Last modified on 21 October 2019, at 00:56

Talk:Main Page

Return to "Main Page" page.

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

Who will win the Democrat presidential primary?

See also 2020 presidential election
Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee Who will win?
Chance of becoming
Democratic nominee
Candidate CA
ND
.
SO
RT
Home
state
End of
month
June
26
8:57
pm
EDT
End of
month
Mon-
day,
Jul.
29,
2019
End of
month
Mon-
day,
Aug.
26,
2019
Mon-
day,
Sep.
16,
2019
Mon-
day,
Sep.
23,
2019
Tues-
day,
Oct.
1,
2019
Wed-
nes-
Oct.
9,
2019
Mon-
day
Oct.
14,
2019
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE 28.5% 20.2% 23.6% 22.7% 23.0% 20.6% 17.5% 18.0%
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 1.6% 2.0% 1.8% 2.3% 0.5% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9%
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 11.1% 8.3% 6.1% 4.4% 4.6% 5.1% 6.2% 6.7%
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 2.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.0% 1.1% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2%
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 12.5% 27.4% 10.8% 7.4% 5.0% 4.3% 3.9% 2.6%
Rep. Beto O'Rourke O'R TX 4.0% 1.3% 0.5% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 0.7% 0.5%
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 11.2% 7.5% 13.4% 12.5% 9.3% 7.8% 5.0% 4.2%
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 15.9% 21.5% 31.5% 36.6% 40.8% 46.7% 50.1% 51.8%
Sec'y Hillary Clinton Cli NY 1.7% 1.5% 2.0% 3.4% 4.6% 5.7% 7.5% 5.8%
Andrew Yang Yan NY 5.5% 3.3% 4.0% 5.2% 4.8% 4.4% 4.4% 3.9%
Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee Who will win?
Twitter followers
Candidate CA
ND
.
SO
RT
Home
state
Accts
as of
June
29
New
accts
end of
July(30)
New
accts
Aug
26
New
accts
Sep
13
New
accts
Sep
16
New
accts
Oct
1
New
accts
Oct
16
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE   03.6M:1 +19,000 +64,000 +29,000 +8,000 +45,000 +98,000
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 04.4M:2 +28,000 +39,000 +9,000 +3,000 +9,000 +12,000
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 01.2M:2 +72,000 +101,000 +32,000 +48,000 +26,000 +30,000
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 00.6M:2 +34,000 +118,000 +20,000 +5,000 +27,000 +27,000
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 03.6M:2 +245,000 +119,000 +45,000 +11,000 +48,000 +61,000
Rep. Beto O'Rourke O'R TX 01.4M:1 +4,000 +116,000 +30,000 +14,000 +24,000 +22,000
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 17.8M:2 +134,000 +264,000 +114,000 +22,000 +93,000 +140,000
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 07.8M:2 +225,000 +273,000 +110,000 +27,000 +137,000 +182,000
Sec'y Hillary Clinton Cli NY +316,000 +115,000 +22,000 +123,000 +152,000
Andrew Yang Yan NY 00.5M:1 +97,000 +22,000 +48,000 +51,000

We are at a pivotal moment for Black voters

Everyone agrees Democrats cannot win the presidency without Black voters. This almost guarantees Harris' nomination. Blacks at this moment are waking up to the fact that everything they have ben told about Biden by white Democrats, trusted Black Democrats, the media, and the schools, during Obama's presidency and for the previous 50 years, is a bald face lie. Their trust in the party is contingent on them being in control now, since the election of Obama, even though many are not particularly enamored to Obama, especially since Biden's racism is now exposed. Another consequence is a rethinking of all the lies Democrats, schools, and media have told about Republicans for a little more than 50 years.

This is largely a discussion going on among Blacks themselves now. No longer will the automatic reaction to a Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Candace Owens or Kanye West be, "Oh, that's just another Uncle Tom;" They will look at white liberals with a jaundiced eye (the way they look at Sanders, Hillary, or Warren) even more suspiciously than they have in the past. There will be a legitimate debate among Blacks whether slave reparations is just tossing them another bone to ride the back of the buss by house negroes such as Cory Booker, who's not doing so well. Harris's nomination is almost guaranteed right now - just as matter of keeping the Democrat party together - complete with the "Republicans are racists" mantra up to election day November 2020. But truth is, more and more Blacks daily are waking to the fact that this is a lie, and the only hope Black Democrats and their white liberal cracker allies, who they increasingly are disgusted with, have to win.

Even if Harris were to win, don't be fooled by the alleged pride Blacks have in her. Many, many of them have little trust in her and don't feel Harris represents their interests or concerns anymore than Bathroom Barry did. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:18, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

Blacks are realizing even Obama lied to them. And Obama's failure to speak out now in defense of Biden - condemning Harris for an opportunistic, unjust attack - is proof of this. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:24, 9 July 2019 (EDT)

A recent Wall Street Journal poll says the far left (whites) are 50% of the Democrat base, while moderates (minorities) are 40%. With Biden mortally wounded by the Biden-Ukraine scandal (the only way to take Trump down by impeachment is to take Biden down, as well, which the dominant far left seems intent on doing), the question remains is Who will blacks gravitate to? Gabbard, a moderate woman of color, seems most likely. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:51, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
Warren is now at the crossroads. The Blacksphere's reaction puts it thusly:
Warren announced that she would look at failed gubernatorial candidate and scandal-laden Andrew Gillum as a potential VP. I consider this (1) pandering, and (2) the remake of Mandingo.
I get it. A black man can be Warren’s #2, even with all his “angry black man toxic masculinity”. Let’s see how the #MeToo movement sees this. As for black men, understand Warren’s message: you will serve your white master’s woman.
Blacks are very adept at coalition building and coalition politics, much more so than their racist, radical, white liberal allies who have done nothing but betray and burn them in the past.
So let's see how Blacks react to Warren bringing in more illegal immigrants that Blacks get pay for their healthcare, versus Trump who created job opportunities for them by tightening the screws on immigration. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:39, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

Proportional representation and the Democratic nomination

I had assumed that Sanders would drop out and endorse Warren at some point, but this article argues that the proportional representation system used by the Democratic Party makes that less likely. Under the current rules, a candidate keeps earning delegates as long as he is getting at least 15 percent of the vote. In other words, Biden, Sanders, and Warren can all go to the convention and horse trade once they get there. Despite the 2016 reforms, the superdelegates would loom larger than ever. After so many rounds of voting reform, the Dems may find themselves with a 19th-century-style brokered convention. Many Warren and Sanders supporters give Biden as their second choice. So if either of them were to drop out during the primaries, Biden's chances would improve. PeterKa (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2019 (EDT)

It's all about money right now. Let's look at three candidates:
  • Kamala Harris has enough reserve funds to make it through the opening primaries, with staff organizations in those states. However, Kamala's big money donors are bailing. She's seen as another Beto O'Rourke, well funded but basically incapable of jumpstarting her campaign. Her decision now is, Do I stay in the race and continue getting embarrassed, or drop out and convert the funds over to my next Senate campaign committee? She's running for VP anyway.
  • Pete Buttigieg, enjoys the exact opposite of Kamala. He's well funded and the donations are increasing. So all the money gets poured into building campaign organizations in early primary states.
  • Tulsi Gabbard: Has enough money to make it to New Hampshire (February 2, 2020?). All her money is going into New Hampshire, where she is doing well in polls. If she does well there on primary day, say into the top three, the money can pour in real fast. Millions can pour in overnight.

Sanders doesn't expect to be the nominee. He's running to shape the agenda and narrative, and make sure whoever it will be isn't another so-called centrist.

So you have Biden (the supposed centrist) and Warren (Hillary in Sanders clothing), and a third younger contender whom Millenials are expected to gravitate to come the early primaries, likely Buttigieg or Gabbard. Sanders knows Warren is a fraud, so he's not ready to back out. Buttigieg more resembles the Sanders platform. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:23, 21 September 2019 (EDT)

Andrew Yang should be counted in this group with appeal to Millenials, Gabbard, Buttigieg and Yang. One or two of these could make the Place and Show positions behind Warren (Biden, Sanders, Harris, and Booker all may done as of today). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:26, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

After the recent allegations against Kavanaugh, I find myself adopting a conspiratorial mindset. For the Dems as a party, dragging out the Kavanaugh affair makes no sense. Kavanaugh was the principle author of the Starr report and my pet theory is that the Clintons are determined to get back at him. Think of Jay Leno, Norm McDonald, or Don Imus. They were all huge in their day, but none of them had what it took to fend off a Clinton takedown. In other words, Bernie, you're next. Isn't it odd that only three Democrats ran for president in 2016, even though there was a vacancy that year? The Clinton smear machine is headed by Neera Tanden. The media is always running stories about Warren moving up and overtaking Bernie or someone else even though the RCP average swings back and forth. From a Republican point of view, the Indian wannabe is certainly the Dem who looks the easiest to beat. The liberal media is oddly unconcerned about Warren's general election chances. Instead, they say we should vote for her because of her numerous "programs." It's such an insincere and unconvincing line that it sounds a bit like they've been taken hostage. PeterKa (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Peter, are you counting Bernie? To this day on his Twitter page he brags about being an "independent". VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 11:08, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Dragging out the Kavanaugh allegation is easy: it's based on the Democrat theory that voters are stupid and believe any line of crap CNN feeds them. The DNC & CNN's ability to bring out mobs into the street feeds into this echo chamber.
The parallel here is when the "Hard hats" started beating up on anti-war protesters in 1972 (Hard hats = the not-so Silent Majority). Some people reckon the Proud Boys to the Hard Hats, but it's a bit of stretch; the Hard Hats were construction workers who beat up hippies on their lunch break, whereas the Proud Boys are moreless seen as vigilante troublemakers. In many ways, the situation seems more volatile today than in 1972, which was the most violent period of Americans fighting Americans since the Civil War. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:36, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
I conceive Antifa to be in the business of casting "hecklers' vetos". "Sorry, the situation's gotten too volatile. We're going to have to cancel the event." VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 16:48, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
The Brits don't have access to RobS's knowledge, but they reckon the odds of Warren becoming the nominee to be almost as large as Harris's, Sanders' and Biden's combined. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 11:30, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
You should read this: Britons Still Betting On Hillary Clinton to Win the Democratic Nomination; it shows the wide gulf in understanding between US & UK politics. Hillary;s goose is cooked. even if she wanted to run, it would only divide the party. Brits evidently do not understand the role of money in US politics; it costs over $1 billion to run for president; there's only 400 days remaining. Sh'e have to average $2,500,000 a day in fundraising now to make it, and she's not even trying.
When the FEC filings come out for the Third Quarter ending September 30, you'll see Buttigieg increasing his average, Booker and Harris decreasing, which is the death knell.
The Sarah Palin boom was based on her fundraising ability. Trump rallies are fundraising affairs. The minute the cost of renting a venue to make an appearance exceeds the funds raised, the public appearances cease.
Americans make the same mistake, they confuse media hype and popularity with electability. Most of the money comes from "big money" donors who bet on a winner, but have been burned three times now in the past three years - Hillary, Beto, and Kamala. This is what sets Trump apart - he is not owned by "big money" donors, and threatens to expose and upset the whole corrupt system. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:56, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
It's Warren's to loose right now. The New Hampshire primary will be the first test of the Millenial Generation - the majority age group now - political strength, or will the Brezhnev, Andropov's, and Chernenko's remain in control of the Democrat Politburo.
It may be a bit early to invoke Keith Olbermann's immortal words. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:22, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Did you mean plurality age-group? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 17:19, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Yes, that's right. Here's a Pew Report (can't find the updated one that confirms this). It took a long time for boomers to wrest control from the World War II generation (Papa Bush '92, Dole '96), but there is a more pronounced age resentment every day, or "generation gap" as we used to call it. Climate change vs. nuclear proliferation being the dividing line between voter priorities based on age. So what's the response to this? Medicare for All. Millennials feel no obligation to their seniors, whom they regard as having destroyed the planet, and seniors shouldn't get any special privileges like Medicare.
This is the weakness of the Medicare for All argument: Seniors, with an 85% voter participation rate, understand Medicare for All cuts into their benefits (i.e. healthcare rationing). it's not fair they paid for it all their working lives, only to have younger people get a free ride at their expense when seniors no longer have the ability to work. Kamala Harris got body slammed by an 80 year old lady in a wheelchair on this question. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:23, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Most of those born between 1946 to 1952 or so are already getting Medicare by virtue of the fact that they've already retired. If there's a privilege to be gotten, it would be by Boomers who simply haven't retired yet. Who's going to pass a law to take away Medicare from the older group so as to treat all Boomers equally as far as fairly distributing the punishment of the crimes for which they're blamed? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 00:50, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
Look, here's the facts of life: There is no way you will convince any sizable percentage of voters 62+, with a participation rate of 85%, consisting of 68 million people (68 x .85 = 57.8 million voters), that Medicare for All will not reduce the quality of the healthcare coverage they paid for, for 40 years, to qualify for. Not happening. The Kamala Harris BS answer, "We're gonna pay for it", won't fly. That crap works with stupid whippersnapper communist Democrat voting punks, but not for a person who's lived their whole life witnessing that kind of communist junk.
Compare 58.7 million to Hillary's 65 million vote tally and Trump's 62 million. And remember, this is the generation that voted for Social Security reform for 40 years, and was always shot down by "the third rail" of politics. It's an insult to Seniors' intelligence to try and even discuss this communist punk nonsense with them. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:52, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

Week of Sept. 23

Warren and Yang appear as the two strongest. Sanders is melting away. Biden's support is a "wait and see" approach of moderate, primarily black voters who withstood criticisms of Obama, so this isn't difficult for them, but nowhere near as passionate or emotional. It still signifies the lack of minority support for Warren and others. Yang owes his growing success to Trump who blazed the trail for a businessman who never held elected office.

Warren most importantly represents a healing of the wounds and divisions from the 2016 Hillary/Bernie contest, which will be complete when Bernie drops out. Blacks need to speak up now to regain a leadership role; sticking with a mortally wounded candidate like Biden means DNC leadership has effectively "put them back in their place" after the Obama fiasco. Booker, Harris and Beto are toast. Gabbard is determined to fight despite the media blackout.

And Buttigieg. What can I say? His support and money appears to be growing, but he carries more baggage than Yang. Only blacks could save him in the long run, which isn't likely. This particular segment of psychotic Democrats will ultimately support any line of crap Democrat leadership comes up with eventually, so no tears will be shed when he meets his ultimate destiny. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:36, 24 September 2019 (EDT)

The comedians took Electable Joe to task for the story of his poolside showdown with Corn Pop, He's now 7 points ahead of Warren in the RCP average as opposed to 11 points pre-Corn Pop. I thought the video of Biden struggling to remember Obama's name was even funnier than the image of him chasing a gang member with a pool chain, but that hasn't gone mainstream yet. Biden's support has actually been pretty steady. It's Warren whose support goes up and down. She hasn't been doing anything exciting lately, so I have to wonder why. In contrast, who can keep up with all the Biden news? I didn't even get to Hunter Biden's narrow escape from prosecutor Shokin in Ukraine or the disturbing image of Joe's eye going bloody on stage. PeterKa (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
Warren, Yang, and Buttigieg in that order come February. Should impeachment come to a floor vote, it would be a test of Gabbard's strength. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:41, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
FiveThirtyEight has collected polls that suggest that Warren is everyone's second choice. So as the minor candidates drop out, I expect her to gain. In the last few days, the liberal establishment has turned on Biden, judging from the Corn Pop and Ukraine episodes. An even better indication of establishment thinking is the raft of news stories that claim that Warren has already surged past Biden. (We have one of these stories on MPR.) The RCP averages don't support this claim. My thinking is that the "left-wing lane" in Democratic Party is somewhat larger than Biden's moderate lane. Biden's percentage of the vote will of course rise as the minor candidate drop out. But his current 28 percent could be pretty close to his top. In short, I think Warren will get it in the end, albeit at a more stately pace than the impatient media is demanding. PeterKa (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

A 2fer

Looks like we got a Two-fer this week - Biden and Sanders got knocked out of the race. Looks like next year may be the Millenials year; time to start scrutinizing Yang, Buttigieg, and Booker closer, in that order. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:10, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

It's a five-way tie for third place: Buttigieg, Sanders, Yang, Harris, Clinton. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 20:17, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Before Sanders heart attack and Biden's trial in the U.S. Senate when Dems try to impeach Trump. This would be the perfect time for a Millenial moderate to emerge, but there are none running. Harris is toast. Booker has a shot this very moment, now or never.
If Clinton entered the fray - either as a candidate or through another backdoor deal, you would see such a mass exodus from the democrat party it would look like an immigrant caravan. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:45, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Thank you, you've provided a lot of food for thought for what I am sure is a grateful conservative community. FYI It's been after ten pm in the U.K. for three hours, but some of them are still awake and include Sanders in the tie. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 21:04, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Bernie could recover in days if it was merely one stent and he had angina and not a heart attack. However, the situation could put a cap on future supporters willing to embrace his candidacy because in politics "perception is reality" is often the case.Wikignome72 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
He's done. He knows it. He can't withstand the rigors of office, let alone campaigning. The warranty has expired. Convention delegates would have a hard time voting for him. In a field of 25, they can't find an alternative to a guy who slipped from 19% to 12%? And Democrats trust his judgement for a successor when they have the opportunity to vote themselves.
The good news is, this put Warren over 50%, unless the Millenial generation stands up now and says enough of this insanity. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:31, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

Bernie will stay in the race until the bitter end. Many of his supporters are very loyal too.

"So, how long does it take to recover after having a stent. The recovery time after having a stent or angioplasty is fast and patients are discharged from the hospital in usually 12-24 hours after the removal of the catheter. In most cases, patients can return to work within a few days to a week after the procedure but never miss on the doctor’s advice on the same."[1].Wikignome72 (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

I think you've counted out Biden too early. Many have experienced his hands-on approach to governance and are the ones moved to admit he has a good feel for the American people. As a candidate he's a little touchy, but one who's known for not hiding his agenda but opening himself up to his team to truly reveal himself as he is. And if you think this is stupid, remember this is the "PG" version. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 07:03, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
He is starting to get tainted by scandal like Hillary. If he campaigns too late in the day, he makes gaffes. Maybe you are right though. Democratic voters may not care too much about scandal and they may want a semi-muddled and gaffe prone candidate who is a more moderate candidate than the lefty alternatives.Wikignome72 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
This is a replay of 2007-2008; you will recall Hillary was "inevitable" in 2007. Then a young upstart nobody ever heard of, Barack Obama, smoked her in Iowa. The scenario is the same: voters were tired of the old regulars and want fresh blood. Booker fits the mold of the Second Coming of the >Messiah Obama. Don't neglect the cultic nature of Democrats over policy positions.
Booker was supposed to fold 3 days ago after the FEC filing deadline; he hasn't yet. Watch to see if Biden and Sanders donors are bailing for Warren, or somebody else. Harris's big money California (Hollywood & Silicon Valley) donors are already bailing (Beto's Hollywood donors jumped ship for Harris months ago). They don't like Gabbard. That leaves Booker, Buttboy, and Yang, in that order at this moment.
Booker should be the obvious choice - less baggage and more DC experience. Democrats aren't ready to follow the Trump precedent and nominate somebody like Yang who never held elective office - that's a prime source of objection to Trump. Trump beats Yang with the experience qualifier among moderate unaffiliated voters. Yang they can paint as "too far left" making Booker appear "centrist". The hicktown mayor Buttigieg also lacks experience, is too controversial, and carries too much baggage. Midwesterners are always at a disadvantage in presidential contests. It increasingly looks like a Warren-Booker contest, with Warren being the oldtime boomer establishment candidate, and Booker being a GenX upstart more appealing to centrists, moderates, and millenials. Gabbard could partner with Weld or Jesse Ventura to lead a Third Party protest vote.
Oh, and remember Bloomberg said he might get back in if Biden folds? He's thinking about it again (meaning he's less than enthusiastic about "the people's choice" Warren). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:52, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
Trying to predict what the Democrats will do is like predicting what a mad man will do next or predicting where a tornado will strike next. There are: competing factions, people with muddled and contradictory thinking and the list goes on.Wikignome72 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
I compared Peter's description of Trump as unpredictable to Henry Adams' description of Napoleon towards Thomas Jefferson here. Those two were much more calculating than the Democratic mob. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 07:07, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Follow the money, not the polls. I've laid out the marketing strategy of Democrat moneymasters in a general election - how to present contrasts with Trump. If age were to be an issue, it'll be put on Trump. Warren has age going against her, and Hillary is rattling her cage now, too. Booker could be the Second, young, clean, African American who speaks English, according to Biden and Harry Reid.
I have a DSA source in San Diego who first alerted me to Booker about 4 years ago, and his and theirs' presidential ambitions with him as an alternative to Hillary and as the Second Coming of Obama (oddly, California radicals have never been enamored to Harris, whose electoral strategy has been to scapegoat 'poor kids' to make herself appear 'centrist' and appealing to California whites). After reading about Booker, I can see why Democratic Socialists and regular Democrats were so excited about him. Booker even has Executive branch experience as a mayor, which Obama did not. In some ways he's smarter than Obama. He just needs to tap into those donor sources who propelled Obama over the aged and decrepit Hillary in 2008, but the money is spread too thin right now among so many candidates. They need to pull together. First they backed Beto. Then Harris. Now they are re-assessing again. But they want a younger candidate, in the mold of JFK, Carter, Clinton, and Obama, who all were at least 10 years younger than their GOP opponent.
Democrats always take youth over experience, Hillary being the exception. They learned from that disaster.
Look at it regionally, as well. Warren, Biden, Sanders, and Booker all hail from the Northeastern radius of about 150 miles. All are popular and respected among their constituents. It's been a competition for rich donors in the Northeastern corridor. The West Coast Hollywood/Silicon Valley donors are 0-2 backing Beto and Harris. They will now put their money on one of the four East Coast liberals. Biden and Sanders are toast. Warren has pee-off the local Wall Street gang. Booker is the obvious choice. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:58, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
An Obama comeback. I can just picture Booker saying: "They're still bitterly clinging to their guns, gods, money and jobs" again. If anything, Obama will have prevented Booker from winning the presidency, unless he wants to make it his full-time job and then maybe ride to the White House on a wave of Obama nostalgia in sixteen years. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 17:49, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Here's Harris summoning the departed spirit of Barack Obama. Translation: "Voters are to stupid to care about issues. They vote on empty slogans." Harris's problem here was, while Biden addressed a serious constitutional issue, Harris appeared drunk. She was reminding him she's available for the VP slot to rally black voters on the trail, after calling him a racist. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:04, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Lol, I asked you if you thought that were possible back on August 6. Took you long enough. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 21:00, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
I had written somewhere earlier, that she got into the race feeling she would get either the one or two spot by default as being black and Obama's heir. When that became obvious, it pretty well doomed her chances at #1 (proven again in the above clip). She's still in the running as #2, but now brings nothing to the table. California will go Democrat with or without her, and everyone knows now she's not really black. Granted, she has more black blood than Warren has Indian, but her "blackness" is more by cultural appropriation than experience.
Blacks fell for this line a rot before with that halfbreed Obama who did nothing for them. Sure, most still take pride in having a black president, but overall there's a feeling of disappointment. He wasn't one of them, and still isn't. Blacks know in their hearts that a vote for Harris or Obama is inherently an anti-white vote, not on the merits of the candidate. And they're ashamed of this. It's always been more of a feeling of "payback time" rather than justice. Obama's legacy is burning down their communities in senseless race riots, and setting back race relations decades. IMO, Booker knows this. Blacks want justice. Neither Harris or Obama ever stood for justice or equality, just more exploitation by white liberal Democrats. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:26, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
I had a dog that I walked around the block, and her usual walkers would never take her down the block over a bridge and then along a kink in the road. She had started pulling that way though over a period of months if not years.
One day I thought I'd give her a treat and let her walk wherever she'd like. At first she didn't know what to do, but she kind of got the hang of the fact that she needed to make a choice. She would also pull and pull when she started her walk, because she wanted to get to the unfamiliar scents further out as quickly as possible, so I made a point of running that day to keep with her and to stop when she stopped.
Well, you can probably guess what happened. She came to that point in her walk, and she turned and ran and ran across the bridge and along that bend in the road as I kept up. (I was pretty young, so I didn't look too ridiculous.)
When we got to the stop sign, we saw a swan on the neighbor's yard, and I unleashed her so she could charge the swan. She had often been tormented by ducks who had flown into the air or the water before she could approach and give them the sniff test seal of approval. I didn't worry about the swan; if our dog had decided she needed to bite someone she'd probably open her mouth and then be confused and not know what to do. This swan flew straight up, then down the street. The swan wasn't homeless; there were miles of roads that surrounded a lake and the swan picked a road parallel to the edge of the lake. But I have to admit I'd never seen a swan travel down the street by flying; it was finally a victory for the dog against the waterfowl.
She thought this intersection was now going to be a good place to hang out with that happy memory associated with it, but I coaxed her turn back, but still letting her lead.
Once we crossed the bridge back to her block, she suddenly turned around and ran all the way back to a few meters behind the stop sign, with me closely following behind. Maybe you can understand why she did this. I thought it was because she figured she had the power to go wherever she wanted but sensed that the power was a temporary granting of her wishes. So the road hadn't changed any, but she was just as happy to go there a second time.
I think another reason was that the event was too perfect, and in the back of her mind wondered if I had caused what happened just to get her to stop pulling to go over the bridge when she got to that place around the block on her walk so I'd never have to take her across there again.
I think a third reason was that she felt like a human would feel if they had found a secret corridor and room in the house that they had lived in a long time without noticing.
But I think the best reason is that she wanted to see if she could count on me to take her wishes seriously if she ever felt she needed to break away from the routine of walking around the block if there were a dog-sized emergent situation, even if she couldn't explain it (an urge to cross the bridge), it seemed arbitrary (going back to the same place), or it looked like a play of the imagination (running back instead of walking).
Maybe blacks, who were made in God's image, voted for a candidate not the best in conventional governance, but whose presence acted to reveal, from the motive of having a lingering apprehension, whether the response to the black civil rights movement was just lip service, or whether blacks would be entrusted with real political power. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 02:43, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
Great analogy. Obama presented a moral dilemma for blacks in 2008, 2012, and now: Is a vote for Obama purely motivated by racism and pride, everything they abhor and in conflict with their sense of justice? I have enough confidence in the moral values and good practical sense of most of my fellow African American Christian brothers and sisters that they will admit, "yes". It doesn't matter if they admit it out loud, only to their own conscience. RobSDe Plorabus Unum
Thank you! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:54, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

Week of Oct. 9

Warren's surge in the twitter following is a default setting and bandwagon effect after the demise of Biden and Sanders, however her steady, uninterrupted, upward trend in other polling is impressive. Sanders surge is a "sympathy vote". Buttigieg has taken a dump in Twitter followers, despite beating Biden in fundraising. Yang can't seem to gain traction. In a Hillary/Biden matchup, Hillary would bloody his other eye and kick him in the groin. A Hillary/Warren cat fight is interesting to contemplate; we'd find out just how much of down and dirty fighter Warren really is. Personally I think Hillary would mall her the way she malled Sanders, but I think forcing democrats to even contemplate a Hillary/Warren contest would create such an anti-Hillary backlash that she couldn't survive. Even blacks would flock to Warren. It maybe Warren's only hope to get blacks on board and solidify their support. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:15, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

To thumbnail it: Biden & Sanders fundraising efforts will dry up in the fourth quarter, make them fight for a showing in early primary states. Warren likely will pick up Sanders financial backers, but her anti-Wall Street rhetoric will keep Biden money backers away. Her challenge is to pick up Biden's black supporters, who see the duplicity of her robbing affirmative action programs to promote her herself. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:57, 11 October 2019 (EDT)

Oct. 14

The only candidate who is "gaining strength" is Buttigieg, albeit pathetically. Warren's lead is slowing, and is by default. Sanders, Yang, and Harris are giving ground. Biden's "bounce back" of half a point is an anti-Trump, pro-impeachment sentiment, reflecting both Biden's weakness and a lack of focus among the pro-impeachment crowd.

All in all, 2020 is shaping up to be a Nixon/McGovern replay, only the misuse of government agencies for illegal political spying is on the Democrat side this go-round. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:43, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

Tonite will be Booty-judge's moment; if he can't pick up the ball and run with it in such a weak field, he's probably headed for the showers sooner or later. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:31, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

We gave up on impeachment as "he's not worth it" long ago, but impeachment is on the table

Biden and Ukraine

How did Hunter Biden get a $50,000 a month job at a Ukrainian natural gas company, despite his lack of energy-related experience or expertise?[2] Was this job offer in any way related to the fact that his dad was supervising American policy toward Ukraine at this time? Not only does the mainstream media think that such questions are out of bounds, they demand that Trump be impeached for asking the government of Ukraine to investigate them. To anyone who can remember the 2016 campaign, the idea that this type of request is taboo strains credulity. Andrew Napolitano reported that the Obama administration asked the British to investigate Trump. The Brits got Napolitano fired from Fox News for this. That's hardly the reaction you would expect if the original report was simply in error. Napolitano was reinstated a few months later, and he has never retracted his claims. Under the "Five Eyes" intelligence cooperation program, the type of cooperation Napolitano was describing should be routine.
According to this Guardian story, the British started passing intelligence about Trump to the U.S. in "late 2015." The article doesn't admit that the U.S. requested anything, but this is around the time that Dem leaders started worrying about Trump as a presidential candidate. Either way, it undermines the Mueller Report's claim that the investigation of Trump started with Papadopoulos and Mifsud.
The Five Eyes program makes it all too easy for a president to evade laws against domestic spying. According to Napolitano's original report: “So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this." The U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have access to the Five Eyes database. All they have to do is ask one of the other nations in the alliance to access the database on their behalf and it becomes international intelligence rather than domestic spying. PeterKa (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

See Biden-Ukraine collusion scandal. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:54, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
As the Romans would say, Cui bono, who gains? The answer is Warren, who can leverage this scandal against both Biden and Trump. Ukraine is far from the only country that paid off Biden by making a sweetheart deal with one his sons. The dam has been breached and there is a reservoir of Biden corruption ready to pour out. Real whistleblowers provide first-hand evidence of irregularities. The whistleblower system is not supposed to allow partisan hacks to anonymously dish on the president. This "whistleblower" is obviously connected. If so, he represents the Deep State and he is telling Biden, "Take a hint, buddy."
This incident reminds me of another example of Obamunist skullduggery: The leak of Clinton's irregular email setup to the New York Times by Obama aide Valerie Jarrett. I assume that this hit was intended to take Hillary out of the 2016 race and make Warren the nominee. PeterKa (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
They fake news media has it exactly backwards: The government of Ukraine has been trying to get in touch with the U.S. government for several years to expose the pressure that the Obama administration, and the Clinton campaign, put on the government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 elections. Ukrainian officials have been denied entry visas by the Kiev embassy to visit the United States. An attorney was hired to hand deliver the documentary evidence to the US Justice Department in New York. The evidence was never relayed to Washington.
The new Ukrainian presidential administration took the non-response from their overtures as a sign of a diplomatic crisis - that the US was very angry with the government of Ukraine for colluding with Obama and Hillary to interfere in the 2016 election. Eventually, the U.S. State Department asked Rudy Giuliani to act as an emissary, respond to their overtures, and meet with Ukrainian officials.
When phone call was made, the supposed "whistleblower" was unaware of the background. The alleged "whistleblower" heard of the call by hearsay.
The current IC inspector general is up to his eyeballs in the FISA abuse scandal, as well, having served as chief legal counsel for John Carlin and Mary McCord (DOJ) when the Carter Page FISA application was used to hoax the FISA court. His name in Michael Atkinson, and it was Atkinson who granted "whistleblower" status to a non-witness by hearsay evidence.
We will know more details when the FISA abuse report comes, if Atkinson's name is redacted. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:08, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
The Democrats' accusations against Trump are projection. The Dems have been applying screws to the Ukrainians for a long time. Manafort was forced to resign from the Trump campaign because of material released by a Ukrainian prosecutor. The timing was so convenient for the Dems that it is hard to imagine how this could have happened without White House pressure. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has openly bragged of bullying Ukraine out of cooperating with Trump. This is no doubt why Trump's pestering of Zelensky went nowhere. See "Let's get real: Democrats were first to enlist Ukraine in US elections." PeterKa (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
The argument in defense of Biden is, "Well, people all over the world were complaining about the prosecutor" Well, yah. Soros employs people all over the world with business dealings in Ukraine. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:25, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

Trump to Ukraine president: "I would like you to do us a favor, though..."

A quote for the ages, right there. MAGA! x JohnZ (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

So 'splain to me the difference in nuance between "I'd like you to do us a favor" and "fire that SOB or else"? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:34, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Elizabeth Warren is closing the gap. And the frequently, barely coherent and gaffe prone Sleepy Joe Biden would be ripped to sheds in a debate with Trump. Furthermore, he could not deal with the rigor of full blow presidential campaign in full swing and some of his supporters/advisors suggested not having him speak later in the day when he is more gaffe prone.
Biden is so old news.
And don't forget that Hillary Clinton first brought up the Ukraine/Biden situation to scare Biden out of the race.Wikignome72 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Trump to Ukraine President: "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible."
JohnZ, did you see Robert Mueller during the recent public hearing? Deny that Mueller was incompetent and lose all credibility!Wikignome72 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." - King Solomon, Proverbs 25:2Wikignome72 (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Mueller looked old and tired, for sure. What's your point?
Trump & Rudy have already admitted the substance of this (asking Zelensky for an investigation into Biden). That's impeachable. It's now simply a case of trying to persuade people their motives were pure, and impeachment would therefore be disproportionate.
I obviously wish them the very best of luck with that. JohnZ (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
I don't think you have a clue what your talking about. Rooting out international criminal conspiracies is what both men, and the new Ukrainian parliament, were elected to do. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:10, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
A bunch of Western governments and NGOs had been calling for Shokin's head, and it had nothing to do with Hunter Biden being on the board of Burisma. I'm sure that won't dissuade you from producing thousands of words of nonsense to the contrary, though. JohnZ (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
See above. A bunch of Soros stooges called for Shokin's head, of course.
Wait, wait, wait.....Isn't calling for the firing of a prosecutor obstruction of justice? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:29, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
This guff only flies in the right-wing fever swamps, Rob. Most GOP senators, for all their faults, still have at least one foot in the real world. JohnZ (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
You may be confused from the reporting of events. The first investigation of Trump was to investigate collusion. But collusion is not illegal. So the purpose of the investigation must not have been collusion, but election irregularities and possible election crimes, connected with the collusion.
It was called a "collusion investigation", but we can't prevent news networks from describing it that way. Anyway the Mueller Report was forced to conclude there weren't even any collusion to begin with, much less surrounding criminality.
Now Trump is colluding with the President of the Ukraine. But yet again, collusion isn't illegal. So what are the Democrats going to do? Say we want a second investigation? All the circumstances that might have been illegal surrounding the non-existent collusion have already been investigated.
They've made it so Trump is free to collude all he wants, and even on the surface, we won't hear of a second trial because Democrats have so tarnished the name of collusion that Trump had to sit on his hands throughout the investigation even if there were an opportunity to make use of our allies' support or intelligence in that way.
Now that it was proven to be a fake inquiry [no evidence of collusion to begin with], the rest of us reckon he feels the need to make up for lost time, having for two years lost that particular tool of managing foreign affairs, which is the President's duty. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 12:40, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
You're leaving out some facts; the current chief prosecutor in Ukraine is colluding with AG Barr and John Durham investigating Crowdstrike, who are in possession of the DNC servers allegedly hacked by Putin. Zelenskyy said, "First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:01, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Is the prosecutor the same one whom Biden extorted the Ukraine government into firing? I hope so (payback time!). Of course, if the ongoing collusion is no longer secret, it's doubtful if it be collusion any longer. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 14:57, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
I don't know; but it appears the Barr/Durham team is in contact with the new Ukrainian administration (we'll have to wait for Hunter Biden's extradition request, I guess).
There are two elements Barr/Durham are investigating to find the original probable cause to begin Crossfire Hurricane:
  1. the status of Joseph Mifsud, and
  2. the evidence Crowdstrike claimed to have alleging Russian hacking of the DNC.
CrowdStrike itself has extensive Ukrainian connections - it was founded by a Ukrainian and contracts with the Ukrainian military. CrowdStrike is also an FBI contractor - so there is your foreign collusion right there. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:49, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
Just to clarify, when I say collusion isn't illegal, I mean collusion per se. Different actions where collusion plays a part may be unlawful. Some were saying, but really only speculationg, Trump's conversation with the president of Ukraine involved a quid pro quo where information about the Bidens was sought in exchange for maintaining current foreign policy towards Ukraine.
Secretly moving to discontinue U.S. aid by the president to Ukraine would be an attempt to thwart U.S. policy, but the transcript of the phone call where it supposedly happened put the lie to that, as did the public remarks of the Ukrainian president. But no such explanation can be offered for Joe Biden's public admission many years back that he extorted Ukraine to remove a prosecutor from legally pursuing his son. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 15:39, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
  • maintaining current foreign policy towards Ukraine.
The United States does not support corrupt regimes. Judging from the context, Trump "faithfully executing the laws of the United States." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:43, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
Yes, but diplomatic relations are being maintained, like with Egypt, in hope for a change (sometimes in increments). VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 07:27, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

JohnZ, you wrote: "Mueller looked old and tired, for sure. What's your point?"

I clearly and strongly implied Mueller looked incompetent during the hearing. Being a secular leftist, it appears your bar is so exceedingly low for competence, that Mueller easily cleared it!Wikignome72 (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

Conservapedia and it ranking for the Google search: "Ukraine collusion"

CP is an authoritative source on this subject, #9 on Google - Ahead of the New York Times and Wikipedia. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:13, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Wow! Go Rob! Ranking for Biden's age was a Pickett's charge, due to very stiff competition and I never should have attempted it. Oh, well. You win some. You lose some. I should have remembered Sun Tzu (Attack weakness and avoid strength).Wikignome72 (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
You see again the importance of early placement in keyword titling. I'd encourage you to begin a page on reorientation therapy with external links if you can imagine the keywords taking shape 6 months or two years down the road. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:37, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
You were insightful about this matter. I think it is because the early web article gathers more inbound links plus mentions on the internet. Wikignome72 (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
It wouldn't surprise me if Google "grandfathers" in, say, the top 20 or 50 to a keyword term, and after that there's competition for rankings. In the case of "Ukrainian collusion", 2 million results were added in the last 24 hours, up from 10 million to 12 million. CP bounces around between #9 and #11, but holds pretty steady at #9 or #10. Today, for a few hours, BBC knocked it down to #11, but its back to #10 now. Lawfareblog, which is leading the Deep State coup 2.0 charge with its ridiculous, definitive, 'Trump-Ukraine conspiracy hoax timeline', was up to #2 or #3 for a few hours, but is back down behind CP right now. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:32, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
Update: there are now 23 million results and CP has fallen back to #13. It is #1 on DuckDuckGo. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:57, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
Update: There are now 42 million results and CP has fallen back to #15; I need one of the SEO checkers to tweak the page. Anybody got a link ? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:44, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
Update: Back into the Top 10, bumping WaPo's timeline and an Andrew McCarthy interview with Fox. They cropped down the number of results from 43 million to 33 million yesterday, but it's back up to 38 million. This version is having an impact. The problem is, right now I could fill it up with much more detail to shape the narrative, but that would overwhelm the specific points that need to be made. Also, introducing new foreign names into the narrative always has its risks, RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:24, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Update. Back up to #9. It fell to 15 two days ago (worst so far). The page is definitive. And There's more to come. I'm loaded for bear against these insurrectionists. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:03, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Update. Up to #8, the best since #3 when the story broke. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:36, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Update: Holding steady at #9; fallen back a bit to #8 on DuckDuckGo. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:04, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
Update: Hanging tuff at #9 with stiff competition. Also, #34 of 78 million under Biden-Ukraine scandal. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:36, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
Update: Holding at #10; Biden Ukraine scandal up to #20 on Google of 80 million. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:10, 11 October 2019 (EDT)
Update:' #6 on Google. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:53, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

Trump to Ukraine president: "I would like you to do us a favor, though..." - continued

  • I must say that Ukraine is an odd hill for the Democrats to plant their flag on. First, off there is a history of the Dems bullying Ukraine on these same issues. That the Ukrainians protect Hunter Biden while backstabbing Paul Manafort shows that they are more afraid of congressional Democrats voting against aid for Ukraine than they are of Trump. Impeachment will go nowhere in the Senate. Poll after poll shows that the idea is unpopular with the public. This incident also publicizes Biden's longstanding practice of using his sons as conduits for foreign money, although Biden's reign as frontrunner was just about up anyway. PeterKa (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Go nowhere in the Senate? It's going nowhere in the House.
There is not one thing different from today than yesterday, except the optics and new language to help the media hype something that doesn’t exist. Speaker Pelosi did not announce her intent to hold a house vote to authorize an impeachment investigation; she didn’t even mention the word vote at all. In essence what Speaker Pelosi has done is just satiate her base of Democrats with the fancy optics of something that doesn’t exist.

What’s the difference from Nadler’s “impeachment inquiry” yesterday, and Pelosi’s “official impeachment inquiry” today?… Nothing.

The constitution provides for the formal process to initiate articles of impeachment for a sitting president. The constitutional process begins with a vote in the House of Representatives to launch an impeachment investigation by House Committees. However, Pelosi doesn’t want to hold a vote to start the process…. so she’s just modifying the language of the status quo and instead of the House voting to authorize an “impeachment investigation”, Pelosi announces an arbitrary “impeachment inquiry” by fiat.

It’s silly.

It’s the goofiest thing in modern politics....
RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:47, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

BTW, object of the investigation Trump requested of Ukraine—it wasn't Biden's son!

Trump said "do all that you can possibly do". "I would like you to do us a favor, etc."

This had nothing to do with Biden's son. It was about Trump's search for information that caused the Mueller investigation against him to start, and start with no evidence of collusion by the U.S. president in the first place, even though that was the pretext of the investigation. The absence couldn't be hidden because no evidence of collusion turned up during the investigation, either. It was later in the conversation that Trump mentioned Biden's son. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 15:18, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

  • Statement of Viktor Shokin on September 4, 2019; [3] (definitely relevant to the Biden case);
  • “A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said Wednesday (September 25, 2019). [4]
Background: A forgotten article, Politico, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire, January 11, 2017 -- the same day BuzzFeed released the pee-pee memo, i.e. beginning of the "insurance policy" or Deep State coup, to coverup FISA abuse and Ukrainian collusion.
Impeachment 2.0 is an attempt to neutralize:
  1. Information about to come out in the Flynn trial;
  2. Information coming out in the Roger Stone trial;
  3. Information coming out in the Trump declassification order;
  4. Horowitz FISA abuse report;
  5. Durham indictments.
All this will play out up to Election day. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:51, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
As we're awaiting declassification one thing is becoming obvious: William Barr is protecting Rod Rosenstein. There is no doubt that Rosenstein was a willing participant in the coup attempt. However, because Mueller kicked back the decision to prosecute in Book II on the obstruction charge, Barr said he and Rosenstein made the joint decision that there was no obstruction of justice. Therefore, Rosenstein can't go down, cause if he does, that calls into the question the decision on Trump's fate.
This makes sense. McCabe so far appears to be the designated fall guy. Brennan's fate is in Durham's hands. And people in the Obama White House so far are skating. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:36, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

Quid pro quo

Trump has created trouble for himself with his "no quid pro quo" tweets since it seems likely that he did hold up U.S. aid as a way of putting pressure on Ukraine. Foreign policy is all about making deals and quid pro quo, so this is the wrong standard to apply. You can interpret anything that benefits the United States as a benefit to Trump's campaign, so I don't find the "campaign contribution" argument convincing. The question should be, was Trump acting in the wider national interest or for narrow personal gain? John Durham's investigation is an official Department of Justice probe. A treaty concluded in 1999 authorizes cooperation between the U.S. attorney general and the Ukrainian chief prosecutor. Giuliani's involvement has raised eyebrows, but there is a tradition of presidents sending personal friends they can trust to back up official negotiators. The request to investigate Biden is the most problematic part of the affair since it creates a conflict of interest. The president has an obligation under the constitution to "take care that the law be faithfully executed." No one should be able to evade investigation simply by announcing a candidacy. In 2016, numerous Democrats demanded -- and got -- an FBI investigation of Trump. According to the Page-Strzok correspondence, Obama himself met with FBI agents on this matter. PeterKa (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

"Trump has been justly criticized for hiring his daughter and son-in-law at the White House. But at least when he pressures a foreign leader for a favor, it’s to investigate corruption, not to get a prosecutor off his son’s back. Maybe Biden's son was guilty, maybe he was innocent. But it is a fact that Joe Biden held up foreign aid to a desperately needy ally in exchange for their halting prosecution that implicated his son. It's not Trump's fault that Biden is now running for president."—Ann Coulter, September 25, 2019.
Democrats are going to try to re-construct the Mueller investigation as a personal legal issue for Trump instead of 2+ years of abuse and denial of his civil rights, by virtue of his being an office-holder, by the legal system, there being no evidence of the activity that was supposed to have sanctioned it in the first place. Lol, good luck with that. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 16:33, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
NYT: "The Ukrainians weren't made aware that the assistance was being delayed/reviewed until more than one month after the call."
How the impeachment frenzy plays out over the next month can be gauged real easy: watch to see if Biden's slide in polls reverses itself.
If voters say, "A pox on both your houses," What's their alternative? Buttigieg? Warren? Yang? Sanders? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:03, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
Trump has finally turned the tables on Democratic leaders by starting investigations to match theirs, and they have responded with more presidential abuse. Schiff needs to be impeached, and the other ones can’t be removed from office too soon. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 20:01, 12 October 2019 (EDT)
That is incorrect - and a Democrat talking point. Investigations into the criminal activity of Deep Staters and Democrats was ongoing before that bogus "impeachment inquiry" which is a cover to create the illusion that indictments of John Brennan and James Clapper are reprisals and an abuse of power. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:56, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
If it prevents that illusion from happening, I'm willing to wait. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 16:08, 13 October 2019 (EDT)

Conservapedia proven right?

Especially in Green's case, the less you study the liberal sludge involved with his office-holding the better (watch them try to skip the full vote to begin the impeachment inquiry) VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:57, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

Did Pelosi skip holding the vote from the whole Congress to start the House impeachment inquiry? Trump is none too pleased regardless:

The conversation with the new and very good Ukraine President, who told the Fake News, at the United Nations, that HE WAS NOT PRESSURED BY ME IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, should by and of itself bring an end to the new and most recent Witch Hunt. Others ended in ashes!
The Whistleblower’s complaint is completely different and at odds from my actual conversation with the new President of Ukraine. The so-called “Whistleblower” knew practically NOTHING in that those ridiculous charges were far more dramatic & wrong, just like Liddle’ Adam Schiff fraudulently and illegally inserted his made up & tweeted words into my call with the Ukrainian President to make it look like I did something very wrong. He then boldly read those words to Congress and millions of people, defaming & libeling me. He must resign from Congress!
The only people that don’t like my conversation with the new Ukrainian President are those that heard Rep. Adam Schiff read a made up and totally fraudulent statement to the House and public, words that I did not say but that he fabricated (& admitted to this fabrication). Sick! —Donald Trump, September 28, 2019.

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:43, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

Word is, Barr is in Italy right now interviewing Mifsud personally. Mifsud is spilling his guts how Brennan roped him into something bigger than he imagined and he's been in hiding, fearing for life, cause he doesn't want to end up on the Clinton body count. Nadler and Pelosi need to take out Barr before they can take out Trump. Barr's gonna be, shall we say, upset, when he returns, cause he's not just investigating the Democrats anti-democratic election interference from 4 years ago, he sitting right in the middle of another Deep State coup.
Trump, as Commander in Chief, can call out the military against these insurrectionists. But Barr also has the U.S. Marshall Service at his disposal, as well. RobSDe Plorabus Unum
The Drudge Report seems to have gone over to the dark side. It's full of headlines that make it sound like Trump is finished. Trump's net approval is at minus 8.[5] That might not sound good, but that's pretty much as high as he has ever been. Biden is toast, according to the betting markets. Black voters don't respond to Warren. So the path is open to Hillary, according to this article. On the eve of a coup, the coup plotters will engineer a crisis. Then the coup can be portrayed as the resolution of the crisis. Maybe it's not about Hillary's triumphant return to head the Democratic Party. The media and left have financial reasons to feel nostalgic for the Mueller investigation. PeterKa (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
(A) The media wants impeachment to drive ratings; (B) Drudge is limited to sources because of Google censorship; (C) it's a rallying call to wake up voters because of the danger of the moment.
IN the Clinton impeachment, I personally worked on several issues for nearly 5 years; Not until after the House Judiciary passed the Articles (the point at witch Nixon resigned) did most Democrats for the first time ever hear the names Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, were enraged, and circled the wagons. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:13, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
Charlie Kirk isn't having any today:
Barack Obama asked Ukraine to investigate his political rival's campaign manager
3 Democrat senators asked Ukraine to investigate Trump
And the DNC solicited Ukraine's help to dig up dirt on Trump
And the media was silent about all of it.
Why is it that Democrats can spend 32 MILLION dollars investigating election meddling, all in an attempt to destroy their political enemy—the President
...But when they accuse him of doing the same thing—investigating meddling & corruption—they want to impeach him?
VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 15:49, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
America, being a two party system, always views foreign policy in black and white, good and evil. For American readers it needs to be presented as two competing factions - one pro-American, one pro-Russian (ignoring the fact Russians do not regard themselves as anti-American). Both these factions are corrupt beyond imagination. Like Dems and Pubs, one faction serves a few years kissing up to America until its driven from power due to corruption; then the other faction serves trying to strike a balance between the U.S. and Russia, until its driven from power due to corruption.
The grave sin committed here was the attempted brainwashing of Americans by Obama and media that Russia and the U.S. are enemies, and Ukraine is caught in the grip of two competing factions, one pro-American, one pro-Russian.
Christopher Steele aligned himself with anti-Russian Ukrainians and cultivated contacts when he worked for UK intelligence in the 1990s. Ironically, Russians view the Ukrainian nationalists as racist, fascist, antisemitic, anti-multicultural, anti-universal order (legacy of the Soviet times) bigots. These are the groups Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, Richard Dearlove, and the DNC chose to align themselves with, taking up their cause wholeheartedly. Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrianian/American citizen and member of the Democratic National Committee (paid $500,000 since 2004) was the linchpin who wanted to trade corrupt Putin puppets who employed Manafort, for corrupt Ukrainian fascists who employed Hunter Biden.
Chúpala fed her dirt to Steele and Isikoff; Isikoff and Steele fed that garbage to Yahoo News and the FBI, which fed it to the FISC. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:32, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
Actually, the John Birch Society and The New American, even Trevor Loudon, makes it very clear that Russians are indeed still communists, let alone bad guys, and those sources are not for Obama either nor do they shill for him. Also, I'm not sure Obama was against the Russians. I definitely recall Obama during the infamous hot-mike incident specifically stating he has one more election to go and then he'll be wide open to making concessions to the Russians. That doesn't sound like someone who's against Russia in the slightest. More likely than not, Obama cynically used Russia as a scapegoat for the hacked DNC servers to push the narrative that Donald Trump was backed by them. Maybe if the Russians completely give up Communism to such an extent that they even obliterate Soviet symbols and replace them with Tsarist symbols, I'll start believing they've truly reformed from Communism. Pokeria1 (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
The Russians are about as communist as the Chicago City Council. Sure, corruption and communism go hand in hand, coupled with greedy, undemocratic leaders who maintain control in a single party system, but the Russians are neither a nuclear threat to the U.S., a conventional military threat to the U.S. or Western Europe, or a threat to the international global trading system. Their entire economy is dependent on access to that international trading system. Exxon keeps both the Russian government, i.e. civil service, and the Russian military, afloat.
(This of course would lead us to a discussion of the use and effectiveness of targeted sanctions, a sort of microsurgery to cut off key individuals and anyone connected to them by monitoring global banking transactions via sophisticated technology. In the old days, the Germans would just send troops into Belgium or Poland; nowadays leaders have to think twice cause they can't expand their business contacts beyond markets using their own currency, and they eventually have trouble maintaining the cost of their country villa. Even Trump now has come around to the idea of targeted sanctions against Iranian mullahs, rather than a cruise missile attack.
The wisdom of this modern approach to addressing international conflicts rather than sending in troops has yet to play out. It would require another thread to fully explore). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 08:00, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Actually, the Russians right now are about as communist as the Seattle City Council. As bad as Chicago is, I don't think they've gone as far as to retain at least one monument to Marxism or even build a new monument as far as I know, while Seattle's rather infamous for having a statue of Vladimir Lenin in its premises. And the comparison is apt since they still have a monument to Karl Marx in the middle of Moscow's public square instead of doing to it what they did to Stalin and Lenin's statues and toppling it, and they still have Vladimir Lenin's tomb open to the public when, had they truly given up on Communism, they would have bulldozed that tomb and, if they were to do anything to Lenin's corpse, it would be either to bury it in an unmarked grave, or otherwise hang him from a streetlamp to set an example as to what happens if anyone dares try to bring Communism back. That's what I would do if I headed the Russian government or were the Russian people. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Ironically, they keep Lenin's tomb open cause it's a tourist attraction, like the Pyramids. Great Wall, the Louvre, or British Museum. It's a monument to capitalism these days.
We hear much about Russian propaganda and influence in foreign elections, in Europe and America. NBC News worldwide has a budget about three times larger than the Russian Foreign Ministry which dedicates only a fraction of its budget to information and propaganda campaigns. And we haven't counted the impact of CNN, ABC, Fox, etc. yet, either. From the Russian perspective, it's difficult to compete in a world that honors free speech when they are outspent about 60-1 globally. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 08:32, 30 September 2019 (EDT)


You told us a story that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry wanted a photo-op with a rebel leader and a Syrian government official to highlight and secure a peace treaty, and that Putin provided one too and ordered the other killed and secured a peace treaty independently.
To retaliate, Obama broke off diplomatic relations with Russia (or at least at a number of embassies) on some pretext at the end of his administration while staging NATO military exercises at the same time. Trump and Putin were able to secure each other's trust, and nothing came of it except feeding obliquely into the holdover intelligence community's conspiracy to falsely attribute to Trump the pursuit of Russian interests before his own country which failed catastrophically.
Now you're telling us there was an anti-Russian cabal in government that was "aligned" with the Obama administration making things happen.
But the antagonistic tone of the investigation always seemed to be the resentment of the (allegedly intelligent) intelligence community toward a leader not dependent on anyone, and who therefore couldn't be pressured into backing off from scrutinizing their little fiefdom.
How did they think that an anti-Russian sentiment could be evoked from such a clumsy contrivance, when it was clear from the beginning that Obama did not like Russia? I originally thought they were carrying out Obama's sweet revenge, but then I actually believed the Russians were involved, because who would have the mental...inadequacy as to set themselves up for the kind of backlash that would inevitably follow? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 22:44, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
(ec) I don't know where the Kerry reference comes from, but neither Hillary nor Obama had much experience or understanding of foreign policy while in the Senate. True, Hillary had more DC experience in the White House and Senate, but never an indepth interest or understanding of foreign policy until - the formation of the Clinton Foundation.
As Secretary of State, Hillary was more qualified and experienced than Obama, but going back to the Riady's and the Chinagate scandal, their only approach was shaking down international donors for access. Cold War politics and ideology exited American foreign policy with the Clinton's in the 1990s; now it was focused on influence peddling, access to technology, and trade deals.
Ukraine has always been the red-headed stepchild in the Russian sphere, going back to the Czars. The Germans tried to make it part of Germany twice in two World Wars (Hitler was going to make the Crimea the "German Riveria" by extending the autobahn east from Budapest, as the climate is pretty nice there by European standards). Now the Ukrainians want to be part of the EU (i.e. that dream and vision of the Kaisar and Hitler that the rest of the world was adamantly opposed to. Sheesh, the EU can't keep its own house in order right now, let alone expand out to the Black Sea).
So what do the Russians have to say about this 21st Century dream of Hitler and the Kaisers coming true, now?
Then, when you factor in 70 years of multicultural communist integration, making the number of Russians and Ukrainians evenly split at 50%, with halfbreeds of Turks and Slavs everywhere, you think Russia will allow a NATO base at Sevastopol? Will the UK allow a Russian submarine base at Dublin? Will the US allow a Chinese naval base at Acapulco?
I mean, c'mon. Just what have these Democrats been teaching our children the past 40-50 years> RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:26, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
And since I'm asking, why would anti-Russian Hillary negotiate the sale of large amounts of Uranium to Russia? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 23:11, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
Cashola (a brokers fee for the Clintons). The US was bound by previous trade agreements, mainly the Sakhalin I & II projects negotiated by Rex Tillerson in 1996, which allowed Exon to be part owners of the land and resources where they drilled (unlike the deal with Saudi Aramco in 1926 where the Saudis retained exclusive ownership of all land and reserves below ground). As a quid pro quo, Russia was free to buy land and mineral resources in North America. The deal itself was legal, the $500,000 brokerage fee to paid the Clinton family is not. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:32, 29 September 2019 (EDT)

Kerrys and queries

Here is your Kerry reference, Rob:

Trump's moves to take control of the CIA

Trump's authorization to the CIA to expedite drone strikes, that with Pence's statement Julian Assange should be locked up for life, and the firing of Flynn, are the first steps to repair the breach with the Intelligence Community. It is IC's turn to come around, and they can begin by telling McCain & Graham, "False Alarm!" "There's no 'There' there!" RobS (March 14, 2017)

The issuance of authority to CIA for drone strikes without the checkback provisions Obama had is a Win-Win for Trump and the CIA. It gives the CIA authority to do drone strikes on leadership of militias loyal to the Syrian regime while at the same time giving Trump deniability he ordered strikes against Putin and Assad allies.

This is presumably payback for Russian intervention in Syria. In late 2015, John Kerry arranged for Syrian peace talks with Assad and the Russians on one side, and the 'Syrian opposition' and US on the other. However the Russians whacked the 'Syrian opposition leader' the US groomed after talks were agreed on but before the US puppet could get to the table, leaving Assad & Putin in full control and making Kerry & Obama look like the idiots they are. RobS (March 14, 2017)

VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 16:39, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Ok, thanks for digging it out. It took me a minute to regain context and I just noticed this thread her right now. Sorry for the delay. The question is (referring to the present Ukrainian and Russia collusion schemes, I presume):
How did they think that an anti-Russian sentiment could be evoked from such a clumsy contrivance, when it was clear from the beginning that Obama did not like Russia? I originally thought they were carrying out Obama's sweet revenge, but then I actually believed the Russians were involved, because who would have the mental...inadequacy as to set themselves up for the kind of backlash that would inevitably follow?
"They" being IC conspirators presumably, and "clear from the beginning" only refers to "clear from the beginning of the anti-Trump deep state operation, c. mid 2015". Obama obviously was Putin's b*tch since at least August of 2008 (link available) and reiterated it to both Putin and Romney's face on live national television in 2012. So still don't quite understand the question.
Reference point: Statement from Senator Obama on Russia's Decision to Recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Independent States, Chicago, IL | August 26, 2008 (there have been efforts to scrub this statement from the internet). Candidate Obama, who just hired Joe Biden as his foreign policy expert, says:
  • The United States should call for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to condemn Russia's decision in coordination with our European allies.
Obama administration Russian foreign policy experts, 2014. Written on the wall: “Ukraine for Ukrainians.”
Candidate Obama announced to Vladimir Putin and the world:
(A) Dear Vladimir, Please occupy Abkazia and Georgia. Be my guest.
(B) I went to school for International Relations, but don't know a thing about it.
(C) I trust that American voters are too stupid to know Russia has a veto in the UN Security Council and my statement is meaningless.
(D) Also my dear Vladimir, I do not understand a thing about Putin or Russian designs, and neither does anyone on my staff of advisors.
To pretend 5 years later President Obama suddenly awoke to "the Russian threat" after inviting them to occupy Abkhazia, or his staff of experts and advisers are knowledgeable, or even concerned, about Russian activities in Syria or Crimea is a joke and farce.
The DNC, through Alexandra Chalupa, and the Obama administration and Clinton campaigns, got in bed with Banderists, i.e. xenophobic Russophobic Ukrainians, and turned over U.S. Russia and NATO foreign policy expertise and relations to Banderists, through Crowdstrike and the Atlantic Council, because of the Obama administration, DNC, and Clinton campaign's own lack of expertise and understanding. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:46, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

Trumpism

Trumpism, aka MAGAnomics is simple to understand. We Americans have something very valuable to sell, that the rest of the world wants to buy into - access to our consumer market. We are among, if not the largest, richest, consumer market in the world (the EU in size rivals, but it appears to be an artificial structure that is falling apart). The question is, At what price are we willing to sell?

The argument to give Mexico and China a hand up by selling access cheap is over. Russia is not passing out AK-47s to the poor, downtrodden, and dispossessed like church groups do with coffee and donuts to the homeless. These countries can stand on their own. We don't need anything from the rest of the world. We are self sufficient. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:03, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

"Professor Mifsud, I presume."

Attorney General Barr is headed for Italy to meet the thought-to-be-lost Professor Mifsud and hear his account of a CIA plot against then-presidential-candidate Trump, including a deposition he made after Trump won the election and before he went into hiding.

Ranking Democrats feel Mifsud's story is so ridiculous that Barr needs to recuse himself immediately—I guess because his revealing the falsifying perpetrators of the 2+ year Russian collusion investigation will cause too many Democrat allies in the intelligence community to laugh themselves into criminal indictments. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 13:20, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

Sorry, I thought this was fact. Actually he's already there, and George Papadopoulos on belief thinks it's to meet Mifsud, as do nervous Democrat legislators. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 14:04, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
That's why the Impeachment inquiry - the poop is about to hit the fan and Democrats want to put Republicans on the defensive. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:09, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

Ukraine investigates Biden's favorite prosecutor

Lutsenko, the chief prosecutor Joe Biden bullied Ukraine into appointing back in 2016, made the media rounds last week as Biden's star character witness. Lutsenko has no law degree and the parliament had to modify Ukrainian law so that a non-lawyer could be chief prosecutor. Here is Joe and Cokehead Hunter looking real happy when Lutsenko cleared Burisma (Hunter's company) back in May. Zelensky, who was elected president in April, has reopened the case against Burisma. Now Ukraine has opened an investigation of Lutsenko for “abuse of power and malfeasance...by facilitating illegal gambling businesses."[6] PeterKa (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2019 (EDT)

Thank you for having provided this timely information. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 01:01, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

Step 1: Call Ukraine. Step 2: Call Australia

Halper and Downer, along with Mifsud, were recruited by John Brennan to frame Papadopoulos and Carter Page. Richard Dearlove, the head of UK's MI6 also worked closely with Brennan. They didn't like Trump's talk of making NATO allies pay more for their own defense. The future of the military industrial complex was at stake

Like I said, Biden's son was a less important issue to Trump than Ukranian collusion. Now it seems the phone calls were a one-two punch against the FBI and their fig leaves of stories as to why exactly the FBI felt the need to mobilize against Trump as if it were a four-alarm fire.

In fact, the Biden angle now looks like nothing more than a distraction. If Trump finds out why the Australians pretended to be shocked at George Papadopoulos stale news that Hillary's emails were reported to be in the Russians' possession, it will be seen together with the fact that when the DNC emails were hacked, the DNC refused to let the FBI investigate, but instead hired CrowdStrike, the Ukrainian company.

If the FBI wanted to investigate George Papadopoulos and his environs so badly that it was all hands on deck (scores of agents), why didn't they at least suggest to the DNC that they examine their server? Isn't the physical evidence of the secret being taken as important as the circumstances of the person who knew the secret?

Especially when the so-called "secret" was a newsstory and not private information? And when the FBI found out it was a newsstory the FBI...did what? Stopped the investigation of George Papadopoulos, released the agents and halted the surveillance? Does this make any sense to you [that they actually didn't do any of those things]?

Likewise, why deify the Ukraine "whistle-blower" if the event he whistled at is a matter of recorded history and renders his account unnecessary? By the very means of the Democrats' frenetic camouflage efforts, this informer's irrelevance is teaching us, and the American people who pay attention, lessons about how to receive the Australians' evidence explaining their over-attachment to George Papadopoulos and his story, should they provide it, with the right kind of critical eye and ear with which to view and audit the perpetrators (reacting or pretending to react unnecessarily)? Ouch, that's gotta hurt. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 19:51, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

John Brennan and Richard Dearlove set it up.
Halper and Alexander Downer were in on it. So was Mifsud, albeit he may have been used unscrupulously without his knowing by Dearlove & Brennan.
Downer has deniability, passed off to Erika Thompson, as the Mueller Report says. However, Downer did not follow channels of reporting back to Canberra for proper vetting, who then would share it with the CIA if the information was any good, but rather passed off the information to Clinton stooges in the U.S. Embassy in London, who sent it back to Clinton stooges at the DC State Department, who gave it to the FBI conspirators. It was outside the official Five Eyes process for intelligence vetting necessary to open a counterintelligence investigation on a U.S. citizen. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:29, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Most American's don't understand who Alexander Downer is; by American standards, he would be something like the grandson of George Washington. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:33, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Hunter Biden is on the board of a Chinese company

It's high time somebody who knows how to read Chinese business records took a look at the Biden in China story. South China Morning Post was not able the substantiate the claim that Hunter Biden got $1 billion from the Bank of China. That always seemed like a wildly improbable amount. However, Hunter is listed in China's National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System as a board member of BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Company, an investment firm backed by the Chinese government. It all sounds suspiciously similar to the deal he got from Burisma in Ukraine. See "Joe Biden’s son listed as director at China-backed equity firm, government filings show" and "‘Sleepy Joe’ Biden is one of the few US politicians who’s wide awake about China." PeterKa (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2019 (EDT)

On the Chinese government records lacking a record of this matter: "Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus he is master of his enemy's fate." - Sun Tzu.Wikignome72 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
Follow the link to the NYPost article for more on BHR - Bohai Harvest RST (Rosemont Seneca Trust) from here: Hunter_Biden#China. Chris Heinz, of the Heinz family fortune and John Kerry's stepson, had enough to sense to bail, pulling out RST and leaving the deal to the Biden and Bulger families, i.e. Mueller informant Whitey Bulger's nephew.
Whitey Bulger is suspected of 52 murders while a Mueller and Bill Weld informant in the 1980s and '90s. John Durham was called in to investigate the whole mess and clean it up.
Mueller was promoted to head the FBI for covering up corruption in the Boston FBI field office. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:13, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
I misspoke; The "T" in Bohai Harvest RST is for "Thornton", which is the Bulger family. RST is the merger of Rosemont Seneca (Heinz family fortune) with Bulger interests (Thornton). After Chris Heinz bailed, it became simply Bohai Harvest - a Chinese military operation which Hunter Biden sits on the board. Whitey Bulger's nephew was recently convicted in some $60 million Wall Street scam (meaning he's available to testify). Looks like Hunter and PRA (Peoples Revolution Army) are all alone in this now, along with Uncle Joe. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:34, 5 October 2019 (EDT)

Bolton out

Saudi Arabia

We are joined at the hip because the neocons want to keep the (unconstitutional) petrodollar scam going. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has been using that as leverage to hold our economy hostage. Either we do what they say, or they devalue the dollar and destroy the US economy. And if we really get them mad, they unleash their al-Qaeda and ISIS "bad cops" to bring us to our knees through sheer terror. We must not tolerate these acts of geopolitical blackmail. It's time for a (very nasty) break-up.--Geopolitician (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
Nah. You gotta look at the bigger picture. We didn't build up the third largest defense establishment to have it used against us. Only liberals and Democrats would make such a stupid argument. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:24, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
[promoted by VM] I am looking at the bigger picture. The petrodollar agreement was an illegal trade deal orchestrated by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger which replaced the gold standard with an oil standard controlled by the Saudi-dominated OPEC through oil price manipulation. Almost everything that has gone wrong with our foreign policy since then can be traced back to that deal. The deal is also partly to blame for our inbility to balance the budget, because it established the dollar as a global reserve currency, which means we have to keep printing money indefinitely in order to avoid a global recession. The petrodollar deal has brought us to our knees, and the Saudis know it. But unlike other countries, the Saudis aren’t willing to re-negotiate this deal. Any re-negotiation would destroy its quest for a global caliphate. No, they would rather sponsor assassinations, unleash terrorists on the whole world, and start major wars to keep the status quo. We have no reason to treat them as anything but a mortal enemy. They have the blood of thousands of Americans on their hands. --Geopolitician (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
Without doing a deep dive into specifics, I'd say you just put your finger on a big reason why we're joined at the hip (since fracking, the balance has shifted much more toward the U.S., who now can dictate to the Saudi's what the world oil price should be). However, you seem to follow the school of thought that the Saudi government and bureaucracy functions, or has power and control, analogous to Western nations. Saudi oligarchs, and others in the Gulf, have an amazing degree of freedom and independence to act on the world stage apart from the Saudi government and policy of the Saudi ruling regime. This comes from its base law - Shariah - which does not recognize man made regimes (same is true in virtually all Islamic Republics; only the most secular regimes are run by tyrants who follow Western models of a modern police or administrative state).
The Saudi ruling clan are basically the first among equals, whom the other tribal leaders defer to in the area of foreign policy since that is what brought them such prosperity. However, many of these other oligarchs and tribal chiefs still can have their own foreign policy, arm terrorists outside their borders, etc., which is really just an issue of Saudi domestic politics. If the ruling clan blanketly tried to restrain them, that would be a rejection of their own legitimacy under Shariah as guardians of the Holy Places.
When you speak of "sponsor assassinations, unleash terrorists", etc., yes, you are referring to what we in the West call "Saudi citizens" or "Saudi organizations" or "Saudi companies" etc. But they are not executing the policy of the Saudi ruling clan, i.e., the "Saudi government" ("There is one God but Allah, and Mohammad is his Prophet;" Islam does not teach government by men, so the Saudis walk a fine line holding any legitimacy over the territory of the Arabian Peninsula, or as Keepers of the Shrines in the Islamic world. And don't tell me, "Screw their Islamic traditions, we should create a power vacuum and impose a Western style secular or Christian regime over the Islamic Holy Places"). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:39, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
First off, you seem to believe that it's only certain tribes that support terrorism. That's not true. The central government itself has sponsored terrorism in the past, and it continues to do so today. And even if it didn't, the fact that it even allows other tribes to sponsor terrorism (with the help of princes acting on their own accord) without consequence is a sign of tacit approval. The US and the Saudi system of government in its current form cannot peacefully co-exist. If we want Wahhabi terrorism to stop, we must give the Saudis an ultimatum: Either break ties with the rogue tribes and shut down all terrorist-supporting institutions such as the Muslim World League, or we ally with Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and other anti-Saudi countries in the region and we jointly pursue a policy of containment against you.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
[promoted bt VM] Again, look at the bigger picture. Why did the Pentagon clone itself in a country with a population smaller than California? And the Pentagon didn't do this on its own - it was the State Department and Congress. The Pentagon functions in the Middle East, dba Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia recruits and hires for its armed services and mercenary groups from all over he Arab and Islamic world (typically Egyptians, with vast manpower reserves attracted by high wages). The U/S/ and Saudi Arabia jointly do training. It's better than sending Americans to die in some stupid war.
Some ideological vetting occurs depending on the mission. Iran remains the bad guy until it gives up its anti-American, anti-Israeli, and anti-Saudi views. This is probably a long way off, since the older generation which is dying off now, was schooled in war from its earliest existence (1980-1988).
I agree wholeheartedly - the Iranian people and the U.S. are natural allies. But you can thank idiot Democrats in the Carter years for this mess they left as their legacy. And I see no indication, whatsoever, that idiot Democrats who speak on foreign policy today have learned a thing from their mistakes. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:14, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
You seem to be abiding by the premise that Iran is the bad guy. Iran is not the bad guy. It may be a bad guy, but it's not the bad guy. The Saudis are the bad guys. They are the ones who need to be contained, not Iran. At this point, I would be more than happy to ally with Iran, even if the current regime is in power and even if it's still anti-Israel (I'm starting to become anti-Israel myself because it's actively participating in a propaganda campaign falsely portraying Iran as the cause of all terrorism and smearing those who don't fall for it as being anti-Semitic). --Geopolitician (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
The Iranian government is the bad guy; the Saudi government is an American stooge regime that does nothing on its own. All it's actions are directed by the U.S. intelligence community. When it created ISIS, it was at the behest and direction of President Obama and John Brennan, the record has borne out. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:56, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
[promoted by VM] So in other words, you agree with me that the Saudis and the Deep State are tied at the hip. But you disagree with the premise that the Saudis are willing collaborators. When you start with the premise that they are puppets rather than willing collaborators, you're in a whole different world. If that premise is correct, then not only did the government know about 9/11 in advance (which I believe), but it (probably) also helped carry out or even ordered 9/11 (which I don't believe). Do you believe that?--Geopolitician (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
IMO, you're barking up the wrong tree again. I'm intimately familiar with all the events in Sudan, in Afghanistan, in Saudi Arabia, and in the White House leading up to 9/11, from about 1989 onwards. You're falling into the trap, again, of labeling Saudi oligarchs and Saudi citizens as "the Saudi government'. The Saudi government in fact cooperated extensively with CIA in the pre-9/11 period. The Saudi government itself attempted an assassination of bin Laden in Sudan (1996?) causing him to flee to Afghanistan (the CIA wanted to do it themselves, but the Saudi regime moreless talked them out of it and convinced the CIA of the wisdom of letting the Saudis do it).
Bin Laden signed onto the Iranian, anti-Saudi Muslim Unity Movement. There were other oligarchs in the Arabian Peninsula, which Western media repeatedly mislabels as "Saudis", but while they are (a) holders of Saudi passports, in fact (b) support the overthrow of the Saudi regime.
Iran is complicit with Al Qaeda, not the Saudi government. [7] As Iran was complicit in the Khobar Towers attack. Iran allowed the 9/11 hijackers to pass through Iran on forged passports.
The notion that the government of Saudi Arabia is complicit in 9/11 is liberal Democrat BS. Even such a seditious traitor as John Brennan (a man in the know - CIA Station Chief in Saudi Arabia in 1996) would never espouse such dangerous, bigoted and xenophobic crap. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:00, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
The 28 pages withheld from the 9/11 report detail what I alluded to above:
The Saudi ruling clan are basically the first among equals, whom the other tribal leaders defer to in the area of foreign policy since that is what brought them such prosperity. However, many of these other oligarchs and tribal chiefs still can have their own foreign policy, arm terrorists outside their borders, etc., which is really just an issue of Saudi domestic politics. If the ruling clan blanketly tried to restrain them, that would be a rejection of their own legitimacy..."
It is a difference of cultural idiom which Western and American (idiot) journalists are incapable of comprehending, and would only promote anti-Arab xenophobia. Until these basic misconceptions surrounding Saudi Arabia as a "nation state" akin to Western concepts of the nation state are corrected, those 28 pages will remain classified. Those pages do not point a finger at the Saudi government; they detail complicity of rich holders of "Saudi passports" and "Saudi citizenship" who, under Shariah law which grants the Saudi government legitimacy, the Saudi government is incapable of taking action against.
The name "Saudi Arabia' itself tells you as much; while a consensus existed in 1925 to give the new nation state the name "Saudi Arabia," a consensus lacked over its legitimacy to use the territory's proper name - Arabia or the Arabian Peninsula. It would be like renaming Arkansas, "Clinton Arkansas", or New York "Trump New York". RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:17, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
So in other words, what you are saying is that Saudi Arabia shouldn't be treated as a coherent entity. Okay, then. Then here's how Saudi Arabia can redeem itself. Become a coherent entity. Become a nation-state. Don't give a crap about what the other tribes think. If they want to rebel, crush them. Settle this nationalist vs. de facto autonomy conflict the way Lincoln did here in the US. Then the American people will finally take MbS' reforms seriously and get of Saudi Arabia's case. I'll admit MbS has taken steps in the right direction, but his lack of overall progress plus his jingoistic behavior towards other countries in the region make me greatly distrust him and have extremely strong doubts regarding his true intentions. Meanwhile, let's get out of the petrodollar system anyway. It's illegal to begin with. --Geopolitician (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
[promoted by VM] I think you need a better understanding of Islamic law and the extent of the Muslim world. Without Shariah, the Saudi ruling clan wouldn't exist. You're just calling for a power vacuum, chaos, and more needless bloodshed.
There have been proposals to create an international zone for Mecca and Medina. But even that has its own problems. Islam doesn't recognize, and is at war with, the concept of "global order" (unless, of coarse, it's under Allah and the Koran).
The Saudi king appoints the Grand Mufti of Medina, who is somewhat analogous to the Pope in Christiandom, albeit with less secular and more spiritual power (Warning: these are rough analogies I'm drawing here; a Muslim kid posted on Facebook his understanding that Donald Trump was the Pope of Christianity). Structurally, it's like the President appointing a Supreme Court Chief Justice. In fact, this system is controversial; in Iran the Supreme Council (akin to the Supreme Court) elects their supreme leader as Head of State - the Ayatollah. So you see there are two competing systems there. Sunnis, 90% of Muslims globally, tend to support the Saudi system, however there are violent dissenters from this system. While many oppose Shia Islam and Iran, some feel the Iranian system is closer to what the Prophet intended. Other violent dissenters don't.
Simply labeling people as bogeymen - the Saudis, MBS, the Ayatollah, bin Laden, etc etc etc - doesn't address any of these structural flaws that the successors of Mohammad have been grappling with for 1,500 years. Those types of criticisms are just liberal claptrap. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:31, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
Oh, I fully understand the role of Sunni-style Sharia in the existence of the Saudi "state." Although I do appreciate the level of detail in your reply. But regardless, if the House of Saud expects the status quo to remain forever, it's totally delusional. At this point, it has three choices: (A) Become a coherent nation state and actually start acting like a civilized government; (B) Dissolve the country USSR-style and be content with having less land to control while the other tribes wither away and kill each other; or (C) Take an extremely high-risk gamble and try to maintain the status quo indefinitely, a move that likely will eventually cause the entire rest of the region to rise up against it and tear the country to pieces in an imperialist scramble that may well start another world war. There's no escape from those options. That possibility ended years ago. --Geopolitician (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2019 (EDT)

The recent troop deployment to Saudi Arabia is like a service warranty; for all the equipment the U.S. has sold them. A few micky-mouse drones got through and wiped out half of Saudi Arabia's oil output. Now some sort of lower level radar has to be installed, with a missile defense system to knock out a midget drone. The missile defense systems developed and operational thus far are for larger type missiles.

Another problem is swarms of drones. If 50 long range cruise missile's were inbound, we know we could wipe out 60%+ of them; if a 1,000 small drones were launched just over the horizon, flying not much above tree-top level, that presents a new defensive problem that has not been combat tested yet. (Eventually these types of drones with the ability to pinpoint target we'll see launched from Gaza, rather than the old-fashioned bottle rocket type missiles being launched).

The U.S. military presence is basically there to install the advanced prototype systems - radar and missile defense - we've developed thus far, and train locals how to operate and maintain them.

It's a revolving door. The U.S. possesses technology that can likely deal with drone attacks like the one that just occurred; however, once that technology is shared with foreign allies, there is no way to keep it out of the hands of Iran, China, and Russia, which will eventually copy it, making it obsolete, paving the way for the next generation of weapons development. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:16, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

China

[promoted by VM]As long as there is Iran-China cooperation (which is why Trump is courting Iran right now - evidenced by the firing of Bolton), there will remain U.S.-Saudi cooperation. Russia is the wildcard that plays both against each other, or sides with the winner. Russia definitely favors siding with the U.S. over China - more evidence of the disastrous failure of Obama's global vision. We have virtually a universal consensus now even among 25 Democrat presidential candidates and members of both parties in Congress, that China, not Russia or Islamic terrorism, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "is the focus of evil in the modern world." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:18, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
What you just mentioned reminds me a lot of John Xenakis' "Generational Dynamics" prediction, which had major influence on the development of Steve Bannon's ideology. If you're not familiar with Xenakis, he's been predicting (since 2003) a "Clash of Civilizations" World War that pits the US, Europe, Russia, India, Japan, Iran, and Israel against China and the Sunni Muslim countries. Now, I'm not entirely convinced that this exact alignment is going to happen, because I do believe some European countries will side with China. I also believe some Sunni countries will side with the US because of existing tensions with other Sunni countries (specifically, some Arabian tribes will side with the US to protect themselves from other Arabian tribes and especially Turkey, the latter who I believe will be -- along with Pakistan -- among China's main partners in the Muslim world). In that event, keeping Russia and Iran on our side would be absolutely critical, because if either of them side with China or fall to the pro-Chinese alliance, then China will have a "land bridge" of allies that would allow it to deploy troops to Europe without having to deal with American naval superiority. Such an event would cause the US to face its most serious national security crisis since 1991, if not since 1945.--Geopolitician (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
To keep things sane, most people (emphasis on most) understand that a war would be over in 15 minutes. Let's assume that modern warfare is fought out in trade deals and between trading alliances. China, at the moment, has a huge advantage in Africa which is rich in material and human resources.
I don't see a consensus in the Arab world to improve their material lot through trading alliances with non-Muslims, so that's a situation they will have to fight out and settle among themselves.
As to China, it grew too big too fast, economically. it's a manufacturing-export economy, and has skipped a lot of internal economic development. It's basically a house of cards - and a very big one at that. The question is, will its communist leadership accept the fact that it's days of rapid growth are past, that it no longer has the get-rich-quick access to the American consumer market, and focus on developing an internal service sector with lower revenues from exports? As corrupt and evil as their leaders may be, I think there are still sensible, and will chose that path.
As to the EU, assuming it survives, its leaders also have to learn something from the current crisis. There's no going back to its pipe dreams of John Lennon's Imagine. The German economy is on the verge of recession because Chinese orders for manufactured goods are not coming in because of China isn't making the money they were off the American market. We, the U.S., don't need any of them - the EU, Russia, or China - for manufactured goods or raw resources. We don't need oil from abroad. We're self-contained. We're holding all the cards. We've done our part in giving them all a hand up for 70 years. We're tired of playing policeman of the world, paying for European socialists defense and having them spit in our faces how they can afford free healthcare for their people and somehow we're cruel because we don't. It's a new age, and Trump is leading the world into it. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:00, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
[promoted by VM] One thing that I will never accept is the idea that if two nuclear-armed great powers go to war, the conflict will immediately escalate into an apocalyptic-scale nuclear conflict. When you go to war, the goal is to win. If there's a chance the war can be won without using nukes, that chance will always be taken first. Sure, there probably will be some limited nuclear weapons usage, but I don't see any of the nuclear powers (except perhaps Pakistan) being stupid enough to launch all their nukes at once unless they are absolutely certain that's the only option left.
As to the Arab world, its time as a major player is running out. Its failure to unite around a single, all-powerful tribe leaves it at the mercy of Turkey and Iran, both which are centered around eons-old civilizations that united, well, eons ago.These two countries, along with Israel and possibly Egypt, will be the major (non-great power) players in the region in the foreseeable future.
As to China, its economic woes are only part of the long-term problems it faces. There are also growing tensions among the many ethno-religious groups in the country, and the CCP is growing increasingly worried that there may be a rebellion or even a civil war. This is far from the first time the internal situation in China has reached this point, China faced similar crises (which more often than not exploded into extremely bloody uprisings) in the 1920s-40s (Chinese Civil War/Second Sino-Japanese War), in the 1850-60s (Taiping rebellion), and in the 1790s-1800s (White Lotus rebellion), and many other such crises in the centuries before those. This in my opinion makes a major war involving China and another great power even more likely.
As to Europe, how would you envision a post-EU continent. What factions do you think would rise?--Geopolitician (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
I'm agreement with much you said. Expanding on the Arab world: it's probably because Arab's view the nation state as a social construct counter to the teachings of the Koran. As to China, there is some danger there; historically they are averse to messing around outside their borders. However, the trade relationship that was built up from 1972 onward was because Nixon didn't want any more unwinnable wars like Korea or Vietnam. That's their "trump card" now, if you will: if the U.S. doesn't accept trade on their terms, we could expect a return to endless, unwinnable wars with Chinese proxies. How the North Korean negotiations turn out will give us some sense of the direction.
There's still a lot to play out in Europe. Some demographic shifts are permanent, which will affect its future policy. The global elitists have overreached, and many haven't realized it yet. But take Germany, for instance: I don't see it being a member of NATO in 20-40 years when its troops would rather swear allegiance to a caliphate than to democracy. Alternatively, it could follow the Russian model of 40% troop strength of secular, anti-fundamentalist Muslims who are willing to fight to keep their independence from religious imams. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:41, 12 September 2019 (EDT)

Iran

Happy days, everyone! He’s finally gone. Hopefully he’ll be prosecuted for his seditous behavior later on. --Geopolitician (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

Never happen. Just look for Trump and the Ayatollah singing Kumbaya (like Trump and Kim) by election day. What happens after that is anyone's guess.
It should be further noted, this has nothing to do with the canceled Camp David meeting with the Taliban. This is the result of Trump making nice with the globalist Macron at the recent G8 Summit. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:37, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
No, it was the result of many months of Bolton's seditious, borderline treasonous conduct. He will go down as one of the worst, if not the worst NSC in our history.--Geopolitician (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
He was needed at the time to pose a tuff line in tearing up the Iran nuke deal (JCPOA). That being done, he outived his usefulness. Trump is free to start over and negotiate his own deal. Trump and Macron already appear to be on the same page. BoJo too (assuming he survives) will go along with whatever approach Macron and Trump come up with (BoJo has much to make amends for, considering he had oversight of UK intelligence at the time of Brennan and Dearlove hatched the plot to destroy Trump. He's now deeply indebted to Trump, particularly Trump's offer of much needed trade deals after Brexit is completed). Merkel (on her deathbed) and the Germans will go along with the Macron/Trump proposal, with some input from Putin. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:18, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

Can we put on the "In the News" section a link to this article, which is evidence that Bolton is Deep State?--Geopolitician (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

What really matters isn't that Bolton is gone, but who will replace him. Like him or not, he wasn't even close to being the worst person in the White House. At least he supported national sovereignty (including Brexit) and rejected supranational organizations. People like Mike Pompeo, Jared Kushner, and Steven Mnuchin, who are generally just as globalist/hawkish, but who also emphasize a "moral obligation" to be interventionist, are still in the White House. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

My guess: Pompeao will make the choice. Probably one of Pompeao's chief flunkies who he regularly communicates with and knows Pompeao's thinking.
The position of NSA has been downgraded from a policymaking role under Trump. The NSA is just a messenger boy between Trump and the National Security community. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:28, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
Trump is a very independent person and not a neocon. I never thought for one second that Bolton was going to influence Trump to go to war. Maybe Trump just wanted a "devil's advocate" or a cabinet/team of rivals like Abraham Lincoln. Maybe he just wanted to play good cop/bad cop with North Korea, China and Iran (and maybe even Russia).Conservative (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
Bolton did a good job. His job was to kill Obama's nuke deal. Time to move on.
Three candidates listed here (about 5:00 mins in). Gen. Keith Kellogg, Brian Hook, and Rick Waddell. Kellogg already served as interim between Flynn and McMaster (Trump took McMaster on Kelly and Mathis advice); Hook fits the bill perfectly; Waddell sounds like a bureaucrat who pays attention to process,
The whole goal now is to have a Kumbaya moment with the Ayatollah between the convention and election day. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:43, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
I almost want the Iran deal brought back. We're just may need Iran as an ally if we expect to defeat Wahhabi terrorism once and for all.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
Even Macron wants a new deal. He wasn't among the culprits and criminals who negotiated the last one. France rejoined NATO after 40 years because of fear of Iran, not Russia (more simple evidence of the farce of Russiagate). it's Macron's opportunity to put his own stamp on what every Frenchmen knows is a big issue, and possibly salvage his legacy. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:42, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
Don't you see the irony here? France dropped out of NATO in 1967 claiming the Russian bogeyman was BS; they harbored the Ayatollah Khomeini as a human rights activist up to 1979; in 2004 France rejoined NATO claiming they were right all along since 1967, that Russia was not a threat to Western Europe, but they had made a mistake in 1979 by harboring the Ayatollah Khomeini. Now their goodwill gesture resulted in a grave threat to their own national security. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:23, 11 September 2019 (EDT)

Israel

How do you believe Bolton's firing will affect relations with Israel, if at all?--Geopolitician (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2019 (EDT)

Personally, I believe in the short term it will cause a period of deep distrust between Trump and Netanyahu, and perhaps even cause the US-Israel relationship to deteriorate until either Netanyahu changes his foreign policy or Israel elects a new PM. I cannot see any attempts at detente with Iran sitting well with Israel at this time. During the aforementioned period of distrust, I expect to see anti-Israeli sentiment rising within the GOP, and some hardcore Israel supporters defecting to the Never Trump camp. Whether that adds fuel to the fire is yet to be seen. But nonetheless, I believe that the US-Israel special relationship is in trouble, at least in the short term. In the long term I expect relations to rebound as Israel shifts its focus to the Balkanization of the Arab world and perhaps even tries its own attempts at normalizing relations with Iran.--Geopolitician (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
Eewww, tuff question. Israel (Netanyahu) has a direct pipeline to the Oval Office (Jared). Bolton basically was advocating the Israeli hardline against Iran. Israel has always shown a willingness to negotiate with Iran, however. With Bolton gone, I don't really see any substantive changes, unless Netanyahu were to become openly critical of the Macron/Trump process. That would be indicative of a marital break-up.
As to the Palestinians, no substantive changes.
Bolton's anti-Russian neocon approach to Syria appears to be in the dumpster. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:49, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
By direct line I mean that literally; Netanyahu used to visit the Kushner's home to get campaign donations from Jared's father when he was still alive and before Jared took over managing the family business. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 06:29, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
All I have to say is that Israel better not pull off any stupid stunts in the interim. I'm very disturbed by the allegations (I say they are allegations because the claims originated from a POLTICO report whose accuracy is being contested by the White House) that Israel was placing spying devices extremely close to the White House. What if Israel was trying to put them inside the White House? That would be a major scandal, and it would give Trump a good reason to turn against Israel completely. --Geopolitician (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
Yah <shock, horror> Israel is spying on an ally (again). We can't rule out the possibility it is a bunch of Ilhan Omar aligned anti-Semite Democrats and media trying to frame and smear the Jews, again. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:38, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Who's in control?

Bolton lost his influence in the White House after Trump blamed him for Venezuela back in May.[8] Now it's all Trump and his instincts. Who advised Trump to meet with the Taliban at Camp David? That's the guy who should be fired. Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis recently came out with a great book bashing Obama's foreign policy. When Mattis and Tillerson were in the cabinet, I had the sense someone who knew what they were doing was in charge. PeterKa (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
"Mike Pompeo Is Bigger Than the Pentagon: In the nine months since Jim Mattis resigned as defense secretary, one man has become the public leader of President Trump’s national security policy: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo." Whren Trump took office, he relied heavily on Pentagon personal (Flynn, Mathis, Kelly, etc) and didn't trust the State Department and CIA who he was at war with and were actively engaged in a coup against him. Pompeo has brought both under control. The DOJ remains rogue, and the Pentagon itself has some internal problems. But its taken more than two years to gain control over the swamp, which is still far from being complete.
Pompeo is Trump's Dick Cheney now in foreign policy and national security. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:01, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Trump comments on Bolton

It should be noted, Trump's unusual open criticism of Bolton is not being addressed to the American public or media. Trump is speaking directly to Iran, Venezuela, Macron and EU counterparts, etc., clearing the table for a reset on new negotiations. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:57, 12 September 2019 (EDT)

Bolton's post-firing temper tantrum

Perhaps as a final "eff you" to his former boss, not only is Bolton now publicly trashing him, but there's speculation that he may have leaked information to the anonymous whistleblower on the way out.[9][10] --Geopolitician (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2019 (EDT)

Getting around Google algorithms

We all know Google has algorithms it is manipulating to limit the availability of conservative thought, and until we can get changes made to CDA 230 that won't change. However, not all algorithms are created equal or have the same goals. One of the most draconian algorithms in this respect that Google employs is the Google News one. Almost all news from conservative sites is disallowed as the Google news queue is built. There is an opportunity here for conservapedia.

The page Top Conservative news websites is now the #3 item if that title is searched. Didn't really take much effort to get the page there either. However, Thoughtco is #2 and has huge traffic numbers, and of course nobody beats Wikipedia's traffic save for Google themselves. So we have realistically gotten as high as we can with it. Here is the point: Having this Top Conservative news websites page exposed so highly exposes many of our other internally linked pages.

For example, we don't currently have a page for The Federalist, so there is no internal Conservapedia page to link to. But for pages that do have an internal page, it is highly exposed and if we built these pages up we could get more traffic from it. I'll eventually get to it, but if anybody is interested in an "all hands on deck" effort we could get this done somewhat quickly. Just throwing it out there. Even if no changes are made, it would probably be good to discuss the differences in algorithms.

If anybody wants to help me out with this let me know. Progressingamerica (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2019 (EDT)

Two suggestions: 1) Have each of the 60 website articles listed in Top Conservative news websites, link back to the Top Conservative news websites in their "see also" sections. For example, have the Gateway Pundit article link to Top Conservative news websites in its "see also" section. 2) When applicable, lengthen the articles listed in the list so they are more than stub/short articles. For example, expand the Gateway Pundit article. Wisdomcriesout (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2019 (EDT)
Another suggestion: Move RedState down the list or possibly remove it. This is due to Eric Erickson's former Never Trumper stance and his present weak endorsement of Donald Trump. Wisdomcriesout (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2019 (EDT)
The main thing that is needed is to make the pages bigger. The wikipedia page for Gateway Pundit has 34,488 bytes of information currently, ours has 706 bytes. The wiki page is absolutely horrendous, but multiply this by the sixty in our list and it's a huge task a single person. It really depends on how much others are interested. So far, doesn't seem to be much interest. Progressingamerica (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
That's the difference between liberals and conservatives: conservatives don't organize well, while liberals are masters at it. I suppose that would be evidence for the fodder that liberals are more pragmatic and willing to sacrifice on behalf of others, while conservatives are more ideological, self-centered, and stubborn.
Another observation: conservatives won't honor their commitment to a role in a collective, organized plan as soon as they get bored, whereas liberals will fight to the bitter end, including being tear-gassed and jailed for a wrongheaded objective. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:38, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
You seem pretty committed. So how about it? Progressingamerica (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
On news sources? I endorse it wholeheartedly. Right now, I'm expecting the FISA abuse report (said to be massive) and other key documents to round out and finish my massive chronicle of Obama era corruption. The new bogus Ukrainian Impeachment 2.0 doesn't help. I got my hands full, but can help out where I can. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:54, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

A favorite lie (corrected Oct. 15)

Sen. Warren and some of the other Democratic candidates appeared at a homosexual/transexual candidate forum in Iowa, where they met a single question about what government goodies they and their cohorts could expect to receive with them as President.

When it came to be Warren's turn, she read a list of names:

The auditorium fell silent as the litany of names continued. “… Bee Love Slater, Ja’Leyah-Jamar: Eighteen trans women of color who have been killed so far this year,” she said. “It is time for a president of the United States of America to say their names.”

Journalist Andy Ngo debunked this claim of the number of men trying to act like women targetted for violence, with hate as a motive, months ago by means of taking a strange course of action for a journalist of today—he investigated the claims of the purported targets and reported what he found.

[Of the 26 transsexuals murdered in 2018, including white people, male or female, h]e found at least [2] of them were actually targets of domestic violence, [5 involved in prostitution] with spouses or clients who presumably already knew they were born men, and therefore couldn't simultaneously be very tolerant of the practice of alternate gendering and also engaged in attacking them with a motivation of hatred for the practice.

[1 was involved in criminal activity, and at least 8 others were also not believed by police to be involved in bias crimes.]

It's not as if Andy Ngo is not a public figure; he has a large Twitter presence, appears on national news shows and recently gained notoriety by being violently assaulted by Antifa members causing him neurological injuries.

To Warren, all Trump has to do is say their names one! last! time!, or it proves he's afraid! The plan's already been set, and everyone's busy, so we can't change the number of people purportedly targeted by hate based on this new information, nor pass around some kind of update on the numbers.

But we promise we won't use any recital of Trump's to write news stories with us claiming he's been inattentive to their plight (all [ten or less] of them in a nation of 320,000,000) and has suddenly demonstrated it by the lengthiness of the recital made with his very own words, and because of this surprising and unexpected angle that no one thought of, insist Trump will need to say one! last! time! he supports even more draconian federal hate-crimes legislation. It would be easy for Trump to do. So if he doesn't do it, it proves he's afraid!

Meanwhile persons dying of heart disease per year number in the 700,000 range.

So why don't the Democrats provide every American with counseling about the dangers of and remedies for heart disease instead? Answer: Because who would believe them? They have abused their power to affect the government so often and to such an extent that they've lost all credibility to persuade about nearly everything. Not to mention even the smaller journalists whose reputations are unwillingly caught up in their colleagues' abuse and lowered standards who actually seek the truth rather than shun it. It's too late for them. Journalistically speaking, the Democrats have poisoned the well!

[I regret the enumeration errors I made working from memory. Andy Ngo adds: "Trans homocides are underrepresented compared to non-trans groups."]

VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 15:58, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

Did you miss the big story coming out of the conference? Biden wants men to be able to choose to go to women's prisons. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:04, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
It's all just a blur of bad ideas that even doctrinaire egalitarian Chinese communists have enough common sense to avoid. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 21:10, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
Gotta love it. A year from now when Democrats try walking all this back, pretending to be moderates, saying "We didn't really mean it." The more insanity we can make a record of now, the more they have to walkbalk later.RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:59, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
Dissuade you from your own chosen strategy of marshalling the relevant facts into informed, comprehensive accounts of American (if not worldwide) political professions and undertakings of today in hopes of fostering the growth of its remaining political sanity for tomorrow? I'd sooner attempt to shave a lion. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 00:20, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
More than half, a majority, or 57.7% to be precise of trangender murders are non-hate crimes. It's not like we didn't know (or surmise) this. It might be a surprise to the liberal left/communist MSM crack heads, though. I'm sure it'll be covered up or explained away. The pressure of transgender discrimination among straights causes their alleged spouses to beat them, I suppose. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:42, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

Greta Thunberg and mental illness

Greta Thunberg suffers from various disorders of the mind, including Asperger's, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, eating disorders, anxiety attacks, and high-functioning autism. That much doesn't seem to be in dispute. But if you call her "mentally ill," that's a totally different kettle of fish, as Michael Knowles recently discovered. See "Fox News Won't Book Guest Again After "Disgraceful" Comments About Greta Thunberg." The holy child and her climate nonsense are apparently above criticism. Kids should go to school. Thunberg is telling them to leave the classroom and march for some political cause they don't understand like Red Guards in 1960s China. PeterKa (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2019 (EDT)

Aussie broadcaster Alan Jones takes the "virtue signaling little turds" down better than I can: “To all the school kids going on strike for climate change, you’re the first generation who have required air conditioning in every room. You want TV in every room, and your classes are all computerized. You spend all day and night on electronic devices. More than ever, you don’t walk or ride bikes to school, but you arrive in caravans of private cars that choke suburban roads and worsen rush hour traffic.” PeterKa (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
Although Fox News has been buffaloed, Australia's Sky News is on a hot streak. This is the best summation of the Thunberg matter that I have seen and it belongs on MPR: "Thunberg is 'not the messiah, she is an extremely anxious girl'". Make it plain, Andrew Bolt! PeterKa (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
Speaking as a high-functioning autistic person who did nearly end up brainwashed by the leftists in academia, I somewhat sympathize with her, due to nearly turning out like her. Of course, unlike her, my parents at least made sure to have dinner conversations and even make sure I knew that what the teacher taught was not necessarily the truth (I was one of those few kids who actually STATED what I learned at school each day). From what I heard, she didn't even get that, she instead got parents who if anything made sure she was relentlessly assaulted with climate change agendas specifically to make sure she was parroting them by 16 years of age. Talk about sick... Pokeria1 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
I watched a bit of Greta's UN speech. Her shtick is to hold her own mental health hostage. The implied message is "Believe and panic or I'll go nuts." It's a celebration of mental illness and a throwback to the Middle Ages when one man's demonic possession was another's saintly ecstasy. PeterKa (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Greta needs to start naming names and pronto, so we can know towards which high-ranking government officials we should lob hysterical climate shrieks next. You know, co-ordination? A good way to make them nervous is to sit in on televised committee hearings and dress like a protester but only erupt in small-sized groups at key moments, because you know, no prior restraint? On the other hand does that mesh well with prior restraint campaigns against conservatives that might begin on social media? Worth checking out. Wait...what wiki is this? VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 06:45, 4 October 2019 (EDT)

There has been virtually no MSM coverage of Trump's speech at the UN denouncing globalism due to the Dems making a query of impeachment against Trump, just thought that's worth mentioning Real45fan (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

There is no impeachment inquiry. Congress has to vote to authorize the Judiciary Committee to do so. There is no vote scheduled. Pelosi did not announce a vote. It's fake news. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:56, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Pelosi's son boarded recently on an oil company called Viscoil that did business in the Ukraine.
She was in a YouTube ad they ran too! Maybe she wants to stave off the company being included in an investigation that Trump suggested to the President of the Ukraine, and that's why she can't "find" the votes, at least until she gets re-elected. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 06:45, 4 October 2019 (EDT)

Two-front war?

Everybody hates Hitler. Except the Left chooses to hate him because he turned his National Socialism against Stalin's international socialism, not because he tried to conquer western Europe with Mussolini.

Hitler's "second front" was already being menaced by Stalin since the beginning of the war. Stalin would never stop relieving the troops stationed near Hitler's only access to a regular supply of petroleum fuels. And Stalin's delay in invading Poland was just long enough after Hitler did to insure Hitler would be held responsible for starting a European war.

You'll notice just before Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico by Soviet agents. Trotsky was in a position to know Stalin's war plans and had outlived his usefulness as a show of toleration for dissenters.

In his propaganda press, Stalin held up the European war as an example of a war-mongering that was an inevitable result of imperial and capitalist countries. Then he shifted and talked about the virtue of war bravery.

In his propaganda press, Stalin talked about the virtue of war bravery. Then on May 6, 1941, Pravda disavowed the war, stating "The whole weight of its incalculable misfortunes is laid on the shoulders of the workers. The people do not want war. Their gazes are fixed on the countries of socialism which are reaping the fruits of peaceful labor."

You can't say Hitler didn't make rapid progress in his second-front invasion of the Soviet Union. So how could Stalin's war measures have been that inept? A milder winter could have had the Soviet regime fatally decapitated. A question that might be worth asking is: how much did Stalin spend for war preparations and how (or where) were they applied? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 12:37, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

You might be interested in this.
Soviet unpreparedness was the result of Trotsyite purges of 1938, where Stalin executed the top leadership he feared was loyal to Trotsky. Trotsky was No.1 on the execution list, and they got to him eventually.
The rest of your questions I'd direct you to Victor Suvorov's Icebreaker; ignore what Western critics say about it until after you become familiar how Russian's themselves have reacted to it. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:24, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
The Stalinist purges of Trortskyism cannot be underestimated in the scheme of things (even the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact has to be seen in this light); in America, it was the murder of Juliet Poyntz that caused Whittaker Chambers to defect, rat out Alger Hiss, and the rise of Richard Nixon. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:32, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
In the period of September 1, 1939 to June 22, 1941, Hitler and the Nazis were praised and hailed by communists {Stalinists) as heroes of the Revolution, taking on and taking out French and British Imperialism, paving the way for the establishment of the Socialist world order.
The Crimes Against Peace charged at Nuremberg included a violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (the USSR was not a signatory to the original Versailles Treaty), thus imposing de facto recognition of its validity on the Western Powers; this became quite a sticking point throughout the Cold War as the U.S. never recognized Soviet Annexation of the Baltic States. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:39, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Oh, and Mussolini tried to conquer Western Europe? That's news to me. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:01, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Hitler did...with Mussolini as an ally who tied down many Mediterranean nations. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 15:14, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
The Mediterranean is Southern Europe, not Western European. You're the victim of Hollywood propaganda, fake news, public school education and brainwashing. How's it feel now being called a fascist for pointing out obvious facts? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:11, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Rob, France and England were big powers! And Southern Europe is relevant because English protectorates and allies there like Greece whether occupied by Germany or Italy couldn't render support.
And how am I supposed to believe these accounts of Polish atrocities against Germans? National Review Online said nothing about them! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 16:46, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
"allies" and "tied down" are not really apt descriptions. Hitler and Mussolini were not "allies" in the sense that FDR & Churchill were, co-coordinating strategy and actions together such as the Manhattan Project or Operation Overlord. Mussolini and Hitler did not act or coordinate together. In fact, Hitler blamed the loss of the War on Mussolini, claiming Mussolini's failed invasion of the Balkans delayed Operation Barbarossa by several weeks, and the Germans didn't reach Moscow until the snows started to fall.
But it was convenient to link Mussolini and Hitler together for propaganda purposes. Mussolini's granddaughter ran for the Italian parliament, and some idiot American reporter started asking her about anti-Semitism and the holocaust. That's how brainwashed and ignorant of history Americans are. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:01, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Did I ever mention, I met Herman Goering's daughter here in New Mexico? I went on a sales call to her house in a remote area up in the mountains. She was living under her maiden name. I didn't ask at the time, but my suspicions were confirmed when I saw the film, Hitler's Children. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:19, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
I suppose we may encounter members of famous families more often than we think. But only the observant, like yourself, are the ones who are treated to the surprise of noticing. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 18:27, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
This place was so remote, and I never met or seen anyone with the name before, I joked to myself on the drive out there that if a Goering was looking for a place to hide out, this certainly would be the spot. I'll give you a clue: it's a little north of Jeffrey Epstein's 10.000 acre ranch. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:10, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Please remain in those larger states, Rob, where it's more difficult for the enemies of conservatism to zero in on you. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 23:17, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

The Conservapedia "Causes of World War II" article isn't very helpful. The article leads the reader to induce that since Germany sought lebensraum, and Germany invaded Poland, that invading Poland was part of Germany's seeking of lebensraum. Worse, it doesn't mention that Russia reneged on their planned simultaneous invasion, or the claim that Lord Halifax? was intent on destroying Germany. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 18:45, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

Or whether Poland was influenced or not by Germany's treatment of Czechoslavakia. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 18:49, 30 September 2019 (EDT)

It's an incomplete article from the early days of CP. Historians now are beginning to date the War from 1930 - 1945, which in my opinion is more accurate. It's an age-old debate; typically the answers have been ranked as follows:
  • What caused WWII?
  1. Adolf Hitler.
  2. Treaty of Versailles.
  3. Great Depression.
The politically correct answer has always been #1, but in recent decades historians have been moving away from that. Those who vocalize it risk being called fascists. OTOH, judging from the reaction of students who hear this answer, and given the effects on the world we live in, the answer can seem simplistic, which then has the opposite and negative effect of evoking skepticism.
Churchill called it "The Unnecessary War," which barring Hitler, is true. But that again only speaks to British experience, reduces and leaves out the whole Chinese experience of the War, which in this "Global Age" China is having none of it. So it does seem kinda racist to ignore China and sell the Angelocentric version to the whole world. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:27, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Thank you for your considered opinions, Rob. I had prepared a number of my own as well, but this has to be a really depressing subject for some, so your versatile question-fielding notwithstanding, I'd like to take this up at another time when I'm capable of dealing with it in a more measured conversational approach. You almost have to be an expert to talk about certain types of things, and I think this is one of them. We've had some disturbances in our family, and this sort of thing takes my mind off of it, but I realize not necessarily in a way that is helpful to anyone else. But thank you again. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 23:17, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Evolutionism played a key role as far as the cause of WWI and WWII. See: World War I and Darwinism and Darwinism and World War One and Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust and Social effects of evolutionary ideology.
Darwinism, WWI and WWII all weakened Britain which lead to the decline of British empire.Wikignome72 (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
If evolutionism/atheism didn't weaken Russia and the geographic area of the Soviet Union, maybe Germany would have been reluctant to attack the area. See: What happened when Stalin read Darwin?.Wikignome72 (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Vargas, sorry to hear, but when ever your ready let me know. The article you cited definitely needs some improving.
WG, Yes, most definitely. While atheism and evolution played a big role going back a lifetime (1914 = 1848 = 65 years) leading up to WWI, WWII was the same unresolved issues on bigger scale. I discovered this as a student of history trying to understand the Cold War, which had its roots in WWII, which had its roots in WWI, which had its roots in the second half of the 19th century. As a high schooler during the Vietnam War draft, I figured if I was gonna get killed, I should at least know why. I started studying then and haven't stopped since. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:36, 1 October 2019 (EDT)

Glory to Hong Kong

On October 1, the first serious injury in three months of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong occurred. A high school student was shot in the chest at point blank range by a police officer. Listen to "Glory to Hong Kong," the anthem of the city's protest movement. Christians are the vanguard. There are prayer rings before each protest with black clad youths psyching each other up before going into action against the police. PeterKa (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Why are Conservative Girls So Attractive and Liberal Girls So Ugly?

Have you ever seen Scandinavian women? Very beautiful and very liberal.--Chewy Suarez (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Really? Why do the religious Filipinas dominate the world's beauty contests? See: Religious Philippines winning streak in the major international beauty pageants
"Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize?" - The Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:24.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
So you do not find blond haired blue eyed women attractive?--Chewy Suarez (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
By the way, the English anthropologist Edward Dutton indicates that using right-wing politics as a proxy for religiosity, there is evidence that atheists are less attractive and he pointed out that right-wing politicians are more likely to have symmetrical faces according to a study.[11]
There you have it. Both science and the world's beauty contests point to conservative, religious girls being far more pretty - especially with their long, flowing locks of luscious hair! "But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering." - The Apostle Paul.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Blond, blued eyed? We all know Swedish, angry, feminists die their short, butch, hair blue! [12]Wikignome72 (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Take a look at this gallery [13] Do you find them attractive?--Chewy Suarez (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Science and the world's beauty contests trumps your anecdotal "evidence". Conservative, religious girls are prettier - on the inside and the outside!Wikignome72 (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

What science? Do you have a link of reference to a respected scientific article that can confirm this?--Chewy Suarez (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

By the way, slim, Indian, girls are far prettier than secular, European cows![14] See: Secular Europe and obesity.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Notice how slim the Christian, Filipina/Indian girls are compared to their rivals - namely, the secular, European cows:World obesity prevalence among females.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Once again, the conservative, religious girls win hands down.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Obesity set to balloon across Sweden by 2030. Is there anything more fragile than beauty among women in a liberal nation? Eggs or vases perhaps? No doubt the liberal, Swedish lesbians will contribute to growing obesity problem in Sweden. See: Lesbianism and obesity.Wikignome72 (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Most young people in Sweden are eating too little fruit and veg and too much meat, candy, and soda, according to a new study.. Last time I checked, most beauty contests involve young women.
Is this one of the reasons why Filipinas are triumphing over Nordic ladies in the world's beauty contests?Wikignome72 (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Irreligious mutants will never be prettier or more handsome than the religious who will inherit the earth! See: Atheists and genetic mutations and Desecularization.Wikignome72 (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Look, guys, I can't speak for whether Filipino women or Nordic women are more beautiful, since ultimately, it's down to personal taste. I will make this much clear, however: Being religious doesn't necessarily mean one is beautiful. Look at Mother Teresa. She was very deeply religious, yet last I checked, she would never win a beauty contest. Also, considering several beauty contests right now are little more than left-wing talking platforms right now, I really wouldn't use them as a basis (and for goodness sakes, did you just imply that being vegetarian allows for being beauty. Last I checked, vegetarianism isn't really a hallmark of conservativism, especially when we've got far too many liberals who adhere to that line of thinking. Also, I thought we created Conservapedia to get rid of the leftist bias that was prevalent on Wikipedia, so using Wikipedia as a source isn't good.). Also, we don't know if those Swedish people in those photo galleries are even liberal. For all we know, they could just as easily be closet conservatives. We can't use the photo galleries, or for that matter, beauty contests, as an actual objective measure on beauty and politics (otherwise, we'd have to cite Miss Spain and Miss Polonia as examples of liberal women being more beautiful than conservative women just because leftist women won those contests, one of whom is a practicing lesbian). Sorry, I just get very annoyed by this kind of talk. I do agree on one thing, though: Ultimately, Christianity WILL dominate the Earth, with God as ruler. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the founder of American Atheists.

As you can see above, she was far less pretty than Sarah, the wife of Abraham.

Abraham is often called the "father of faith".

The book of Romans say about Abraham: "That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." - Romans 4:16

Wikipedia, a website founded by an atheist and agnostic, says about Abraham's wife Sarah: "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all depict her character similarly, as that of a pious woman, renowned for her hospitality and beauty, the wife of Abraham, and the mother of Isaac."[15]Wikignome72 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Let's take a look what the fairer sex says about atheists since many ladies are often concerned about beauty and fashion and are therefore experts in this area: All atheists are ugly.
There you have it. An expert in beauty saying "all atheists are ugly".Wikignome72 (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Pokeria, you wrote: "Look, guys, I can't speak for whether Filipino women or Nordic women are more beautiful, since ultimately, it's down to personal taste."
Absolutely not! Since objective beauty exists and beauty is not merely subjective in nature (see: Argument from beauty).
God and the religious Filipinas who win the international beauty contests are all objectively better looking than Madalyn Murray O'Hair was.
"One thing I have asked from the LORD, that I shall seek: That I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, To behold the beauty of the LORD And to meditate in His temple." - Psalm 27:4Wikignome72 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
I never said anything about whether the Filipinos were prettier than O'Hair. Yes, the Filipinos were most certainly better looking, objectively speaking, than O'Hair. However, to be fair, even the Swedish women in that gallery that Chewy Suarez posted, most of them on at least the first page anyways, actually DID objectively look better than O'Hair, as well, so that really doesn't mean much. Besides, technically, Mother Teresa is objectively ugly on the outside, yet she's very pious and more likely than not beautiful on the inside. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Chewy is rather silent now.
Evidently, Chewy could not handle all the proof and evidence I rained down on him showing him that conservative, religious women are prettier than secular, leftist women!
"By sheer weight of fire, morale is lowered. Observation and movement hindered. Control disrupted. And weapons become less effective... These are the neutralizing effects of artillery."[16]Wikignome72 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
To be fair, we really don't know the political affiliation of those Swedish women in those galleries that Chewy posted. For all we know, they could have just as easily been conservative. After all, France is generally considered a very secular and leftist country (about as far left and secular as Sweden, as a matter of fact), yet even THAT has a conservative segment of the population (not to mention the May 1968 riots participations being exaggerated as I myself verified with a French family at my parish a couple years back). Pokeria1 (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

In 2011, only 2 of the 50 Miss USA contestants thought evolution should be taught in schools.[17] Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists or agnostics (see: Evolution).Wikignome72 (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

How about that other theory of evolution—the one that does not employ methodological naturalism? Are its defenders agnostics too? I have attempted, many many times, to teach the Cons people about the correct grammatical use of nonrestrictive clauses. I can't be bothered to look those lectures up; I'd suggest you ask the Cons people about them. Your writing style seems rather similar to that of the Cons people—including choice of topics, stylistic approach to those topics, utter insanity of positions (conservative girls are attractive and liberal girls ugly????), and intensity of editing. It's almost enough to make me think you are a sockpuppet. I can't be bothered to check your footnoting style. SamHB (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
True, but then again, Miss America went far left recently thanks to Gretchen Carlson (herself a former Miss America winner) demanding they emphasize philosophy. And besides, Miss Spain and Miss Polonia weren't exactly conservative either, the former being an open lesbian, and the latter basically describing as her ideal man a bunch of polish political leftists. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ was blocked. Apparently, he thought it was a sign of mental illness to talk about whether secular leftists were less physically attractive. That is rather ironic considering that both science and international beauty contests indicate that the religious are more beautiful that their mutant, secular leftist counterparts. This is yet another case of secular leftists hating science! Futhermore, atheism has been tied to mental illness (see: Atheism and mental illness).
Another irony is that Edward Dutton, who goes by the name the "jolly heretic", is the main proponent of the mututant/ugly atheist theory and he appears to be a fellow British atheist/evolutionist.[18]
Nuxated iron.jpg
The topic appears to get under the skin of some atheists and a NZ atheist even tried to convince me that he resembles James Dean. The topic also appears to be one of the more popular items I have written about and the atheists and physical attractiveness article gets about 25,000 page views a year. So in 10 years, the article will have obtained about 250,000 page views.
My all time favorite atheist is Edward Dutton. He is rather funny and entertaining. Eric Kaufmann is my favorite agnostic.Wikignome72 (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
Oh, I agree that atheists tend to be hideous (just look at Jean-Paul Sartre, for example). That said, Mother Teresa certainly wouldn't be the type to be able to win a beauty pageant even if she wanted to, and she's pious and devout to Christianity, so I really am not fond of saying all Christians are beautiful due to it being inaccurate (if all of them were physically beautiful, then what does that make Mother Teresa?). Pokeria1 (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

Conservative proven right

I thought I knew the health and beauty benefits of luxated iron on proud American women, and that was all there was to say. But look, it also produces "strong, sturdy men" here in America too! VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:21, 5 October 2019 (EDT)

How did Amber's key even work on the guy's room?

Hi.

I don't think this question was ever asked, so forgive me if I am mistaken about thinking it wasn't asked during the trial, but... how on earth did Amber's key work on a room that wasn't even hers? My parents and I went to hotels with card keys, and they're usually reserved strictly for the room we're assigned to. It seems odd for her key to work in a room that wasn't even supposed to be hers. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

Guyjer brought in two witnesses who both said they had also accidentally parked on the wrong attached parking level and walked down the hall to the wrong apartment; one witness said she was at home one time when a homeless guy let himself in with a card key. She chased him out, and said he just opened another apartment down the hall.
The complex evidently is a real hellhole, with homeless people sleeping in stairwells, etc. The places are easy to break into by attached balconies. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:34, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
I read the account in the Daily Mail, and it said she noticed that the door was unlocked (thinking it was her apartment)—and if true, it's understandable if she expected an ambush. But Conservapedia Main Page Right has a point, The Daily Mail could be promoting an abusive leniency toward majoritarians, in this case men's larger membership in conservative groups than women. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 07:26, 4 October 2019 (EDT)

Trump declares Mar-a-lago "sanctuary resort", seeks refuge

A beleaguered President Trump, tired of "impeachment nonsense" has moved his operations to Mar-a-lago, his resort in Florida this weekend.

"I'm seeking refuge here. If city councils can do it for illegals, why not me? They say nobody is above the law. But then they get a better coverage than I do—is that above? Nobody should be below the law, either," Trump said.

"People can still visit the resort—they just may have to watch their step for the transmission cables for the White House TV production set."

"I said that's it—the people in this country want us to do our jobs to Keep America Great!" referring to his updated slogan for the 2020 presidential race. "I just declared myself immune. And if they don't like it, they can clear out the sanctuary cities and states, first. Then we'll talk."

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi expressed surprise when she heard the news. "He's got us there. Wow. I didn't think... Even if we impeach him, we won't be able to remove him from office—he's in a sanctuary. I'm flummoxed."

Constitutional scholars have been poring over U.S. law, seeking an end to the standoff.

"Trump is right when he suggests he has more legal standing than an illegal immigrant to seek sanctuary," said one expert. "But hey, when was the last time the Constitution stopped the U.S. Government from doing anything?"

"Like every time they hold a press conference to launch a government program that expands the government's purview into yet another lighting fixture!" continued the cynical expert, who probably needed a vacation himself. "Funny how they're always in a rush acting like they're in the middle of something and don't have time to show that little "constitutionality" part of the law—constitutional scholars gotta eat too, you know!" VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 09:47, 6 October 2019 (EDT)

Too "on the nose"

No matter how much Dems and the MSM lie to you,

It is not illegal for a POTUS to request mutual legal assistance from another nation in an evidence based investigation

What is illegal is weaponizing allied IC services to spy on Americans then fabricating evidence. —John Cardillo

VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 19:46, 6 October 2019 (EDT)

This guff is getting zero traction beyond the base. Trump will be impeached. That much is certain now.
Whilst it's still anyone's guess what happens in the Senate, I think it's safe to say there are plenty of GOP senators who, absent electoral anxieties, would dearly love to pull the trigger.
How many True ConservativesTM can you lot come up with who'll stick with Trump no matter what? JohnZ (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
I would recommend a little less gloating. We all have a pretty good idea (well, at least you and I do) how this is going to turn out. I'm sure you've seen the signs in zoos, on the cages of dangerous animals: "Do not annoy, tease, or harass the animals", or words to that effect. The creatures you are taunting, while they can't maul you to death, have block powers and aren't afraid to use them. Gloating simply gets you a 3 day rest, which slows you down.
> How many True ConservativesTM can you lot come up with who'll stick with Trump no matter what?
Well, I can suggest the person who has made thousands of edits to the "Donald Trump Achievements" articles. Whether he's actually a conservative I can't tell, because I don't read those articles.
The nation is going through difficult times. But it will get better. SamHB (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
I think the Commander in Chief should just declare Martial Law and end this insurgency. RobSDe Plorabus Unum

JohnZ it is time for you to get out of leftist La La Land and come back to reality. Trump has a 90% approval rate among Republican voters. The Senate is not going to impeach Trump. Even Nancy Pelosi is afraid to bring it to a vote due to Trump winning in the districts of 31 Democratic congressmen back in 2016. The GOP will win back Congress if Pelosi goes forward with impeachment and she knows this.Wikignome72 (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

It's a shame to see the First Woman Speaker of the House end such a storied legacy so pathetically. What an inspiration for young women to follow! And we thought Biden was the only one losing his mind. Hey girls! This is what you should strive for! Promoting hate, division, and corruption, only to end in failure. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:40, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
Barr needs to appoint a Special Prosecutor to look into the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Obama administration's collusion with foreign governments and meddling in elections. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:59, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
Barr needs to practise his Nuremberg defence. It's obviously not his fault if Trump orders him to investigate thoroughly-debunked nonsense, and - if you squint really hard - not his place to question whether Trump's motives are corrupt. (Note also that Sessions refused to touch the DNC / Ukraine collusion guff with a bargepole).
I'll ask again: name the True ConservativeTM GOP senators who'll stick with Trump no matter what. Fabulous prizes to be won if you can get to 34! JohnZ (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
"The media seems to think that if it just says the magic words often enough, the problem goes away. We already know that Creepy Joe lied. We already know that his adulterous, crackhead son who banged his brother's widow was being paid ludicrous sums of money for doing nothing by the Ukrainians.
The word "debunked" clearly no longer means what it used to mean. But what level of truth can you reasonably expect from people who also claim that "man" means "woman", "cat" means "dog", and the number six means "purple"." - Vox DayWikignome72 (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
Can't see any GOP senators in there, like. Maybe you missed a bit in your copy/paste. JohnZ (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ, Thoroughly debunked nonsense? Like what?
  1. That Mifsud was a KGB agent working for Putin?
  2. That John Brennan told James Comey that Papadopoulos was having contact with Joseph Mifsud, a KGB agent so the FBI could start a counterintelligence investigation?
  3. That Russian's hacked the DNC?
John, gimme a cite where all this nonsense was debunked? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:02, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
Try this for starters. Trump would do well to (but almost certainly won't) heed his former Homeland Security Advisor.
Still waiting on those GOP senators. JohnZ (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
HAHAHA! NBC News see Shawn Henry (coming soon). And Atlantic Council for CrowdStrike. Why was the founder of CrowdStrike tweeting Fancy Bear (a Ukrainian hacker group that hacked the DNC)? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:38, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ is right. We need to answer his question which presupposes arguments whose refutation he entirely ignored one! last! time!, or it proves that we're afraid! Check the British odds-makers about the odds of Trump being removed. The odds are exactly the same since one week ago. JohnZ is just here (in a section that I originated) to make noise and try to move the needle—which he clownishly failed to do. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 16:52, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

An example how to use Sorcha Faal

Today's Sorcha Faal entry is a good example how to use the website.

The January 11, 2017 Politico article, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire, which exposed the Ukrainian collusion scandal, presently remains at the top of Google results, providing a factual counter-narrative to the impeachment inquiry. (IOWs, a nearly four year old article is drowning out the impeachment spin). The article became obscured by Trump-Russia and the Mueller probe.

Sorcha Faal provides context, and this underlying link: Biden to meet with Poroshenko in Ukraine on Jan. 15, dated the next day, January 12, 2017. Factual evidence investigators can use to demand the substance of those discussions between Biden and Poroshenko after the Politico leak.

The Gatewaypundit article, citing the same January 12 Kiev Post article, provides no evidence for the claims made in the headline. Context is more important than sensationalism. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:37, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

United States fiscal year 2019 ended

On September 30, 2019 the United States fiscal year 2019 ended. About that time, the advance GDP (gross domestic product) and national debt figures were released:

For FY 2019 beginning October 1, 2018 and ending September 30, 2019, the United States production that was consumed this fiscal year (called gross domestic product or GDP) increased by about $858 billion, adding up to a total of about $21.2 trillion GDP for the year. On the other hand the national debt increased by about $1,203 billion.

The new $1,203 billion debt divided by the total GDP (GDP also being what is the United States' yearly income, in a way) for this year (the total GDP including the $858 billion increase) is about 5.7% (called the new debt per GDP ratio).

But comparing the new debt to total GDP doesn't show the most important effects of the United States governments' total debt. As far as measuring debt increases goes: firstly, the new debt per GDP ratio is like comparing the price of the car you bought to your total household income for the year—if you already owe a lot of money, your new debt proportion will still change more than someone who doesn't have a lot of debt, so it won't show your ability to borrow more, and secondly, nor will it show comparisons well to changes in new income.

Comparing GDP total to total national debt includes those important effects every year it is applied, so taking increases after this ratio is applied, one year upon the other, one can get a more accurate picture of the change in debt burden.

Recent ratios of totals of U.S. federal debt to totals of GDP and trade deficits, trillions
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
China trade
Defic. (prelim.)
-$0.27 $-0.24 -0.26 -0.29 -0.31 -0.32 -0.34 -0.36 -0.35 $-0.37 -0.41
Business
debt
$10.55 $10.30 10.05 10.20 10.65 11.15 11.80 12.60 13.30 $14.15 15.10
Household
debt
$14.15 $14.00 13.80 13.65 13.60 13.70 13.90 14.10 14.50 $15.00 15.50
incr. or decr. GDP 0.45 $-0.30 0.40 0.55 0.65 0.55 0.75 0.75 0.45 $0.75 1.05 0.85
Total GDP $14.75 $14.45 14.85 15.40 16.05 16.60 17.35 18.10 18.55 $19.30 20.35 21.20
Intra-gov. $4.25 $4.40 $4.60 $4.65 $4.85 $4.80 $5.10 $5.10 $5.40 $5.55 $5.85 $6.00
public-held $5.85 $7.50 $9.00 $10.05 $11.30 $11.95 $12.80 $13.05 $14.15 $14.65 $15.75 $16.80
total public debt,
trillions
$10.00 $11.90 13.55 14.80 16.05 16.75 17.80 18.15 19.55 $20.25 21.50 22.70
Fed. debt
to GDP ratio
68.0% 82.5% 91.4% 96.0% 100.1% 100.8% 102.8% 100.3% 105.5% 105.0% 105.8% 107.2%
Bus. ratio 71.4% 71.2% 67.7% 66.3% 66.4% 67.0% 68.0% 69.5% 71.7% 73.4% 74.1%
Hous. ratio 95.9% 96.8% 92.9% 88.5% 84.7% 82.5% 80.2% 78.0% 78.1% 77.7% 76.1%

VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 04:51, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

Thank you. Now give us figures for exported wealth to
  • China;
  • the EU (Germany specifically)
  • Mexico
i.e. Trade Deficit figures to give the National debt some context.
Quick observations: the doubling of "total debt" between 2009 and 2017, from $10.05 to $20.25 is basically Obamacare; (Sure, some might say "No, that included Stimulus and the TARP program." While that was true from 2009-2010, it was a one-time cost, whereas Obamacare is a continuing obligation ad infinitum).
Overall, the picture looks healthy. While GDP (the ability to produce) has increased more than one-third from $14.5 to $19.3, the debt to GDP ratio has increased less than one-quarter (82.5% to 105% = about 22%). And "total debt" is now being offset by "income" from tariffs (similar to "retained earnings" in a corporation).
IOWs, our ability to produce (thanks to Trump's deregulation) is growing faster than our debt burden. And the debt burden is being offset by (a) Chinese tariffs, and (b) rescinding the communist/socialist slave burden of the Obama employer and employee mandates which were a drag on the economy, producing poverty, misery and unemployment. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:39, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
Soooo....let's give it some MAGAnomic context:
  • GDP increased by about $858 billion;
  • China trade deficit $568 billion;
  • Net retained earnings after subtracting US wealth exported to China, $858 - 568 = $290 billion (still have to factor in US wealth exported to Mexico and the EU from this $290 billion figure).
  • No wonder multinational globalists invested in "emerging markets" hate Trump.
  • By reducing the export of American wealth, smelly Walmart shoppers no longer have to cling to guns, God, and gays, opioids, suicide, and unemployment. Yes We Can! Hope Renewed! Hope Restored! RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:37, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
I'd take a second look.
The debt to GDP ratio is the result of dividing two real-world observations, not a data point itself.
If the debt to GDP ratio is increasing from one year to another, it means debt is growing faster than GDP. If the debt to GDP ratio is decreasing from one year to another, in means GDP is growing faster than the debt.
It also shows our ability to pay it back, where 100% = 1 year, 200% = 2 years.
And finally the new incomes you explained show up better with the total debt/total GDP ratio because it allows both types of observations to determine the ratio, while the yearly changes of the new debt/GDP ratio is almost entirely determined by the new debt dividend rather than that dividend being able to share the determination with the total GDP divisor. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 14:59, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
The debt ratio is the result of two factors: (1) private transactions that will be repaid; and (2) government entitlement spending which represents personal consumption expenditures - unfunded government debt rolled forward on future generations. It has to be broken down between public and private debt. In itself the figure can be deceptive and mean nothing misleading.
Related to this discussion, I'd encourage Europeans to watch this George Friedman video in its entirety, all 41 minutes, to understand America. It's timely, from December 2018. Few have been able to explain America and the American system as it exists today as George Friedman does. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:19, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
Lol. What did you think you were looking at when you saw the debt figures? Sure, I'll break it down by public and private. Then you can breathe on it, and it will educate all of us. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:51, 8 October 2019 (EDT). Okay, you corrected yourself somewhat. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 16:07, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
Good! Thanks. Remember, 2018-2019 represents a transitional period from (a) the termination of Obamacare as longterm contributor to the debt ratio; (b) income from tariffs which are only temporary until a larger scale redeployment of capital and resources elsewhere, including some returning to the United States. No conclusions can be drawn from a transitionary phase, only observations about the direction of change. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:03, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

The point I'm making is, that's why so many people, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservative, often get their panties in a bunch over the federal deficit (public debt), because of the impact on the the debt to GDP ratio (which affects interest rates, or the ability of the private sector grow and produce).

In macroeconomic theory, Socialists have a habit of discounting the importance of private debt, because they do not recognize private property rights, and look at the debt to GDP ratio as some overriding "data point", to use your term. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:16, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

I guess there's two kinds of trolls: The dumb kind that says Trump's deficits are "up" when the ratio's barely moved and the slightly less dumb kind, Democrats who pose as "budget experts" and use that data to throw off budget scoring when talking to the public, except reluctantly when they are under oath. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 17:06, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
While we can draw conclusions now of the impact of Obamacare (which is somewhat defunct) on the debt to GDP ratio, we can't draw conclusion in a transitionary phase away from widening trade deficits.
By analogy, look at Reagan's defense spending (public debt) with only marginal cuts in entitlements; it increased the debt to GDP ratio and interest rates, but still didn't limit GDP growth, as Obamacare did. MAGAnomics is all focused on private sector growth with no demands on increasing public debt (unlike Reagan and Obama).
All the personal income gains in workers paychecks are coming directly from reductions in the trade deficit with China (that, and continuing GDP growth). Only rising interest rates are a threat, but as the period from 1982 - onward shows, the U.S. can have guns and butter, too. And Trump is not proposing massive increases in the defense budget to keep the commies at bay, or increases in permanent social entitlement spending like Obamacare. He wants to keep U.S. GDP gains at home in the U.S., rather than exporting U.S. wealth to China, Mexico, and NATO countries. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:06, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
Greta Thunberg seems to be the only one who would rather have us all die of starvation and disease by limiting economic growth, rather than wait for the climate apocalypse and fry from rising temperatures, choke on methane, or drown from rising oceans. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:31, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
Now, alternatively something like this may happen: raise the interest rate on the purchase of new gas powered vehicles to say, 25% or more (kinda like "targeted sanctions" on foreign leaders rather than full scale war between nations back in the day). The impact on auto manufacturing, fossil fuel, steel industries, jobs, and state budgets might be devastating. But it could save the planet for climate refugees coming to Europe and America. The service sector will only lose 1.5 to 2.5 jobs for every manufacturing job lost in the developed world, but climate refugees will be made to feel right at home. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:40, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
Doubts about climate refugees: the increased carbon dioxide in our air has caused plants to grow all over the world. Something like 16% growth. I've heard that the present carbon dioxide levels are the highest in modern time. But maybe those plants were hungry for carbon dioxide, and the various plant species are used to having higher levels of it. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 15:29, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
So is there any relationship between the increase in plant life which feed on carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, and the increase in human populations who need oxygen to survive? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:24, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
That's a very good question: in what fraction of the air does oxygen subsist at its optimal level for human life? VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 20:00, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

Public v. private debt

Cursory analysis: So we see private debt holding steady at $5 trillion since Obamacare took effect (2013), then begins to increase to $6 trillion after 2017.

From 2008 until 2019, private debt increased from $4 trillion to $6 trillion, (it shrank somewhat in 2010 and 2013 due to Stimulus, Tarp, and Obamacare - the "crowding out" effect); meanwhile public debt has tripled from $5 trillion to over $15 trillion (Obamacare, retiring babyboomers, etc.)

Here's the flaw in Marxist use of aggregate statistics and misunderstanding of macroeconomic theory: not all debt is evil.

Private debt drives the economy, be it business lending or consumer spending. Public debt represents a total consumption of resources. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:08, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

Wait a minute. Are you talking about private debt or household debt, like what the Federal Reserve measures? The Treasury Department calls "private debt" intra-governmental. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 13:40, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
I'd need a link to understand that.
The chart show in 2008, public debt was 50% of all debt; in 2019 it is 75%. We are coming up against the "crowding out" effect, private borrowers "crowded out" of the market due to high interests rates. They can't outbid the government.
Even the Communist Chinese understand this: "Guo jin, min tui"
Private debt, which is homes, cars, consumer goods, business lending, business expansion, business operations and payrolls etc., creates jobs in both the retail and manufacturing sectors. Public debt is Social Security checks spent on government subsidized food products, government subsidized housing, dope, casinos, etc., and does little to create new jobs and new wealth in either manufacturing or the service sector. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:18, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
There must be two meanings of the word "private" (see titles), because the U.S. Treasury uses it to mean the securities (bonds), held intergovernmentally, that it issues between Departments to run the government.
Strangely, that shouldn't be too unexpected as in the U.K. they call "public schools" what Americans mean by "private schools". VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 14:43, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
Okay, no one calls intergovernmental debt private except me. I meant it as privately-held by the U.S. government, like the opposite of publicly held. So what do you want me to do with the breakdown of the two? And then I'll do household and business (?) debt. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 15:01, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
Well, the first to understand is that private debt fuels economic growth, and public debt consumes economic growth. To the extent that public debt consumes all total debt is the figure that you need to keep an eye on.
Programs such as Obamacare, Medicare for All, and Social Security are permanent spending programs, meaning the government pledges to spend on them whether or not the private sector is producing at all. Additionally, there is no way to forecast today, accurately at least, demographic trends 10, 20 30, 50 years out, such as population booms or busts, wars, mass death from epidemics and what age group it might affect, the median level or quality of education, the impact of mass immigration or emigration, life expectancy, the ratio of manufacturing to service sector jobs, etc.. These programs are all funded by debt, with the assumption that today's demographics, and younger voters being too stupid to understand, are constants.
But in examining these figures you see that a little private sector debt goes a long way. It is the private sector debt that fuels the economy, that makes possible these high-minded vote buying schemes whose cost is ultimately put on future, yet unborn, voters. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:36, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

We may have been working with the wrong figures

Ok, we may have been working with the wrong figures. But let's not scratch the basic theories outlined, yet.
Intragovernmental borrowing is one governmental agency working with another. The General Services Administration, or Government Printing Office, for example, provide fleet vehicles and printing services for all agencies and departments. Everybody has to account for spending, so when the FBI gets a car from the GSA, it doesn't rent it for cash; its accounted for as intergovernmental borrowing. State governments also have reserve funds invested in U.S. Treasury bonds and bills, etc.
The National Debt figures presented here I assume is the total amount of Treasury bonds and bills issued every year (it kinda doesn't matter if private holders, foreign holders, or government agencies holding these debt notes for this discussion). What these figures do not represent, evidently, is private business and consumer debt, and foreign debt (i.e. trade balance).
So we are somewhat straying into Monetary theory, the impact of public debt (the issuance of T-bills and bonds) on private sector borrowing and interest rates. Guo jin, min tui, when public borrowing saps up all funds available for lending (i.e. the national savings rate) it strangles the private sector with high interest rates and the country goes into recession. Under Keynesian theory, which was applied in the TARP program, you simply enlarge the aggregate base and issue more T-bills and bonds. The Fed then buys theses treasury notes. In the past, the Fed bought them with Federal Reserve Notes and pumped currency onto the streets through the banking network; in the TARP program, the FED bought junk mortgages and pumped T-bills and bonds into the banking network, which all ended up in the stock market on Wall Street. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:46, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
<As an aside, let me tell a funny story: In my town, the Fed and FDIC took possession of building under construction with condos selling for $169,000 a piece that caused a bank in Kansas City to fail. The homeless moved in and striped it all of its copper wire and imported Italian crystal. After two years, the mayor threatened to declare the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as slum landlords and seize the property under its nuisance abatement ordinance. All this, I suppose, moved the building into the category of "intra-governmental borrowing" and off the list as a private sector mortgage.> RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:01, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

Question: By Household, is that total accumulated debt of just debt added to Household debt that year? Everybody holds a mortgage, but not everybody buys a new mortgage every year. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:18, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

It's labelled "debt outstanding". And I think your commentary deserves a second look if not many [for its positive qualities]. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 19:21, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
Well thank you. I still get tangled up when discussing monetary theory and the TARP program; there's much detail there I still don't quite understand. The drastic expansion of the money supply did not resolve itself into cash in people's pockets, which is how the theory has worked since 1935 when Keynes first wrote his General Theory. But the 2009 bailout has buoyed the stock market for 10 years now.
In the global economy the old rules don't apply. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:12, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

New discussion

Ok, let's clarify: All these figures are in Trillions. For example, GDP would represented as 21.2 and year-over-year growth would be .858; the Chinese trade deficit would be .568. Correct?

For space sake we'll have to use this notation. But ordinarily we'd put the decimal point between billions and hundreds of millions. Aggregate GDP growth be 858, and total GDP would 21,200. So a heads up to readers and followers when you have re-translate this all back to what you read from other sources.

These figures I call "hard aggregates" or "strong aggregates". Business and Household debt numbers are basically, for the most part, mortgages or long term debt. However the information we're most interested are the growth rates - year over year changes. The chart shows Household debt in recession from 2008 to 2016.

Let's not make this a political argument - I'll say it one time, The mortgage crisis caused a recession, and Obamacare hindered recovery. Politicians were smart enough not to put the cost of recovery on businesses, cause that would destroy the whole economy's ability to recover. But they did put the cost on households.

And let's dispose of one other question: Some people will say, Isn't a reduction in Household debt a good thing? Without getting into a discussion on morals, in today's consumer society, that TV and car you want, that prosperity you pursue, is funded by debt. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 07:15, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

The trade deficits haven't arrived yet. I provided the private debt in households and businesses, like you suggested, and kept the split of federal debt between held by public and intergovernmental holdings. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 09:10, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Good. Good. So the overall national recession is defined by a contraction in GDP in 2008-2009 ($14.75 $14.45); in Keynesian theory, public borrowing is required for Stimulus, reflected in chart. The Business cycle contraction, or recession, lasted lasted from 2010-2012 ($10.55 $10.30 10.05 10.20); the consumer or household recession lasted from 2008-2016 ($14.15 $14.00 13.80 13.65 13.60 13.70 13.90 14.10 14.50).
You can see trickle down theory at work from the expansion of public debt from 2008-2011 ($5.80 $7.55 9.00 10.15) where it nearly doubled, with nary on impact on business expansion ("bailouts"), keeping it stable, but an eventual trickle down to households, which bore the brunt of both the recession and the Stimulus. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:39, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

Trade deficit in relation to GDP growth

Would it be possible to lay trade deficit beside year-to-year aggregate totals of GDP growth (for example +.858 -.410)? That's the heart and sole of MAGAnomics. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:25, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

To illustrate my point: In the recession year of 2009, GDP declined $300 billion ($14.75 - 14.45 = .300); net outflow of U.S. produced wealth to China alone that same year was $240 billion, which you could add to the loss of American wealth. Stimulus borrowing increased $1.75 trillion ($5.80 to $7.55). IOWs, .24 of 1.75 went directly to China, leaving only $1.51 of the congressional mandated increase in public debt inside the United States to stimulate the economy (unadjusted for payouts to other countries).

(These two combined - the loss of GDP and China trade deficit, represent $540 billion in goods and services either not produced or exported directly to China, and morethan a third of the Stimulus).

The China trade deficit nearly equaled the loss of GDP. The total trade deficit surpassed it. Not only did Americans lose productivity in 2009 and immediately afterwards, the rest of the planet was sucking us dry while Obamacare hindered household recovery. Our own Congress did this to us. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:20, 13 October 2019 (EDT)

IOWs, the size of Stimulus package is determined by two factors: (1) to keep business expansion at least stable and from contracting, and (2) enough to cover the current account foreign trade deficit. The trade deficit was essentially transferred from consumers to the National Debt, and the cost of salvaging businesses from collapsing further also put on households. Both costs were stretched out over many years.

So, some might say (like Trump), Why do we need a Stimulus and further expansion of the National Debt, when the stimulus money can be gained by eliminating the trade deficit? Instead, Congress chose to further stimulate the Chinese economy (and aid Chinese defense spending) by expanding the National Debt and put the cost on U.S. Households. As Trump said, "Our leaders are stupid." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:10, 13 October 2019 (EDT)

You mean Porkulus; and (3) the amount of pork Democrats could get away with ladling out to their large contributors and crony capitalists (see Solyndra) through agents of gatekeeper gangster government. I'm not done seriously thinking about this; I just couldn't resist. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 15:15, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
I hope we've clarified the meaning of Rahm Emanuel's immortal words, You never want a crisis to go to waste. Totalitarian fascist Democrats couldn't pass up the opportunity to enslave middle class households. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:30, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
Did you see Rand Paul yesterday say, "We're borrowing money from China to defend the Kurds"? That is the same macroeconomic observation that portions of the 2009 Stimulus went to stimulate the Chinese economy and fund the Chinese military, while only floating U.S. business expansion and dumping the cost on U.S. Households. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:31, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

Syrian withdrawal

Let's be frank, time for some serious talking points. Trump just did to the Kurds what Ford did to the South Vietnamese, Carter to the Iranian people, and Obama did to the Iraqis, leaving a former American ally to subjugation, enslavement, and death. The analogy is Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon in February 1984 (which strengthened the Assad regime and Iranian mullahs), or Obama's withdrawal from Iraq in December 2011, to take the issue off the table for the 2020 election and present the withdrawal as an achievement. Of course, we all know another ISIS regime, Cambodian holocaust, or Iranian mullahs will arise in the power vacuum. The idea is kicking the can down the road til after the November 2020 elections which can be done with cruise missiles on an interim basis. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:47, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

I'm 100% onboard with abandoning the Kurds. I stopped supporting them after I learned late last year that they are so desperate for independence, that they are willing to allow the Gulf States to deploy troops onto their territory as part of the larger neocon effort at regime change in Turkey. If these guys had any understanding of geopolitics, they would know that this latest neocon "adventure" could very well start World War III. The Kurds may have been our allies against ISIS, but they are not worth starting a world war over.
That being said, if Turkey does invade Syria, such an act would be a grievous act of aggression, that could and hopefully would prompt a Russo-Iranian military response. I personally find the current Turkish regime to be so rotten that a Russo-Iranian puppet regime would be preferable to the status quo. Meanwhile, let's dissolve NATO, so the US and Europe have no legal obligation to protect Turkey in the event of war with Russia and Iran. If Erdogan wants to start a war, let him start a war he can't possibly win. --Geopolitician (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
What about the recent Turkish purchase of Russian equipment? And the larger issues seems to be, NATO is only a facade kept alive to bamboozle the American people, feed the military industrial complex, and promote anti-Trump hate. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:15, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
I would not blame Vietnam on Ford. After the peace treaty was signed in January 1973, Nixon gave a speech in which he warned the Communists that he would resume bombing if the treaty was violated. This proposal was hugely unpopular and no one thought Nixon had the political capital to go ahead with it. At the time, the joint chiefs were sure that South Vietnam could not survive without American bombers. Congress reduced aid to South Vietnam just before Ford became president in August 1974. If Nixon couldn't credibly threaten to bomb right after being reelected, what was unelected Ford supposed to do? Despite being abandoned by Washington, the South Vietnamese army held up on the battlefield until Phuoc Long in January 1975. PeterKa (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
The point: It doesn't matter if Gerald Ford or Adolf Hitler withdrew the troops after the Democrat congress cut off funds (in violation of the Peace Agreement that Nixon negotiated); a power vacuum ensued and more than 3 million people were either enslaved or exterminated. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:21, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

Call this, "Learning to think like a Democrat" --> Trump can expect some criticism from Armenian (and Kurdish) voters, but they're a tiny minority so, Who cares? Democrats will argue, "Republicans don't care at all about the Kurds. At least we pretended to care." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:31, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

Let's just hope Trump at least has a plan in place to ensure the Kurds retain their ability to defend themselves, like Nixon's piece-by-piece, one-by-one plan for the South Vietnamese during what was supposed to be our and South Vietnam's victory before the newly-elected Democrat congress supermajority broke that promise after Watergate, and even forced in that amendment preventing us from supplying arms to anyone outside the country even if they were on our side, because I'm not liking the bit about our essentially leaving them to die at the hands of the Turks. Heck, I'm still wary about our rushing out regardless even if we won, largely because we went out after Afghanistan drove the Soviets out, and they in turn "repaid" us by trying to do terror attacks (though to be fair, al Qaeda was never funded by us, as they received their own funding, but we could have at least done something to ensure the Taliban didn't backstab us like that). I'll still vote for him in the 2020 election, although only because he's pretty much our best shot at ending Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood for good, if not our only shot. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Well, you won't see helicopters taking off from the roof or re-education camps til after the November elections. Here's where a Putin-Trump pipeline is vital. Meantime, the U.S. and Russia (with Turkey's newly purchased Russian missile defense system) will have the opportunity to test out in real time under live combat conditions the effectiveness of Russian missile defense systems against U.S. cruise missiles.
The immediate political problem is firing a cruise missile at a NATO ally who just purchased a Russian missile defense system; here Putin plays a big role. He has to convince his new customer for Russian military hardware to find a proxy to attack the Kurds with, like Assad or Iranian militias. This forces Turkey to come to some sort of temporary arrangement with the Assad regime.
In the end, this further's Putin and Trump's (and Gen. Michael Flynn's) overall objective to keep Muslim's killing each other, rather than Christians and Jews.
One further observation: If the above scenario plays out, it's indicative of Trump also coming to terms in a temporary arrangement with his biggest enemies - the military industrial complex. They get their live fire real time combat exercise, requiring more research, development, upgrades, and funding afterwards, and Trump gets the political benefit of being the peace candidate who brought the boys home before the election. (We'll leave aside the re-deployment to Saudi Arabia for upgrades in its missile defense system after the oil refinery attack. Troops are not there for a direct combat role - although a attack on them could happen. They are there to provide upgrades to the Saudi missile defense system. Russia is pouring in their own experts now to gauge the effectiveness of their systems in Turkish hands for an attack from the U.S. which seems inevitable now). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:27, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
You're all complete [redacted] [redacted]. I hope ISIS finds you before anyone stops them. KaraYouNeedTherapy (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Where's your liberal compassion? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:20, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

What a joke

To hear communists, Democrats, and the MSM suddenly concerned about Syrian Christians. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:49, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

No kidding. For goodness sakes, communists have never felt concerned for the well being of any Christians, heck, ANY religious group for that matter, let alone Syrian Christians. It actually would be more in-character if they congratulated Trump in a gloating manner for dooming the Syrian Christians and doing their job for them, sort of like those anti-Ossoff ads where Californians were singing praises for Nancy Pelosi's policies, and by extension Jon Ossoff's policies. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

Take it to the chalkboard

This is by far the best and most buttoned up presentation about what the Bidens have done in Ukraine. Of course it goes way beyond that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuvfYE7ZdL0 Progressingamerica (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

I started watching it twice and fell asleep twice, but agree with it 100%. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:09, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

Whistle-blower's attorney worked previously as probable soft coup ringleader James Clapper's attorney

Not only that, but s/he worked for an unnamed 2020 U.S presidential candidate's campaign.

Not only that, but Intelligence Committee member, allegedly intelligent, Adam Schiff remarked that s/he was receiving death threats. But how is that possible if s/he is anonymous? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 01:45, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

We'll have the answer to that in 2 or 3 years when nobody cares and she's forgotten. This is how Washington works.RobSDe Plorabus Unum 06:43, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
When there is an eclipse of the sun, it can become so dark that the brightest stars can be seen at noon. Likewise, when Trump is eclipsed by the prospects of impeachment, his presence is darkened so much that the brightest stars can be seen. In Trump's situation, the brightest stars are the prominent details of the case which are the only lights that can guide us through the event. In such a case every prominent detail comes to the forefront and bears significance beyond what is the natural order, as the constellations play their role to inform, or misinform, the mind.
That doesn't mean it's Trump's fault, but it's like him having a broken arm.VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 08:40, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Nixon and Clinton were impeached in their second terms. Andrew Johnson (like Ford) was never elected and never ran for re-election after impeachment. I guess that's the strategy, impeach Trump and have him exonerated in the Senate, and force Trump to make history as the first impeached President to run for re-election. Even if he's re-elected, divisions in the country would continue in the second term.
Pelosi's thinking is the GOP impeachment created divisions in 1998, but the Republicans rebounded in 2000 by taking control of "all three branches" of government, House Senate, and White House. Alternatively, the 1998 midterms went against history when the out of power party lost seats in the House, and anger toward Democrats could linger beyond a Trump second term.
If Trump's exonerated in the Senate, then Democrats (like Joy Behar) can complain about how the Senate is "gerrymandered" as an issue in 2020. The smart thing to his delay the vote till after the 2020 conventions, and make a trial in the Senate an issue for a lame duck Congress (like in 1998-99). So again it all comes down to when the House votes.
Past precedent required 2 votes, one to open an inquiry and empower committees with subpoena power, and secondly to ratify Articles of Impeachment. The strategy thus far was to have only one vote - subpoena the administration with phoney subpoenas, and then write an Article based on obstructing the alleged "impeachment inquiry" for the full House vote. Trump called their bluff, but they still could go through with it. It's a PR game. Again, it comes down to when a vote will be held.
The FISA abuse report is scheduled out a week from Friday, and it will be twice as big as the Mueller report; this whole impeachment nonsense is intended to obscure the facts of Obama administration's, Nixon-style illegal opposition political spying, go on the offensive, and make the Durham, Barr, and Ukrainian investigations appear as politically motivated harassment of innocent, God-fearing, Patriotic Democrats. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:54, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Vargas, I have to tell you something. You were born [redacted], and your mother dropped you on your head. No wonder you're a flaming [redacted]. She was too ashamed to say it, so I am now. KaraYouNeedTherapy (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Sorry, I had to censor you liberal hate speech. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:21, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

Whisleblower is a Biden man

It turns out that the whisleblower worked closely with Biden when he was vice president.[19] If the complaint is an effort to advance Biden's campaign, that certainly makes it harder to justify granting anonymity or whistleblower status to the complainant. I had assumed whisleblower was a Warren supporter. It's hard to see how the complaint helps Biden. All the same, Biden is back on top today with his pre-whisleblower 28 percent restored in all it's glory, according to the RCP average. PeterKa (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2019 (EDT)

RCP polls are meaningless. Biden's in forth place in fundraising and trailing in early primary states. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:50, 11 October 2019 (EDT)
The national polls are taken a lot more often, so the can be used to gauge the effect specific news events. PeterKa (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2019 (EDT)
Some are weekly, some biweekly, some are monthly, some are random and sporadic. It's a flawed statistical method to derive a composite. It more resembles a moving average, although again none follow the same methodology. Many are not even national polls.
And the big difference is between a poll of "adults", and a poll of "registered voters". Rasmussen is the only company that polls registered voters 24/7/365/ over four years. A poll of registered voters is much more expensive and time consuming. Polls of Adults are unadjusted by participation rates in various states, let alone age and demographic groups. The big name polling companies only poll registered voters when they are commissioned to do so, which only occurs in primary season in limited states, or after September 2020 on a national level.
IMO, it's fraudulent to promote these polls as having any semblance of validity; when the polling company does not have a commission and is spending its own money to conduct a poll, it's simply a promotional gimmick to keep their name out front and advertise for a buyer to pay them to conduct a poll of qualified registered voters. Polls of adults include felons, illegals, and other unqualified voters. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:20, 13 October 2019 (EDT)

By the way...

The two whistle-blowers knew two members of Schiff's Congressional staff. Someone (maybe Trump) asked whether the reason they reported it twelve days later was that they needed to run it by Schiff, first. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 07:45, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

None dare call it conspiracy. 10:30, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

Jane Fonda arrested

Jane Fonda and a no-name left-wing spacy climate group she supported were arrested while making noise at our nation's capital.

The group of 20 were being a nuisance, and they were all shipped off to jail. Fonda has vacillated from communist agitation to inaction since the 1960s. VargasMilan via Drudge Report. Friday, October 11, 2019

Ok. Now somebody connect the dots how running up a rap sheet at the cop shop stops global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius? If there is any hope for humanity, there has got to be some logical reasoning or argument behind filling up jails with repeat misdemeanor offenders and stopping the oceans from rising. And please, PLEASE, don't say, "calling attention to (fill in the blank)".
First she fought for North Vietnam's right to pollute, now she wants to send them back to the Stone Age. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:15, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
Ann Coulter: Makes sense. She couldn't get arrested in Hollywood. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 09:16, 14 October 2019 (EDT)
Just deport her back to Hanoi. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:31, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

FISA abuse

  • Report expected out Friday October 18, 2019.
  • It appears the Mueller team abused the FISA database between May 17, 2017 and March 2018.
  • This explains the high turnover of Trump administration personal.
  • Will the Mueller team be held accountable for violations of law?
  • The DNC colluded with the government of Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump;
  • Ukrainian intelligence hackers (Fancy Bear), which the DNC hired, hacked the DNC. (In fact, they may have been given passwords by Alexandra Chalupa and Hillary Clinton research staffers who still held State Department security clearances).
  • Also, there was more than one hack, and some WikiLeaks info came from internal whistleblowers who knew of DNC/Ukrainian collusion and efforts to sabotage Bernie Sanders.
  • The Obama administration had been abusing the FISA database since June 2012, during Obama's re-election bid, to harass, intimidate, and destroy its political opponents.
  • The U.S. intelligence community interfered in the 2016 elections, in violation of the 1947 National Security Act.

RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:53, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

IG Report delayed; Anti-Trump riots scheduled for this weekend. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:10, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

Adjectives

Identical, same, similar, diverse, different, opposite. If liberals didn't uphold these adjectives in rigid forms against their enemies and leniently toward their friends, they'd have nothing. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 07:29, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

MPR misspell

Raucus for raucous. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 07:32, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

Easy to remember: raucus circus. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:02, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
No, don't remember that! It's wrong! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:09, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
Fixed mistake on MPR.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

Global warming article

I believe elite opinion on anthropogenic global warming goes beyond mere credulity and represents verbal abuse in the form of fraud.

And I believe that Jpatt's 2008 clumsy summary he placed in the article goes closer to that than we'd like to think. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 16:18, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

Please. This young woman did a better job than we did in cultivating chief defensive arguments against global warming fakery. And it's us that should be protecting her! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 18:58, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

They are not the elites. Trump is richer and outsmarted them. He's president and they are not.Wikignome72 (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2019 (EDT)
What about the United Nations, Wikignome? VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 21:16, 16 October 2019 (EDT)

Buttigieg now represents the Democrats center

Buttigieg role moving forward is to posture as centrist and mainstream, criticizing all the lunatic far left positions beginning with Medicare for All and gun seizure. Gay marriage is no longer far left but rather the centrist and mainstream position of the Democrat party. Warren has become the de facto establishment pick, albeit not willingly. Biden's refusal to bow out, and obstinacy at staying in, is hurting the party and their chances to win. Biden's reputation and legacy is tired to impeachment outcome, and the longer he stays in, the more damage to party he does.

Sanders, God bless him, owes his presence there on the stage to the fossil fuel industry that helped rush him to the hospital after his recent heart attack, and the pharmaceutical industry which is aiding his recovery.

So there you have it. The dysfunctional Democrat family. A gay married, cop hating friend of abortionists with 2,200 skeletons in the closet as the voice of reason and moderation, and a woman who reminds us why medical science used to practice hysterectomies as a fairly routine common procedure. So the two with parry back and forth for the next 6 or 7 months on the merits of socialism vs. communism, with son of Antonio Gramsci being the voice of moderation and capitalism (after his own long march through the institutions to get gay married). With the dominant far left gaining the upper hand over wisdom, moderation, and experience represented by Biden. If the debate remains civil, and Buttigieg can build a sizable following among centrist (the inverse of the 2016 Democrat primaries), Buttigieg could make his way onto the ticket. He afterall, represents the future.

That's the Democrat party as of this moment: a dysfunctional family led by a woman who is confused over who she is, and her Gay married son. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:21, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

New Trump obstruction talking points

Trump learned too late that "diversity" means diversity from starting with common sense American liberty, not through it.

  • Trump conveys indifference about value of strategically-chosen cultural Marxism trends we'd like to emphasize.
  • When a rough-edged communicator like him outsmarts us, like he does on Twitter, it makes us look bad.
  • If he's not hesitant to criticize us and praise others, he makes it look like we're not all indispensable.
  • Everybody's a fascist who's not an international socialist to the rank and file, but we can't tell if Trump rejects international socialism or is just someone who ought to know about it. Usually, when someone outsmarts us is the time we stop trying to find out.

Hey, wait a minute...what wiki is this? Why is there an American flag? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 09:26, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

Sad news

I read today with sadness that it seems our fellow Americans are becoming less and less religious by the day. It's a shame - just when we should praying more. --JanW (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

Funny how these surveys, even though they are long on analysis, never address the fact that many Christians don't like to call their personal relationship with Jesus Christ a "religion". Again, if liberals weren't able to equivocate upon the words identical, same, similar, diverse, different and opposite, they would have nothing. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 13:28, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
Ouch. Paging Dr. Ben Le Wire ... would Dr. Ben Le Wire please make his way to Talk:Main Page ... we need several thousand words on the inevitable triumph of conservative Christianity, stat! JohnZ (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
One of Conservapedia's editors, Pokeria, made that specific assertion as an aside, many days before the "Sad news" described in this section was written, in the course of an earlier conversation in which he took part. What would make you think he wouldn't be able defend that conclusion, other than a possession by you of a chronic case of lazy skepticism that is never directed towards itself nor the comfortable sufferer afflicted with it? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 14:57, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
I move in Christian circles daily, and don't know many at all who would describe themselves as 'religious'. "Religious' has been made like the N-word by the communist media, entertainment industry, and cultural Marxists.
If you ever want to see a prime example of hate-filled Communist propaganda by mainstream film makers, watch Red State. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:28, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
Fun fact: these surveys aren't asking if people describe themselves as "religious". They ask what their religion is, and their frequency of churchgoing. JohnZ (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
So? Many Christians (a) do not believe in religion, and (b) emphatically reject religion.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Tuff language, and to the point on Jesus' attitude toward religion. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:49, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
It's precisely for such occasions that lolwut? was invented. "Hi! I'm a Christian. I don't believe in religion!" I know you have an oft-rocky relationship with reality, but seriously... JohnZ (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
Tread carefully, JohnZ, you just got off a one-week block. Your ridicule of Christianity and Christians and of conservatism and conservatives (and your continued attacks on the other editors and admins here) with your posts, using less-than-credible sources to bolster your argument, doesn't make your case either. Northwest (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ, Why did the religious folks string Jesus up on tree? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 06:44, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
Look, I'm not fond of JohnZ by any stretch, especially when it's far too clear he's only hear to try and take down Conservapedia with his edits, but I do disagree with your notion that us Christians don't view Christianity as a religion or hate to be viewed as such. I'm Christian myself, Catholic more specifically, and I have admittedly... disturbing views of God, but even I realize Christianity as a whole (ie, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or even any of the Protestant religions) is a religion (we worship a deity, believe in supernatural powers, and an afterlife, that's a religion last I checked). Besides, you are aware that if Jesus truly had distaste for religion, he wouldn't have even formed Christianity in the first place, right? In fact, if anything, he would have made sure his own followers died like dogs, rather having that than having them inevitably turn out like the Pharisees. If anything, him having distaste for religion yet forming one himself (even telling Peter that the latter will "be the rock that will found my church") would make Jesus himself into an even bigger hypocrite than even the Pharisees. See the problem with what you're arguing? Pokeria1 (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
All my friends are bloodwashed born again Christians. We walk in the spirit. I can't think of a one who considers themselves religious or bound to a religion. We are married to Christ, not religion or a religion. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 07:50, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
Except the problem is Jesus would not have founded a church if he didn't want a religion. I know I wouldn't have in his shoes if I didn't want a religion, and if anything I would have just ensured my followers died/ascended into heaven with me without even a trace rather than make ANY attempt at establishing any church at all. That's the whole problem with that line of thinking. And it runs contrary to the Bible, specifically Matthew 16:18, where Jesus specifically says, and I quote, “You are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.” By building his church, he established his religion, it's that simple. And you really need to address that Matthew 16:18 verse to Born Again Christians and see how they respond to that, because I'm doubtful they'll be able to explain that inherent contradiction. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
Jesus brought salvation. Period. He did not come to start a church or create a religion. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:22, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
If that were truly the case, then why the heck does Matthew 16:18 even exist in the New Testament in the first place, which has Jesus, wait for it, specifically stating he'll have Peter be the foundational rock for his church. If he didn't come to create a religion, he would never have bothered to have that passage written in the first place, and if anything would have slaughtered his followers specifically to ENSURE no religion came about as a result. Pokeria1 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
Jesus also said, Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God; the verse you cite some have used as a nullification of Jesus's word, calling it "The Great Commission," and making a man the final arbiter of God's word. "The Great Commission" is a "doctrine of men," Jesus cites In the chapter earlier. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:01, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
You will recall, the first church was Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:38). And it was a man, Jethro, Moses's father-in-law, who organized it (Captains of hundreds, captains of 50s, captains of 10s). God had nothing to do with that churches organization. In fact, God specifically did not organize it along those lines. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:08, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
There is no commandment that Christians worship on Sunday - that is entirely church tradition, and a rejection of the religion of the Jews. So also there is no commandment to pray before eating - Deuteronomy in fact commanded to pray after eating. Again, we have a rejection of religion by early Christians, which became tradition, which some now call "religion". But early Christians also got many things wrong (see Acts 1:6 for instance; Jesus' most devoted followers still were naive about Christ's mission and purpose, and still viewed God's word through a carnal lens). They also "held everything in common", becoming prodigals. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:17, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
If that were the case, Matthew 16:18 would never have happened, and if anything, Jesus would have screamed at Peter that only Jesus and his father alone have any control over humanity, and that Peter and his followers ought to die, not leave behind any legacy, before melting them into nothingness, in fact, act like Master Albert did when about to kill Grey in the first phase of the final battle against Albert in Mega Man ZX Advent. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
To make Matt. 16:8 more than what it was is doctrine of men. My kingdom is not of this world. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:26, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
1. It's pretty clear that Jesus even ALLOWING it into the New Testament in the first place meant he approved of it. If he didn't, he would have slaughtered his own followers. That's what I would have done in Jesus's place, slaughtered all of my followers specifically to ensure no religion is ever created, not wanting a religion made in my image, and even go as far as to completely genocide the entire human race specifically to ensure it, and that my kingdom is not of Earth would have been all the MORE reason to just blow it up with a smile on my face. 2. The Great Commission that you refer to was AFTER that verse, specifically in Matthew 28:16-20:
"16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”" Last I checked, that points to Jesus authoring the Great Commission, NOT man, and certainly didn't nullify it either (how can Matthew 16:18 nullify it when it occurs before Matthew 28:16-20?). Pokeria1 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
The Good News (Gospel) is, we are free of dead religion once we are born of the spirit, immersed (or baptized) in the spirit. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:39, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
Then why did Jesus specifically make Peter his rock for the foundation of his church? He would have just killed everyone specifically to ensure that no religion is formed, "freed" all of humanity from "dead religion" by slaughtering them. That's what I would have done in his situation, essentially end all of existence, laughing as I do so, all with my father cheering me on in exterminating the planet and "freeing" humanity. No, he definitely wanted a church created. There would have been no point to that passage even being ALLOWED to exist if Jesus didn't want that, let alone Jesus even commanding Peter to form his church. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
I don't know; ask God about it. It seems pretty obvious a doctrine of men transferred God's power, authority, and sovereignty from Jesus to men, as you are arguing. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:49, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
So, since we are getting away from Jesus's mission and the doctrine of grace, answer me this: What takes precedence, God's law or Church law? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:54, 18 October 2019 (EDT)


You don't know how the questions were phrased, and Gallup was in no hurry to present that information. Maybe Gallup is good with some kind of polling, but there's no use wasting time with a method of theirs that is so out of touch with the American religious scene—or faith scene to some. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 17:22, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
You can have a lolwut? n' all. From JanW's link: "...as part of the demographic battery of questions that ask respondents about their age, race, educational attainment and other background characteristics, each of these political polls also include one basic question about religious identity – “What is your present religion, if any? Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox such as Greek or Russian Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, something else, or nothing in particular?” JohnZ (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
"Additionally, most of these political polls include a question about religious attendance – “Aside from weddings and funerals, how often do you attend religious services? More than once a week, once a week, once or twice a month, a few times a year, seldom, or never?” Taken together, these two questions (one about religious identity, the other about religious attendance) can help shed light on religious trends in the U.S." JohnZ (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

4 points:

1. Church attendance is higher today than in Colonial America.

"In 1776, only about 17 percent of the country were church members, compared to about 65 percent today, said Stark, who has tallied church membership as a percentage of the population over the past 250 years using church records and census figures."[20]

"Colonial America was not as church-bound and church-moved as he suggests. He does better with the 19th century, when religious practice did take hold not only among Catholic newcomers but also revived Protestants.

So how were things in the good old days? A consensus questioned by a few serious scholars – Patricia Bonomi among them – is that fewer than 20 percent of the colonial citizens were active in churches.

Change came after 1776, so that, in one common estimate, church participation jumped from 17 percent to 34 percent between 1776 and 1850.

A better past, more illuminating for comparison in present concerns, is between the early 1960s, when participation crested, and today."[21]

2. "Among Protestants, Gallup has found weekly churchgoing to be consistent. In 2017, 45 percent attended at least once a week. In 1955, it was 42 percent."[22]

3." First of all, religious belief is still very powerful and widespread, and there is nothing inevitable about its decline. In fact, the proportion of people who say they believe in God actually ticked modestly upward, from 86 percent to 89 percent, since Gallup last asked the question in 2014". See: American atheism for details.

4. Even secular scholars admit that the secular population will peak before 2043 in the USA[23] and then a period of desecularization will arise in the USA (See: United States, irreligion vs. religion and demographics).Wikignome72 (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

Two messages for JohnZ. First, I read the Book of Revelation. We win at the end. 2) Listen to THIS short video.Wikignome72 (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
Attaboy, Ben. No retreat, no surrender. FWIW, Revelation is my favourite bit of the Bible by miles (though I'm reliably informed John never dared eat mushrooms again). Have some Dennis Brown. JohnZ (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
This is an amazing bit of rationalization going on. Or maybe it should be called "moving the goalposts" or perhaps "sour grapes". A survey says that religion is on the decline, and some people come here and say "Well, the reason for that is that Christians don't call Christianity a religion, or say that they are religious. Christians are actually on the increase, but Christianity isn't a religion, so that's why the survey came out that way." Really???? There's a lot of talk about religion on this page, apparently by people who aren't religious. And spare me the inane youtube videos, both of you. SamHB (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
My apologies if Christians don't live up to your bigoted expectations. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:09, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

First off, Conservative is right that God will win and has already won (see Revelation, for example). Christians can be confident because of that. Also, the reason why the number of Christians is declining in the U.S. is really that all the nominal Catholics and mainline Protestants have decided it's not worth it identifying as such. The much smaller subset of Bible-believing, evangelical Christians is still growing, and around the world, it's growing even quicker. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2019 (EDT)

"So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." - Jesus, Book of Revelation, Rev 3:16. Those nominal Catholics and liberal, mainline Protestants didn't leave Christianity. They were never in it! Wikignome72 (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
By 2025 or sooner, not only will the global percentage of atheists be less in the world, but the actual number of atheists in the world will be less too.[24]Wikignome72 (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
It's all about the locusts, man. What's not to love about divine retribution being meted out by locusts with *checks notes* men's faces, women's hair, lions' teeth, wearing gold crowns and iron breastplates, and packing scorpion tails to boot?! Go big or go home, that's what I say. JohnZ (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
You're not supposed to understand. There are extended allegories for those attributes to warn the faithful who study their Old Testament lessons and preparedness even for the faithful who haven't but are willing to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt. But scoffers won't learn
"Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged,
until the Lord has sent everyone far away and the land is utterly forsaken.
And though a tenth remains in the land, it will again be laid waste.
But as the terebinth and oak
leave stumps when they are cut down,
so the holy seed will be the stump in the land.”
VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 14:11, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
Sounds like a religious argument.
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Jesus didn't care much for religion. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:30, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
What did he think of seven-headed leopard beasts with bears' paws? JohnZ (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17
"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." Romans 3:19-20
Scripture pertaining to the Law by itself is helpful to believers, possibly helpful for seekers but not itself necessary for salvation. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 15:58, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
Amen, bro. Now you got. That's how O.J. Simpson can rip his wife's neck out with a knife ( jealousy is the rage of a man, and he will not spare in the day of vengeance) and still ask God for forgiveness. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:42, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ expressed surprise at the hidden Gallup question that he located, but he doesn't seem to realize that its content proved our point rather than supported his. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 17:47, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Truth is, Jesus was indeed a revolutionary, and the Spirit of Christ is carried on by revolution against established religion and dead ritual. Let the dead bury the dead. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:13, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
Let's go a bit farther: Now we are alive in Christ (Eph. 2:5). Or Matthew 12:1-7, God created the Sabbath for man's benefit, not God's own. Or Matthew 12:2. And the big kicker, when Jesus purged the temple. Originally, when a man sinned, he was to bring a sheep to the door of the temple. As Israel and Jerusalem became urbanized, city dwellers didn't have flocks. So the priests rented space for a farmers market at the door of the temple. The more the people sinned, the more sheep were sold. Jesus told the religious leaders they had it all wrong, and backwards. Their job was to induce the people to stop sinning, not profit off the people's sin. It was a specific condemnation of religious leaders and religious practices. Even the spirit of this teaching from the Gospel has been been twisted by modern religious leaders to condemn the profit motive among people in general, having it exactly wrong, and backward again. (None of this was new, Is. 3:12 they which lead you cause you to err.)
We are to serve in newness of spirit, not the oldness of the letter. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:51, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

Site metrics

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

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

Trump's legitimate quid pro quo

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

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

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

"It was a perfect phone call. Everybody knows it." - Donald Trump.[25]
"If that perfect phone call with the President of Ukraine Isn’t considered appropriate, then no future President can EVER again speak to another foreign leader!" - Donald Trump.[26]Wikignome72 (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Perfect. I hope this clarifies things.Wikignome72 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
The purpose of the impeachment inquiry, begun with a anonymous source who now Schiff will not call to testify, is to discredit the Barr/Durham investigation. This is the same pattern the same deep staters and the same media sockpuppets used with the Steele dossier. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:22, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Yes, it's all of a piece. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 22:20, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

Warren's 3½ month climb comes to an end

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

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

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

Popular government

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

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

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

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

Response to unimportant remarks

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

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

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

Nor did he search the internet to look for other examples to see if he could confirm or deny the doubt he expressed, nor was he paying attention when I repeated one of the same arguments to User:Conservative three years ago when he queried his fellow editors about a poll from Baylor University, and of course Sam's lazy skeptic behavior is just the personality type people like the most.

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

Golden Fleece Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2016 dinner guests

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

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

Menu
[it writes itself] Roast Trump


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

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