anymore. This one belongs on MPR: "A Mathematician Says Activists Made His Paper Disappear Because Its Findings Offended Them." The rejected article discusses Darwin's Greater Male Variability Hypothesis. The hypothesis states that there are both more high achieving males and more low achieving male compared to the female population. Here is the money quote: Half his board, he explained unhappily, had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and "harass the journal" he had founded 25 years earlier "until it died." Faced with the loss of his own scientific legacy, he had capitulated. "A publication in a dead journal," he offered, "wouldn't help you." In short, "science" can no longer admit a basic fact that the writers of Genesis knew: Male and female he created them. PeterKa (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

Most famous woman in China goes missing

Three months ago, Fan Bingbing was China's most popular actress. Now she has been unpersoned like a character in Nineteen-Eighty Four. Here is CNN: "Has China's most famous actress been disappeared by the Communist Party?" Fan's mistake was to get on the Forbes list of richest celebrities in China. It seems that there is one thing China still hasn't imported: Rule of law. PeterKa (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2018 (EDT)

Huh? You're citing CNN. Can't you find a more reputable and credible source? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:55, 16 September 2018 (EDT)
The Chinese communists are going to lose their trade war with Trump. If they accede to Trump's demands, it could make China richer in the long term, but they will have to abandon or significantly alter their state-capitalist economic model.[22] Given the current big trade imbalance between the USA-China and the fact that the USA has a stronger economy right now, Trump is very likely to win his trade war with China.
If the Chinese leaders dig in their heels, they will not have the funds to finish multiple projects they have outside/inside China (which have sunk cost already spent) and China's leader Xi Jingping will lose face.[23] Nothing is worse for a Chinaman than to lose face.
China is going to have to change their economic/political system. The central government is going to lose more and more control. Although nationalism is on the rise, worldwide the power of the state is declining (See: The Fate of the State by MARTIN VAN CREVELD).
It usually takes a crisis for a society to make big changes to its way of doing things. Trump's trade war appears to be a crisis for China.Conservative (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2018 (EDT)
I will give BBC credit since they broke this story. See "'Disappearance' of top Chinese actress Fan Bingbing concerns fans" and "Fan Bingbing: Vanished Chinese star 'not socially responsible'." The BBC has a "monitoring service" that lets the English-language world know what news non-English media is reporting. PeterKa (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2018 (EDT)

What Kavanaugh would miss

If Kavanaugh isn't confirmed before October 1, he won't be able to participate in this case that I think is particularly important, at least compared to the other cases I know will be heard -- the SCOTUS will rule on whether international organizations have total immunity from all U.S. laws (the D.C. Circuit Court ruled "yes", so even if the court is divided, globalists will win).[24] No doubt there will be other important cases in the 2018 term. He should be confirmed, and the Senate shouldn't allow his nomination to be blocked or delayed because of some leftist professor's allegation revealed today despite Senate Democrats knowing of this for months without bringing it up. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2018 (EDT)

Kavanaugh's accuser has just been revealed as California professor Christine Blasey Ford. Feinstein had Ford's letter last summer. Why wait until now to release it? She's obviously following the Anita Hill case as a template. So we can safely assume this is being done for the most cynical of political motives. During the Hill-Thomas hearings, the battle cry of liberals was, "Hill is a Republican. Why would she lie?" After the hearings, she admitted she was a Democrat. Even if you take Hill's accusations at face value, they are hardly in the same league as Clinton/Lewinsky.
Up to now, the "That was high school" defense has always worked in American politics. If it fails Kavanaugh, it could open up quite a can of worms. PeterKa (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2018 (EDT)
Well, Flake has apparently called for delaying the committee vote, so it looks like even if confirmed, Kavanaugh will be useless for about a year because of this. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2018 (EDT)
The FBI passed on investigating the letter because Feinstein withheld it for two months from the FBI trying to draw the FBI into politics. The FBI handed it back to the White House (Don McGahn's office). This means Sarah Huckabee Sanders has to kill it at tomorrow's press briefing. There will be a four day delay, at best. The game now is to bait Sarah Sanders into calling the worthless communist piece of garbage PhD a liar so as to outrage the #MeToo movement. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:54, 16 September 2018 (EDT)
I thought the FBI wasn't able to see the accuser's identity when Feinstein asked? Either way, it's in the Senate's hands now, probably not Sanders's.
The GOP ran away when Trump was accused in 2016, they ran away when Roy Moore was accused in 2017, and I fear they'll run away now that Kavanaugh is being accused. The GOP needs a backbone -- they are perfectly fine with throwing away America's future in order to prove that they themselves are moral individuals (though they apparently don't care too much about reversing Roe v. Wade). They hold their heads high, and because of that, they don't see that they're walking off a cliff. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2018 (EDT)
The FBI would have to have an identification in order to investigate. But Feinstein, holding on to it two months out of process, and submitting it after hearings began, is blatantly obvious to FBI investigators an attempt to use the FBI for political purposes. So the FBI passes the document back to the people at the White House who nominated Kavanaugh. They obviously will do nothing with it and accept Kavanaugh's denial. That leaves Sanders to answer all questions tomorrow. She has to kill it in one day without offending the accuser.
The Democrats then have to try motions at Thursday Committee vote, and carry a fight to the floor debate. The lines are drawn - a cheap stunt to slander a man vs. the Dems attempt to rally the MeToo movement. Ultimately the credibility of the accuser falls to female Senators of both parties (who know better than men how easy it is for a female to make such a charge - the question is motive which doesn't look good for the accuser). The rest is media noise.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:33, 16 September 2018 (EDT)
I hope you're right, but Jeff Flake just said that the assuser should be heard, and other GOP senators said similar things. They have been unhelpful to Trump in the past, and I doubt they'll just let it go if the FBI declines to investigate again. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2018 (EDT)
Rob, your emphasis on the importance of Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her press conference on Monday is brilliant analysis. Thank you.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2018 (EDT)
There's an odd game going on - most victims in the #MeToo movement are victims of big name Hollywood Democrat donors and liberal media people. If #MeToo is a partisan movement, it's weighted agsinst Democrats so far (Stormy Daniels for instance, no one considers her an assault victim). But truthfully, honest women are better judges at these matters than men are. We should simply refer to the matter as partisan opportunism - which FBI regards it as such - avoid accusing the woman of lying but at the same time emphasize her partisanship and Feinstein's underhandedness. #MeToo victims need to see how some high-profile cases hurt the #MeToo cause (for example, how the organized gay movement rejected Kevin Spacey "coming out" when he was exposed as a pedophile). Real victims need to be aware and speak up when people with duplicitous motives join their movement. Feinstein is trying to hijack the #MeToo movement for the Democrats in the election, when most of the victims are victimized by Democrats. It's Feinstein's mistake, IMO, to try and turn the MeToo into an election year issue, cause it could easily backfire.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:25, 17 September 2018 (EDT)
Feinstein ruined the woman's reputation by not asking the FBI to vet the complaint in July. She evidently didn't believe it, and is willing to use the woman as partisan fodder, and all real victims, as well. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:48, 17 September 2018 (EDT)

It will come down to: 1) credibility of the 7 alleged witnesses and/or relevant parties/accusers (Christene Blasely Ford, her husband, Mark Judge who is Cavanaugh's friend who allegedly witnessed the event, the therapist who allegedly kept notes, the two other Kavanaugh friends who were allegedly in another room and the ex-FBI polygraph administrator) 2) How well Kavanaugh conducts himself post accusation 3) How aggressively the 7 or so alleged witnesses/parties promote their version 4) The public relation efforts of the two opposing sides 5) How well the opposing sides lobby the senators 6) The politics of the situation 7) Any additional opposition research or investigative reporting that is done on Kavanaugh and the results it yields

Regardless, the conservatives/right-wingers still have the upper hand. If Kavanaugh is defeated, they will likely just trot out another conservative candidate for SCOTUS. Plus, despite the Me Too Movement, it is still a man's world and Mrs. Ford did not come out with her charges much earlier. In addition, post Steele dossier, the idea that Democrats would conspire due to desperation and poor ethics is now more credible. Conservative (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2018 (EDT)

You're reading a lot into what's supposed to be a one day news item. Are you trying to pressure Grassley into delaying the vote? (which is the same as giving it over to the next Congress) Seven witnesses? Where on Earth did that come from, collusion between the Washington Post and the DNC to meddle in elections? Why give them any credibility at all, when the big story at the moment is WaPo publishing fake news about Trump-Russia to destroy Trump and spark the Mueller probe. Why waste two minutes on Democrat/WaPo garbage? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:14, 17 September 2018 (EDT)
Did I say 7 witnesses? No, I did not. Please reread what I said. I clearly said 7 alleged witnesses/parties.
Judging from what is going on and what has happened in the past (ObamaCare not being repealed), it appears as if the vote may be delayed. But maybe the GOP will decide to push it through. I think with GOP Senator Flake saying he will vote no unless the vote is delayed, the vote will be delayed. I think the GOP needs Flake's vote, but I could be mistaken. Conservative (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2018 (EDT)
Where did the idea of "7 alleged witnesses" come from? You've managed to get it into print three times now
Here's the process: Grassley is not Joe Biden. There will be no extended Anita Hill/Clearance Thomas style hearings. The decision to move forward is entirely Grassley's. This decision is based upon one or two Senators up for re-election concerned about #MeToo voters, which does not weigh in Democrat's favor. The issue is all about appropriate cover, similiar to Comey clearing Clinton on the Weiner laptop without ever investigating the Weiner laptop. If a Senator on the fence wants the accuser to come in closed session and make a statement, simply to mollify pressure from their own re-election bids, it'll create a few days delay, and Kavanaugh allowed to respond. No supporting witnesses allowed. It's a he said/she said, with the Committee acting as a jury in the final vote (the pressure is on some members in their opposition state organizations, but there isn't enough time to rally public opposition before Thursday). No new evidence can he presented other than the original garbage published by WaPo and Kavanaugh's denial. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:13, 17 September 2018 (ED

I clearly said 7 alleged witnesses/parties. I also listed out the 7 alleged individuals so there would be no confusion.Conservative (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2018 (EDT)

I neglected to mention that oppositional research and/or investigative reporting may be done on: Christene Blasely Ford and her husband, the alleged therapist, Mark Judge who is Cavanaugh's friend who allegedly witnessed the event, the two other Kavanaugh friends who were allegedly in another room, various reporters involved and the alleged ex-FBI polygraph expert as Ford alleges she was examined by a polygraph expert about the alleged incident).Conservative (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2018 (EDT)
That's four times you've made a case for her accusations. [www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2659.htm Here's her "alleged" deep state ties]. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:59, 17 September 2018 (EDT)

That's not accurate. For example, Mark Judge agrees with Kavanaugh that the alleged incident never took place.Conservative (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2018 (EDT)

Soooo...can you connect Dr. Blasey to this program? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:08, 17 September 2018 (EDT)
The bottom line is that the GOP still has the upper hand. The GOP is expected to hold the Senate. And if the Kavanaugh bid fails, a conservative replacement can be found. Trump has a list of potential SCOTUS nominees that was drafted before he was elected.
And the Clarence Thomas appointment would seem to indicate that in the case of a she-says/he-says battle, the nominee wins. The only difference is the alleged therapist (the alleged therapist notes do not mention Kavanaugh by name) and that Ford allegedly submitted to a polygraph test.Conservative (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2018 (EDT)
Of course the incident never took place - it was reported in the Washington Post first. Why are we even debating this? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:20, 17 September 2018 (EDT)
In the Clarence Thomas case, Joe Biden insisted on extended open public hearings with witnesses after a violation of process and Senate rules. Nothing of the sort will occur here. Grassley has agreed to emails and phone conversations with Blasey and Kavanaugh. That's it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:24, 17 September 2018 (EDT)

Senator Flake and Senator Cork appear to have more leverage than Grassley.[25][26] I believe the GOP may delay to get Flake's/Corker's potential yes votes on the nominee. Flake says he thinks he will vote no without hearing more from Ford.Conservative (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2018 (EDT)

Grassley is the one who must accommodate Flake and Corker. The issue is transparency, not the facts of the case. Flake, Corker, and Grassley need to make a Comey-esque type statement, "we have examined the evidence to our satisfaction and made an appropriate decision based on the facts..", presumption of innocence for example. That's why no other witnesses will be allowed. All that exists is the original anonymous WaPo article, Kavanaugh's denial, and the fact Feinstein didn't believe Blasely in July and never processed the original complaint, and now uses it in a politically motivated defamatory smear that ultimately harms Blasely. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:58, 17 September 2018 (EDT)

Feinstein's hometown rag - the S.F. Chronicle - agrees with me: "Feinstein's treatment of a more than 3-decade-old sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was unfair all around. It was unfair to Kavanaugh, unfair to his accuser and unfair to Feinstein's colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike" RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:19, 17 September 2018 (EDT)

Ha, ha, and more ha. The Washington Post knew about Ford's accusations from the beginning. As soon as they saw the letter, the Anita Hill case came to their minds. They knew what part they were supposed to play. No one involved thought the accusations required vetting. They understood it was a hit job on Kavanaugh -- and WaPo was more than happy to participate. PeterKa (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2018 (EDT)
Its another "media leak" strategy involving Democrats and WaPo. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:51, 17 September 2018 (EDT)
It appears Mrs. Ford's rape accusation may be the result of a "repressed memory" "uncovered" during therapy in 2012. Psychologists have varying opinions on the notion of repressed memories but the majority appear to have considerable skepticism.
On top of this, her memory is sketchy when it comes to the details surrounding the matter (location, etc.) given the alleged event took place 36 years ago.
In addition, this she may have animus towards Trump because she signed a petition amongst psychologists on the child separation issue for illegal immigrants.
The odds appear to favor Cavanaugh being confirmed.Conservative (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2018 (EDT)

Mark Judge was Kavanaugh's friend who allegedly witnessed the event. "[Mark] Judge’s 1997 memoir of his time at Georgetown Prep describes heavy drinking, at times to the point of blacking out. (It also features a cameo by a “Bart O’Kavanaugh,” who “puked in someone’s car the other night” and “passed out on his way back from a party.”)[27]

An Irish-American Catholic who drank to excess in his younger years. How implausible is that?!!! Ever been to a St. Patrick's Day parade? Ford alleges that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk.

I have no idea who is telling the truth. I do know that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and we have no real details at this point and the alleged event supposedly happened about 35 years ago (which is beyond the statute of limitations as the law recognizes that memories fade, etc.).Conservative (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2018 (EDT)

bla bla bla. Is there a point to repeating DNC talking points on the pages of CP? ignoring Feinstein's abuses? ignoring the fact Feinstein herself didn't consider the allegations credible in July? granting WaPo a degree of credibility and ignoring the Trump-Russia lies they printed at the behest of Strzok & Lisa Page? Will Blasley lie under oath surrounding a lie detector test she took in August? Why didn't she & Feinstein take the results to the FBI then? Who paid for it?
Seems you're focused on the wrong questions. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:12, 17 September 2018 (EDT)
A Kavanagh girlfriend in high school and a Kavanaugh girlfriend in college both said he was a responsible drinker and all around responsible guy.[28] Plus, Kavanaugh has the testimony of 65 women he worked with indicating he was a kind man and a gentlemen.
Second, I believe in the principle of gathering and examining the available evidence and not practicing the fallacy of exclusion. Engaging in the fallacy of exclusion leads to confirmation bias.
I am not sure what is going to happen here. Justice Thomas played the "high tech lynching" card and scared the Democrats. Kavanaugh has an excellent work record plus the testimony of many women saying is kind/gentlemanly. The odds are in Kavanaugh's favor, but I am not sure he will be confirmed.Conservative (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2018 (EDT)
It's a nothing burger. Kavanaugh will be confirmed, FBI meddling in the election exposed, and the WaPo echo chamber for DNC & deep state objectives further discredited. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:21, 18 September 2018 (EDT)
After the 1991 hearings, the Dems went through a recriminations period when they scolded each other for being too deferential to Thomas. Biden's avuncular chairman act did not go over well with the party faithful. This time around, we can expect all partisanship, all the time. In Dem world, it's just common sense that Clinton/Lewinsky was a "phony scandal" while Thomas is a sexual predator. PeterKa (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2018 (EDT)

I find it interesting that the attacks against Trump, Moore, and now Kavanaugh all came from WaPo. There are many MSM sources out there, so why is WaPo to go-to source for sexual assault allegations against conservative figures? --1990'sguy (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2018 (EDT)

Post internet, a lot of newspapers have probably trimmed back their investigative journalism, due to profitability. In addition, college journalism schools are now turning out poor quality graduates who often do not know American history, world history, etc. Furthermore, "Once among the “cash cows” of many campuses, journalism schools in recent years have experienced new challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified students."[29]
"when you think about independent, investigative journalism, we have seen kind of the death of that this past year.” - Conservative commentator Gayle Trotter on Fox News[30]
Investigative reporting cost money. Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon and the Washington Post, has a lot of money. Trump has been threating Amazon in terms of taxation on online sales.
In addition, see: The Washington Post to create rapid-response investigations team
Unfortunately, supporters of right-wing politics, have not invested much into investigative journalism. This is unfortunate as there is a lot of liberal/leftist corruption.
Last, in an age of Trump derangement syndrome, having a: hardcore anti-Trump news organization ;hardcore anti-Trump administration news organization and an anti-conservative news organization, is probably profitable and so Bezos may be making money via the Washington Post. In addition, I don't know how the Google news algorithm works (the post 2016 election Google employee meeting does not inspire confidence in Google news), but when you Google "Trump" of "Donald Trump", the Washington Post articles get high rankings which no doubt helps the profitability of The Washington Post. Conservative (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2018 (EDT)
Get focused and stop taking the bait. The FISA declassification exposes the circular echo chamber of collusion between the FBI and WaPo, etc with DNC-funded fake news to influence public opinion and elections. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:42, 18 September 2018 (EDT)
If WaPo peddled DNC/FBI trash, they could be peddling the Democrat activist Christine Blasely Ford's trash (she has appeared in anti-Trump/anti-Trump administration protests). Ford has not yet accepted her invitation to appear in public and answer senator's questions.Conservative (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2018 (EDT)
False rape accusations are supposedly around 2-10% of cases. Given the circumstances so far (her Democratic activism, the delay in accepting her invitation to publicly testify, WaPo being involved), the odds of Mrs. Ford giving a false sexual abuse accuse accusation is of a considerably higher magnitude.
It might even be a case of psychiatric quackery (recovered memories).Conservative (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2018 (EDT)
@User:Conservative: "I am not sure what is going to happen here" - next you'll be saying Trump is Putin's stooge cause you read it in the Washington Post. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:45, 18 September 2018 (EDT)

The reason I don't know what will happen is that I don't know if there will be Hill vs. Thomas type situation between Kavanaugh/Ford and how it will affect moderate Republican senators. The GOP has a thin margin to confirm Kavanaugh and it is possible that there will be zero Democrat defections on the vote.

There is a decent chance that Ford will be a no show in terms of a public hearing (but maybe it would be a private hearing if it takes place). Anita Hill did not have to face a strong right-wing online news empire and a social media mob and Ford seems to fear these two things. In addition, the country is more partisan now and Trump has emboldened right-wingers and Ford seems to fear these two things also. In addition, she is a professor and basically a nerd researcher. Professors and nerd researchers tend to be non-fighters. And her focus seems to be "nerd research" and these type of people tend to be introverted and not extraverted. There is also a decent chance the whole thing is a fraud and she fears cross-examination.Conservative (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2018 (EDT)

Headline: Antifa/MSM scam in Germany

The Bundestag investigating committee and prosecutors have determined Merkel's press office and the mainstream media lied and scammed the public, creating a fraud, public panic, and hoax with an Antifa video claiming German citizens were Nazis for engaging in peaceful protest. [31] RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:01, 16 September 2018 (EDT)

D-Day: What was the FBI's "insurance policy"?

Trump has finally issued a declassification order. Yes, declassification day (D-Day) has arrived. Hopefully, we will find out what the FBI's "insurance policy" was. I'm betting that this was all about Comey and the FBI pretending to be Republicans late in the campaign so that Trump would not want to fire them all. See "Trump to declassify the 'insurance policy' in the Strzok-Page text, Nunes says". PeterKa (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2018 (EDT)

The insurance policy is the Deep state coup and Trump-Russia conspiracy hoax, duh. What planet have you been on since election day 2016? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:54, 18 September 2018 (EDT)
This is a tweet from a James Comey parody account: "Please be patient while I look up an appropriate Bible verse for how screwed I am."[32] Someone replied with Luke 12:2-3: "Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops." PeterKa (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2018 (EDT)
Mueller didn't accept the deal Guiliani offered. Mueller insisted on taking down the No. 2 guy in the Trump campaign, Paul Manafort. OK. We'll go for the throat, too. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:01, 18 September 2018 (EDT)
Where it's all headed... RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:54, 18 September 2018 (EDT)

Classification crybabies

Let's say the 2nd 3rd Carter Page FISA renewal is said to be undeclassifiable, but no one buys it as a matter of common sense. Sen. Clinton recently said Donald Trump is carrying out a campaign against "the truth itself". Is it that big a stretch to suppose that Trump will then be accused of carrying out a campaign against "classification itself?". Q-anon, who sometimes tries to lead us to believe sinister things that seem unlikely, as noted here, has offered some guidance more factual than speculative for a change:

Executive Order 13526
Sec 1.7
"Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3) restrain competition; or
(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security."

VargasMilan (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2018 (EDT)

The declassification order relates to certain pages of the third renewal - the one Rosenstein signed - with false information. Rosenstein has thus far sworn under oath he was negligent in his duty. You're asking a hypothetical. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:58, 19 September 2018 (EDT)
Rosenstein's security clearance is currently suspended in the FISA abuse scandal. Declassificstion will likely lead to his removal from the Mueller investigation, coupled with Sessions unrecusing himself or the appointment of a person with integrity taking over the investigation. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:44, 19 September 2018 (EDT)