Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(The Christian cavalry is coming)
("Setback for globalists" because the markets fell....: new section)
Line 506: Line 506:
Right now, the pro-life TRUMPet call is faint/borderline as far as the calvary. With various Hillary scandals brewing, the 2016 Trump/Clinton presidential race is hard to call. However, somewhere between 2020 to 2045 you will begin to hear the trumpet louder due to [[desecularization]] forces in the USA (see: [[American atheism]]).  By the way, pardon the pun. :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:52, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
Right now, the pro-life TRUMPet call is faint/borderline as far as the calvary. With various Hillary scandals brewing, the 2016 Trump/Clinton presidential race is hard to call. However, somewhere between 2020 to 2045 you will begin to hear the trumpet louder due to [[desecularization]] forces in the USA (see: [[American atheism]]).  By the way, pardon the pun. :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:52, 27 June 2016 (EDT)
== "Setback for globalists" because the markets fell.... ==
I really don't understand the logic of that headline. UK voters chose to leave the EU -- that much is a setback for glo0balists, I get that much. But to frame the overwhelmingly negative market reaction --  investors world wide saying, with one voice, "we think this is a horrible idea" -- is no setback for globalists: if anything, it's a setback for the nationalists who are seeing their ideas scorned by the free market. [[User:GerryV|GerryV]] ([[User talk:GerryV|talk]]) 00:12, 28 June 2016 (EDT)

Revision as of 23:12, 27 June 2016

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


The Establishment "accepts" Trump

Somehow, I don't think all the news about the establishment's "acceptance" of Trump is going to help him.[1] Just think about what happened to the people the establishment has "accepted" so far. First, there was Jeb Bush, then Rubio, then Kasich.....and now Trump. Truth be told, I think this meme is just self-generated media buzz. Reporters are going around asking Republicans something along the lines of, "If Trump is the nominee, would you accept him?" The answer is "of course." What else could they do it that situation? Jump up and down and stamp their feet?

FiveThirtyEight projects that Trump will get 97 percent of what needs to get a first ballot nomination. That works out to 1,200 delegates pledged to Trump in Cleveland, 37 short of a majority. If no one gets a majority on the first ballot, the delegates become unpledged. If a second ballot is held, it will almost certainly yield a Cruz nomination. The rules, including the ones about pledged delegates, can be rewritten by Rules Committee, which meets just before the convention. The members of that committee will be mostly Cruz supporters. PeterKa (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2016 (EDT)


Protestors: B-but we thought they admired our audacious Mexican supremacist trial balloon in Chicago–after all, Trump's poll numbers dropped! How come when we amped it up ten times in California it did the opposite? VargasMilan (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2016 (EDT)

By revealing themselves too early, the Mexican supremacist California rioters really put the left behind the "hate" ball. VargasMilan (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2016 (EDT)

Who knew the California hispanic activist community was led by miserable racists! The Mexican supremacy movement can't be for pride of political superiority - foreign nationals like Americans don't even have freedom of speech or assembly in Mexico, the very vessels of propagation they are (ab)using in America to make themselves heard! I wonder when the rank and file Mexican activists will be asked to "disavow" the racism of their leaders? (hint: never) VargasMilan (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2016 (EDT)

Good news for Trump supporters: http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/are-ted-cruz-delegates-starting-to-freak/ Conservative (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2016 (EDT)
  • Trump's poll numbers go down when he is portrayed as the aggressor in rally violence. The media is siding with Trump now because they want him to beat Cruz. PeterKa (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2016 (EDT)
Ha-ha, no Peter, that's the point–the media tried to portray Trump as the aggressor (see the New York Times' "Trump rally in California turns violent") but it was so easy for anyone to refute simply by saying "what about the dozens of Mexican flags?" that anyone who had had doubts about who was at fault for the attacks at these rallies suddenly saw what was going on. It probably clinched the nomination for Trump.VargasMilan (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2016 (EDT)


There's been a major Trump surge in Indiana in the last few days.[2] This certainly looks like the end of the Cruz campaign. In theory, he could stage a comeback in California. But Trump is already ahead there. As time goes by, more and more people will just want this thing to be over with. I expect Hillary will be indicted next. Before long, we will all learn how to say, "President Biden" -- or possibly "Obama's third term." Indiana voters, please surprise us. PeterKa (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2016 (EDT)

John Stossel's political betting website indicates that Trump has a 22% chance of being president and Biden has a little less than 1% chance of being elected.[3]
If Trump is elected say goodbye to political correctness. I think conservatives and other opponents of liberalism will become more bold. Trump would also eat up media time as far as liberal political causes. RINOS would suffer too and maybe lose control of the GOP for years.Conservative (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2016 (EDT)
Biden's net favorables are +10.[4] Trump is at -28.[5] I'll be a walkover. PeterKa (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Biden is a goofball and weak. I don't he would have ever ran to be president. Conservative (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Biden can't tie his own shoe laces. Hillary won't be indicted. In an election season where conventional wisdom is non-existent...don't rely too much on unfavorables. Most people have their minds made up by now.--Jpatt 01:03, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
The big money donors won't be opening their wallets for Trump.[6] If he can win without money, that will definitely smash conventional wisdom. PeterKa (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
I think Ronald Reagan's unfavorables in spring 1980 were even higher than Donald Trump's today. Then, as now, fatigue with liberals will set in and people like voting for a Republican entertainer, as Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger proved by landslides.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Here is something on Reagan's favorability. In early 1980, it was 70 percent positive, 32 negative. Trump's numbers are 34 positive, 62 negative. See also this chart of Reagan vs Carter matchups. PeterKa (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
For the record, if Trump has a -29 net favorability rating before the California riots have been factored in, it should be noted that under the same time period Cruz has a -25 net favorability rating. VargasMilan (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Cruz's unfavorables went up just recently. I assume that reflects the effect of Trump's Cruz bashing on Trump supporters. Trump's numbers have been stable since September. PeterKa (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
PeterKa, that poll of Reagan's 70% approval speaks more about media bias; go back and look at the hate filled venom directed at Reagan and Reagan supporters that mainstream echoed from DNC talking point in the Spring of 1980. Rob Smith (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

If Trump wins the nomination, the supporters of "Lyin' Ted" may sit home in the general election. I think the "Lyin' Ted" gambit is a risky gambit that was best left unplayed. Conservative (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

Trump says:
"Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, whom Trump last month declared “is not doing a great job,” became a “great” governor. He dubbed Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) “a great guy” instead of “Little Marco.” And he called Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) – whose cellphone number he once gave out at a rally -- “a nice guy.”
“Once I defeat them, I like every one of them,” Trump said. “I don’t like Lyin’ Ted … but in about four or five weeks from now, I think he’s going to be one of my best friends.”[7]
I have my doubts that this strategy will work. Conservative (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Drudge Report has Trump considering Cruz for the Supreme Court, which would be helpful if Cruz's supporters becomes an issue. VargasMilan (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Trump is going to say that he is going to nominate "Lyin' Ted" to the US Supreme Court if we wins? I think Trump may have burned this bridge. I think he went over the line and the situation may be very difficult or impossible to repair in matter of months. Cruz's current refusal to say whether or not that he would endorse Trump if Trump were nominated is no accident. Trump's hardball campaign against Cruz virtually insures the Cruz will stay in the race as long as he possibly can. Cruz has a never back down personality.
On the other hand, Sanders, the FBI situation, and attacks on Hillary could cause Trump to win.
I think the race is going to be partly won on who is disliked the least. Trump and Hillary have high unfavorables and they have been both in the public eye a long time. To reposition a candidates longstanding brand in a matter of months is difficult.
Credible allegations of crook are a powerful brand changer though and if the FBI recommends indictment or the FBI employees do a number of leaks or the head of the FBI resigns that could cause a political firestorm. I have my doubts that Obama's DOJ will indict though given the corrupt nature of the Democrats/Obama administration.Conservative (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Dozens of FBI agents are working on it. Something will happen. "Don't be shocked … if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen." So says Boehner.[8] PeterKa (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

It's do-or-die time for Trump in Indiana, but with the momentum Fiorina as VP gives to his ticket, Cruz doesn't really need to win this time around. VargasMilan (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

Cruz should have dropped out of the race and built goodwill for the next race. He is still a young man. Maybe he will prove me wrong and win in Indiana. The pollsters were recently wrong recently with Sanders. However, it doesn't look good at this point. Given Trump's momentum, the pollsters are probably right. On the other hand, winning a contested primary at this point (with Trump so far out ahead) would probably create such a degree of ill-will that Trump supporters would stay home. Hence, he probably should have dropped out by now.
But given Cruz's strong desire to be president, his persistent personality and given Trump's hardball rhetoric towards him, I have serious doubts he will drop out even if he loses Indiana. Conservative (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
I have to admit it's beginning to dawn on me that my analysis may not have been unmixed with the quality to which one applies the word "facile"—Cruz "Trump is an 'utterly amoral' bully, narcissist, pathological liar"
Ted Cruz explodes at Donald Trump. It looks very doubtful that Cruz will endorse Donald Trump if he wins the nomination. Given his momentum, Trump should be looking ahead at the general election, but given his aggressive personality, he continues to anger Cruz and his supporters. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Conservative (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
Uh, did you read the story that you linked to? Trump accused Cruz's dad of being in cahoots with JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. The only source is an article in the National Enquirer. This is after a series of Trump attacks on Cruz's wife. What sort of reaction should Cruz have had? PeterKa (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
You said a mouthful. I tried to look at that picture of Cruz's wife that Trump retweeted but had to close the browser window. Chauvinistic, sexist stuff. Even in the heat of the campaign where Cruz allowed his surrogates to use Trump's wife's modeling photos to make political hits, what kind of candidate would be so misogynistic as to share a photo of his opponent's wife that's not only unflattering but unmistakably awkward as well? Who can forget the outrage that ensued across the board, leading even Ann Coulter to utter "I didn't like the Heidi retweet." Trump's disproportionate response to Rafael Cruz was just the icing on Trump's bullying cake. It's almost as if Trump actually resented being denounced from the pulpit by Cruz's father! VargasMilan (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
I think it's that Cruz has been one election away from being susceptible to a knockout blow by Trump for a long time now, and when he picked a running mate it was like he was playing it cool. So when Cruz was scrambling to do well that next election carrying four sacks of groceries at once, as it were, Trump gave him a fifth bag. It wasn't very nice, but maybe in his way he was trying to evoke a response that would show something about the suitability of Cruz's temperament for the presidency. VargasMilan (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

Another news pick

[9]. Thanks, GregG (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

Ben Rhodes

Here's the best indication yet that Hillary ain't gonna be president: Ben Rhodes, the Obama advisor who has been a principle architect of U.S. foriegn policy for the last four years or so, oozes contempt toward her in an incredibly cynical NYT interview. The man literally boasts of the all the lies he concocted to get the Iran deal through. Multiple sources describe Rhodes as having a "mind meld" with Obama. What qualifications does Rhodes have to be a foriegn policy guru? Why, he has a master's degree in creative writing. PeterKa (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2016 (EDT)

If Hillary was going to be indicted by the DOJ, then why has Obama done fundraising for her campaign? It seems like the fix is in.
How much control Obama has over the FBI is another question. The FBI has a solid reputation that they may not want to tarnish so they can recommend indictment and/or their employees can leak to the press. Conservative (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2016 (EDT)
It was Valerie Jarrett who took the email issue to The New York Times in the first place.[10] So Obama has been pulling the strings all along. The hacker Guccifer has been extradited from Romania -- and he is ready to testify that breaking into Hillary's email server was as easy as entering "an open orchid on the Internet."[11] PeterKa (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2016 (EDT)

The Donald Trump insult generator

With so many losers and dummies to deal with, Trump hasn't had the opportunity to insult me personally just yet. But thanks to the magic of the Internet, that's a situation we can remedy using the Donald Trump insult generator. So let's give Trump the last laugh:

When will PeterKa start to apologize to me?
I hear that sleepy eyes PeterKa will be fired like a dog? I can't imagine what is taking so long!
PeterKa graduated last in his class--dummy!
Love watching PeterKa fail!
Uncomfortable looking PeterKa calls me to ask for favors and then mockingly smiles.

That last one hurt, Donald. I didn't realize you could see me smiling on the other side of the phone. PeterKa (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2016 (EDT)

Leave it to a liberal company to come up with this. Still, that is funny! Whether he be incessantly calling Cruz a liar, or be implying that Cruz's father or perhaps Cruz himself was the the zodiac killer based only on a photo conatining someone who looked something like Cruz's dad, he just keeps farming the insults, doesn't he? We do need someone who is not afraid to bruise a few egos to get the job done, but this seems over-board. --David B (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2016 (EDT)
It sounds like material for a cartoon villain running for president, doesn't it? Of course, Trump's "good friend" Hillary is even worse. Accusing Trump of being an ISIS recruitment tool was also both ridiculous and pretty low. I'll probably end up voting for Gary Johnson, a Libertarian and a former governor of New Mexico.[12] The Republican Party has cycled back to 1976 with Lion Ted in the Reagan role. He'll be back in four years. PeterKa (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2016 (EDT)


The news section has an entry which contains "..as RINOs show their true colors by refusing to endorses Donald Trump" however, "endorses" should not grammatically be plural.--David B (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2016 (EDT)

Fixed. Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2016 (EDT)

Obama and Trump

There is no room for Trump in the White House because these are "serious times," not time for "entertainment" and "reality TV," or so says Obama.[13] I don't know if he was kidding or not, but these remarks betray a shocking lack of self-awareness. The man is clearly obsessed with pop culture and sports, and he has appeared on an astonishing number of talk and reality shows.[14] PeterKa (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2016 (EDT)

At heart Obama is an egotist. He is the serious one in the room and only liberalism is the serious political philosophy.
In addition, because Obama's foreign policy hasn't panned out, the only way he can make himself look good is to denigrate people with opposing views and pretend to himself that he is serious. In short, it is projection.
Also, it's just bluster and posing. My guess is because ObamaCare was not passed in a bipartisan manner, I don't think Obama would be surprised if it is given the axe if people sour on the Democrats if the economy takes a dive. Conservative (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2016 (EDT)
Says it all. Rob Smith (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

Why isn't someone holding Target criminally accountable for such cases?

Is it because criminal responsibility generally lies with the individual who commits the crime, not with the owner of the building the crime is committed in? GerryV (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

uhh, cause the owner of Target is the Democratic Governor of Minnisota? (he never got elected to anything despite spending the family fortune trying until after he got out of alcohol rehab). Rob Smith (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

Transgender bathrooms

I have to confess here to a certain personal bias - my closest friends adopted a baby girl from China (their second kid, having had difficulty conceiving after their first born) and by the time she was four she was screaming if Mommy put her in dresses. The tomboy years followed and by the time she was 9 she only wanted to be referred to as 'David' and completely identified as a boy, looked like a boy, dressed like a boy, behaved like a boy. Clearly a case of 'nature, not nurture' - they are strong Christians and their other son is as normal as can be. All of our group of friends have watched this happen and are tremendously sympathetic and supportive. Anyways, what I don't get about the 'bathroom' issue is this: if a boy is trans, and wants to use the girls bathroom, there's only going to be stalls with doors, right? And if a girl is trans, she hasn't the 'equipment' to pee in a urinal, so will have to use the stall with a door. So what on earth is the problem - they both get total privacy, and why would anyone have a problem? Either way, they're going to behave and look like the gender of their choice - that's kind of the point. Plus, if they're school kids, they're going to be shy and self-conscious as all get out. I just don't see the problem here. Bringreaganback (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

The problem is that in many high schools, the doors on the partitions have been removed to prevent smoking in the bathrooms. Similarly, teachers are assigned to patrol the bathrooms to deter smoking and other misconduct. JDano (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2016 (EDT)
OK, I get that. But it doesn't change anything. In in either case, they're sitting down, and - not to get too descriptive here - everything is concealed in those situations anyway. I just think people should be allowed to be whatever gender they want, that's all. Our country was built on such freedoms. Bringreaganback (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2016 (EDT)

Another day, another low for Hillary

Why did the oil sheiks give Hillary $100 million? My guess is that they want a ban on fracking. I have a slogan for Trump: "A vote for Hillary is a vote for a higher gas price." This election is all about democracy. Will America vote for someone who represents our interests, or for someone who will help foreigners gouge us? Guess what? Mexico knows who it wants. PeterKa (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

As best as I can tell, Hillary says that fracking bans are a state and local matter, while Bernie is in favor of a fracking ban. A good part of the Obama economic recovery is due to low energy prices, which is in turn due to fracking and greater efficiency in oil and gas production. It is one thing to set climate change goals for 2030 or 2050. It is something else to say we are going to raise energy prices immediately no matter what effect it will have on the economy so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (when existing technology and existing regulation of drilling practices could achieve the same results.) JDano (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2016 (EDT)
The sun is going into a cooling phase with fewer sunspots, so I don't think we have to worry about warming.[15] Even if we did, no way is the decision to frack or not to frack going to be enough to have any measurable effect on the climate. Everyone involved is using climate as a pretext to promote some other agenda: socialism, global government, opposition to economic growth, more money for the Saudis and Iranians, etc. PeterKa (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2016 (EDT)


Should "Target's CEO defense" be "Target CEO's defense" in main page right? JDano (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2016 (EDT)

Missile Defense

If anyone remembers the 1980s, no Reagan initiative infuriated liberals more than missile defense. The project was an affront to physics and settled science, a ridiculous and gigantic waste of money. Ted Kennedy labeled it "Star Wars." Now it's reality: "U.S. Missile Shield Goes Live." PeterKa (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2016 (EDT)

This isn't the same project at all. Reagan's Star Wars initiative was based on a network of laser equipped satellites which could identify and shoot down incoming missiles from the edge of space. This is a ground based detection and defense system, not Star Wars at all. But, good on the Govt for getting this up- I wouldn't trust the North Koreans not to try anything, though I doubt the Russians would. Bringreaganback (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2016 (EDT)
They activated a missile shield against North Korea a few years back. The one that is in the news now is based in Romania. It's designed to intercept Iranian missiles. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative was renamed twice and is now the Missile Defense Agency, the group responsible for this project. Reagan never specified space-based weapons or called it "Star Wars." Here is the way he explained it in his 1983 speech:
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack; that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies? I know this is a formidable technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it is reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades, of effort on many fronts.[16]
PeterKa (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2016 (EDT)

Shoppers flee to the Web

It's not just the perverts in the restrooms. Criminals and other low-lifes are chasing white women out of the malls altogether in this post-Ferguson era. Shoppers are increasingly going online. Macy's, The Gap, and J.C. Penney are all collapsing in the face of Obama's campaign to create a gangster's paradise.[17] Oh, I'm sorry. We can't call them "criminals and other low lifes" anymore. They are "justice-involved individuals," or so says Obama's Department of Education.[18] PeterKa (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2016 (EDT)

Who is Trump?

What is this glittering spectacle in the midst of our national politics? In short, who is Trump? Is a Republican? A Democrat? Pro-life? Pro-choice? Here's a guide to navigating this complex terrain: "Donald Trump’s Greatest Self-Contradictions."

If it's still too soon to sort out that big stuff, perhaps we can straighten out some smaller items. Does he cheat at golf? What does he think of shaking hands? Is he into arm punching and towel snapping? (Answers: Yes, "barbaric", and Yes). See "Nine Tales of Trump at His Trumpiest" in Weekly Standard.

If Trump is a creation of the media, a record of his tabloid headlines may shed some light on the real Trump: "Shameless Mogul Found in Breathless Tabs!"

What about daddy issues? Fred Trump, Donald's dad, made his fortune building for the federal and state housing authorities. Donald inherited Fred's political connections. Daddy was one tough nut and sent little Donald off to the New York Military Academy. His fatherly motto was, "You’re a killer. You’re a king." Aside from the $150 million he inherited, Donald also benefitted from Fred's cosignature on his early deals, including the famed 1976 Grand Hyatt deal that put him on the real estate mogul map. Donald was worth nothing at that time; No would have signed with him. Politico collected the top Trump experts to run this all down: "Trumpology: A Master Class". PeterKa (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2016 (EDT)

The man is a dangerous, unhinged lunatic, with very few, if any conservative principles actually held. If anything he's more like a small Govt Democrat, but he's clear on raising taxes, on abortion, on many positions no true conservsative can agree. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him, and I think we ought to get Garland into the SCOTUS as fast as possible, because when either Hillary or Trump get in, hold on to your hats, it'll be a nightmare scenario - Trump is as likely to choose a socially liberal justice as Hillary is. Bringreaganback (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2016 (EDT)
There is mountains of evidence indicating that if Hillary Clinton became president she would be one of the most crooked presidents that the United States has ever had. She also appears to be vindictive and would probably use the IRS to punish her enemies.
In addition, as a secretary of state, she was a disaster. Her Middle East policy was a joke and so was her "reset button" as far as Russia. She should have had a more realistic view of the Russians and just tried to work with the Russians when it is possible to do so.
She rarely takes responsibility for her screw ups too. So the chances that she would grow as a president are minimal. On the other hand, there is evidence that Trump is learning from his mistakes as a politician. For example, his ground game appears to be better and he is bringing in more seasoned political professionals as far as his campaign.
As far as political promises, even Trump's biggest claims appear to have some basis in reality. For example, he can put pressure on Mexico in terms of restricting wire payments to Mexico and there are other ways he could force the Mexicans to pay for a wall too. Trump has also proposed selling off some US government assets to pay down the debt which does appear to be a practical idea. On the other hand, given that the Democrats have shifted to the left, it would appear as if the US Federal debt would climb higher and higher under Hillary.
In terms of voting, choosing Trump over Hillary is a no brainer.Conservative (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2016 (EDT)

Also, we know who Trump is. He is: a nationalists, a successful businessman with a big ego, a gregarious person who insults his political opponents, a right leaning candidate who is not a doctrinaire Republican/conservative, and a man who has gotten more conservative as he has aged (which is very common for people to do). Conservative (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2016 (EDT)

  • Anything beats Hillary. After all these years in the wilderness, she's become a vengeful fury. Bill sicced the IRS on the American Spectator after the Troopergate expose. Obama has shown that a president can use the IRS to attack conservative groups on a wide scale and get away with it. The Democrats would like to take all conservative money out of campaigning and lobbying so that the labor unions can gain monopoly control over the political system. It's only the 5-to-4 Citizens United vs. FEC decision that stands in the way. PeterKa (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2016 (EDT)

NTSB finishes investigation of Philadelphia train derailment

USA Today story on the NTSB report. Thanks, GregG (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2016 (EDT)

The NTSB report is an absolute farce. It is so pathetic in its conclusion that it may not even merit ridicule on the Main Page.Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2016 (EDT)--

Bill "in charge of the economy"

In a second Clinton administration, Bill will be “in charge of revitalizing the economy,” or so says Hillary.[19] What happened to all the debates in which she positioned herself as Obama's surrogate? I don't think this is a good time to make Obama angry, dearie. Here is Trump's response: "Crooked Hillary said her husband is going to be in charge of the economy. If so, he should run, not her. Will he bring the "energizer" to D.C.?" "The Energizer" refers to Julie McMahon, Bill's most frequent mistress. PeterKa (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2016 (EDT)

Shows how out of touch they are; they still think he's an asset. Geez, the only reason she's running is trying to salvage his reputation for posterity. RobS Pat Nixon for President 16:33, 18 May 2016 (EDT)
Her supporters respond to stories of her as a victim, especially as Bill's victim. The story of her under sniper fire in Bosnia was perfect -- aside from the minor detail of it not being true. No parent wants Bill back in the White House. Older feminists fondly recall the glorious moment when she turned it around for her husband by attacking the "vast right-wing conspiracy." But Millenials aren't part of this and just think it's tawdry to stand up for abusers. PeterKa (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2016 (EDT)
I don't know. I read some garbage today that says the Clinton's "business marriage" is an asset. RobS Pat Nixon for President 18:31, 20 May 2016 (EDT)
  • I should add that it's not as if as anyone thinks of Bill as an economics genius. His policies were based on the advice of Dick Morris, a pollster who taught him to "triangulate" between his liberal base and the Republican Congress. If any of his policies were good for the economy, that was more or less a side effect. By bailing out Long-Term Capital Management in 1998, he established the "too big to fail" principle. PeterKa (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2016 (EDT)
Too big to fail goes back to the Mexican Peso bailout. It wasn't the Mexican Central Bank that got bailed out so much as the Wall Street Banks, like Bob Ruben's Citibank that made bad loans to the Mexican Central that couldn't repay. After Congress voted down a bailout, the Treasury probably illegally misused the Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail it ou. In the case of LTCM, it wasn't even a regulated bank that got bailed out, it was hedge fund run by a bunch of Clinton & DNC donors who took big executive bonuses after the bailout and it went bankrupt anyway. RobS Pat Nixon for President 00:35, 21 May 2016 (EDT)


Can we get a link from MPL or MPR to Superdelegates? It's a hot button issue right now and has gotten about 1200 hits in 4 days. RobS Pat Nixon for President 20:24, 18 May 2016 (EDT)

Done.Conservative (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2016 (EDT)

Young mass murderers

Did you know Young mass murderers are listed twice on MPL. RobS Pat Nixon for President 11:10, 19 May 2016 (EDT)

Thanks. Fixed. Conservative (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2016 (EDT)

The race tightens

Hillary's lead over Trump has narrowed to 3 points.[20] I guess we no longer have to worry about Trump triggering 1964-style losses in state or congressional races. Early matchup polls do not have a good track record in terms of predicting general election outcomes. This year could be different because both candidates are already extremely well known. PeterKa (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

Trump's surge is being interpreted the end of "NeverTrump," i.e. the vote is normalizing with Republicans declaring for Trump and Democrats declaring for Hillary.[21] PeterKa (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2016 (EDT)
There is one thing to consider. Some of Hillary's scandals happened before the growth of the conservative media and social media. There is extra mileage available as far as Hillary's email scandal in terms of new developments. So the crookedness of "crooked Hillary" in people's minds has room to further deepen. Conservative (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2016 (EDT)
Hillary's lead has now narrowed to 1.6 points.[22] So it's a dead heat -- and it's no longer based on an outliner Rasmussen poll either. ABC/Post is also giving the edge to Trump. The FBI will be completing its investigation of Hillary in a few weeks. That can only boost Trump. Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees has been reviewed favorably in the conservative press, so there is finally a reason to vote for him. PeterKa (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

Peter, you said: "The FBI will be completing its investigation of Hillary in a few weeks", I am not disputing your claim. But last I heard, the FBI was not giving a time when it would be done or even an estimation. Has the FBI changed its position? Is the source the underlings of the FBI director who are leaking when it will be done? Conservative (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

Peter, please see: FBI's Comey: I feel 'pressure' to quickly finish Clinton email probe Handling investigation 'well' is top priority, FBI director says, rejecting any 'external deadline' - date of story - 05/11/16 Conservative (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2016 (EDT)
Interviewing the principle is the last stage of an FBI investigation. So when they interview Hillary, we know it's crunch time. Here is a story that claims she will be interviewed soon. There were similar stories in late March, so it could be just same old, some old. If the investigation is being driven by politics, as I assume it is, the logical time for Obama to strike is soon after Bernie is eliminated. PeterKa (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

The Bill Nye bet

He has made two bet offers, totalling $20,000, to Joe Bastardi, see: http://time.com/4301258/bill-nye-sarah-palin-climate-change-bet While he hasn't extended the bet offer to all comers, this might be an opportunity, like the Richard Lenski controversy, to bring publicity to CP. SamHB (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

I think this would require Conservapedia to create an extensive article on Bill Nye and to promote it very heavily. I don't see that happening for two reasons.
No it wouldn't. My point is that the publicity would heavily promote all articles at CP. People would come to see the article on which the admins take up the bet, and then they would look around at everything else. The Bill Nye article isn't very extensive, but people would see plenty of much more extensive articles. Many of them by you.
One, he no longer has a television show. I think that is why he took Ken Ham's offer to debate. Ken Ham just completed building his $100 Million ark replica, so I think Ham is on his way up as far as his public profile, and Nye is on a descending path. Ham could decide to expand globally as well given the fast rise of global creationism.
Watch your commas! Three independent clauses! I apologize for altering someone else's talk page comment.
Two, I don't see anyone wanting to create an extensive Bill Nye article. Who wants to write about a boring agnostic nerd who wears a bowtie? For example, his romance to his "ex-wife" who married him for 7 weeks sounds very boring (marriage license was declared invalid).[23] Conservative (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2016 (EDT)
I think the bowtie looks stupid too. But this is real money. You don't need to expand the article about someone you think is a "boring agnostic nerd", just accept the bet. I realize that $10,000 for one of the bets may be more than Conservapedia admins want to put up, but you may be able to make a smaller offer. SamHB (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

SamHB, I really haven't followed the global warming debate that closely.

That's too bad. If you did, you might be able to stay on topic, and not stray into irrelevancies like Sun Tzu, Christianity in China, or conservative religious immigrants. Of course, if those topics are what you are interested in (and they obviously are), write about them, and maybe look for people willing to make bets with you, so you could make a little money.

I figured that economic pressures (jobs) and the Democrats eventually losing a presidential election would reverse global warming economic schemes.

Are you saying that political/economic "schemes" are going to affect temperatures? If so, I guess it would make sense to wait until after the election before taking the bet.

With that being said, I think one of the controversies associated with the global warming issue is how are the temperatures measured (faked results). See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

The method of evaluating and authenticating the temperatures are described in the video. If you think his proposed methodology is flawed, feel free to make a counter-bet with a different methodology.

Second, Sun Tzu said, "And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him." I would rather take a bet where I where the liberals have less control on how things are measured. For example, will Christianity continue to grow rapidly in atheistic China? Will secular Europe have more conservative religious immigrants in the next 10 years who are creationists and will they have more children per capita than irreligious Europeans in the next 10 years? SamHB, contact Nye and see if he will take bets related to these two desecularization issues. :) Conservative (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

Sure, if you are interested in bets on other topics (which doesn't surprise me in the least), find someone with whom to make such bets. That would bring publicity to CP also. I seriously doubt that Bill Nye is the person for such a thing. But there are probably other people willing to take you up. Heck, I'd bet that some folks at RW would take you up. But you'd have to set the evaluation criteria extremely carefully. Bill Nye was able to do this because temperatures are fairly easy to measure. "Desecularization" might not be.
Good luck. SamHB (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2016 (EDT)
SamHB, I am a Protestant. I will make my money the old fashioned way. I'll earn it! See: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.  :) Conservative (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2016 (EDT)
Cons, I am too. And I also make my money the old fashioned way. I apologize for suggesting that you do something that you are religiously/philosophically opposed to. I'm not going to take bets with Bill Nye or anyone else. But good-natured challenges ("gentlemen's bets") are another matter. I believe I issued you some challenges a while back. No money would have changed hands. SamHB (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

I was merely making a joke. While I am not a fan of gambling (casinos, lotteries, etc.), I am not against people taking gentlemen bets and bets when they believe they are favored to win. Conservative (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2016 (EDT)

"Cruz-supporter Rush Limbaugh"?

To my knowledge, Rush never endorsed or disproportionately supported any candidate, and in fact I think he usually does not. Did I miss something? He was reporting for a while on just how much the left and RINOs hated Cruz, but he has also spoken in favor of Trump at times, and against Cruz. It was from him that I first found out the Cruz had flip-flopped on the Southern boarder fence and abortion, while Trump seemed to has a clear opinion. --David B (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2016 (EDT)

Rush Limbaugh on February 10th said:[24]
And I opened the program yesterday saying, “You will never, ever have to worry about that with Ted Cruz.” And then I expanded on it. And let me say one thing: If conservatism is your bag, if conservatism is the dominating factor in how you vote, there is no other choice for you in this campaign than Ted Cruz, because you are exactly right: This is the closest in our lifetimes we have ever been to Ronald Reagan.
--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2016 (EDT)
Interesting--I must have missed that entirely. I'm also a little surprised he was so direct in supporting someone, since as I said, he usually refrains. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up.
Clearly you and I still disagree on who would have been better. In my opinion, Rush was right. However, the foul play and dirty deeds are done, and we now have Trump. I guess I'll have another election where I hold my nose and vote republican. Trump might be good, but might not be. He's already lied repeatedly and flip-flopped on the foolish bathroom fight going on now. I hope you are right that he will turn out to be good. (Also, I still really want to know how he's going the make the Mexicans pay for the south boarder wall. They've already said no, though forgive me for linking to CBS. For goodness sake, the Mexican govenment is bussing their people to the boarder so they can come over. Why pay to stop such a great deal? I also wonder how many other promises Trump has made that he will need to break.) --David B (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2016 (EDT)
Cruz and some of his supporters are showing their true colors by continuing to act in an anti-Trump manner. Trump defeated Cruz fair and square, despite all of the underhanded tactics by Cruzites in picking delegates and running state conventions. Now, Cruz still won't even concede and endorse Trump. Cruz would run the conservative movement into the ground if given the chance.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2016 (EDT)
  • Yeah, Rush supported Cruz. But I don't its fair to describe him as "anti-Trump." Not many people gave Trump better coverage than Rush did. If Cruz is a snit now, it just shows he's human. After all, that was one vicious campaign. We need to get on message and focus on Crooked Hillary. PeterKa (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2016 (EDT)

IG report faults Hillary on email server

I notice that we don't currently have any Hillary-bashing headlines. May I suggest this one: "State Dept IG Finds Hillary Clinton Violated Government Records Act and Refused to Speak to Investigators." Update This one is even better: "Damning report on Emailgate shows Hillary can’t be trusted." PeterKa (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2016 (EDT)

I updated the main page news column as per you request.
Sorry that the current pace of the main page news stories. I am making efforts at expanding the front page news team. I am hoping that a previous admin, User: RobSmith, will get his admin rights restored and then eventually get main page posting abilities restored as well. The election is coming soon and I think the pace of news stories on the main page should increase. Conservative (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2016 (EDT)
If the pace of main page right stories increases, then it is important to archive the stories more frequently. Having the right column much longer than the left column does not reflect well upon us. JDano (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2016 (EDT)

Will Obama get a third term?

It looks like Crooked Hillary may not recover from the IG report, regardless of what happens with the FBI. She is only one point ahead of Trump in the current matchup polls, so it wouldn't take much to eliminate her as a viable candidate. She prevented the appointment of an IG while she was secretary, so there was no one to investigate these issues or enforce the rules at the time. If Hillary implodes, we could be looking at a Biden/Warren ticket.[25] I haven't seen much of Biden lately. But their have been numerous articles drooling over Warren in the last few days. It's almost as if the media is foreshadowing a switcheroo. Unlike Republican delegates, Democratic delegates are free to switch candidates as long as they can do so “in good conscience.” PeterKa (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2016 (EDT)

  • This article makes the case that Trump's numbers at this point are not actually all that good. A candidates' numbers will go down during a nomination fight, and up after he wins the nomination. That suggests Trump's support could stabilize at his current 43 percent.[26] Once the Democrats pick a nominee, whoever it is will almost certainly poll higher Hillary's current 44 percent -- and probably higher than Sanders's 50 percent. A 57-43 election would be quite a blowout. PeterKa (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2016 (EDT)
Thanks for your interesting observations. I don't have a crystal ball, but generally Republicans who are entertainers like Trump do 10 points better than expected. Reagan did so in 1980 and 1984, and Arnold Schwarzenegger did so twice in California, a heavily Dem state.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2016 (EDT)
As Maher says, if Hillary can't even say "Islamic terrorism," she's got a problem if there is another terrorist attack. Trump's current set of security advisors is a joke. But if he appoints a shadow cabinet with serious people in it like, say, John Bolton, he could ride the issue to the White House. There are reports claiming that he will announce appointments at the convention. PeterKa (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2016 (EDT)
Trump is frequently not shy about sharing his opinions. So there is good reason to believe that Trump does not see his security advisors as a joke. Hence, I doubt he sees a necessity for shadow security cabinet.
Trump's defense policy seems to be: America having a stronger military; be cautious in using the stick and only go into wars that serve America's interest and that you are confident in winning; have friendlier relations with Russia; and there is a conflict between the West and Islam and so be aggressive in attacking ISIS.
To be fair to Trump, I will say that Soviet Union is defunct and except for Russian nationalism the Cold War is very cold right now. Much of the Cold war had to do with Communism vs. capitalism and atheism vs. Christianity. Due the higher rate of fertility of religious fundamentalists, religious fundamentalism is expected to grow in the 21st century so Islamic extremism will probably get worse before it gets better. America is bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq and the two wars don't appear to have been a good idea (the Israelis sent out assassins when they were attacked in the Munich games. Ultimately, Osama was killed through military intelligence and special forces). Conservative (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2016 (EDT)
You think Trump is happy with Walid Phares as his top foreign policy advisor? Oh my: "Trump Advisor: Don’t Believe the Things Trump Says". The other people Trump named are complete unknowns.[27]. See also: "Trump Could Name Cabinet Picks at Convention" PeterKa (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2016 (EDT)

71% of Dems want Hillary to keep running if indicted

A criminal in the White House is just what the country needs, or so a recent poll of Democrats suggests. Seventy one percent want Hillary to keep running even if she's indicted.[28] If she can delay the trial until after the election, she can pardon herself. Hey, tough break, Biden. PeterKa (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2016 (EDT)

The only question at this point is, should Obama pardon her before the convention or after. RobS#NeverHillary 20:00, 31 May 2016 (EDT)
First, they came for the criminals. I wasn't a criminal, so I didn't say anything. Who speaks for indicted Americans? Will everyone stand aside while Trump builds a wall to hold Hillary and other indicted Americans in? I'm pretty sure that's what Obama would have said in his Elkhart speech if he eased up on the 'ludes or whatever it is he's on these days. PeterKa (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2016 (EDT)
One of the dividends of a Trump presidency is that Obama's legacy will shrivel and shrink under its large shadow, a shriveling and shrinking that Obama is feeling already! I just got through reading the Recovery Summer 2010 article on Conservapedia, so I'm sure I'm feeling and writing more combatively than I might otherwise. VargasMilan (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2016 (EDT)
That's an interesting statistic, though I can't say I'm surprised. I'm almost constantly surrounded by politically correct fools who will vote and petition as told by the liberals. Some months ago it was all about "Protect Women's Health" (defend Planned Parenthood), so the fact it is now "Vote Hillary" doesn't surprise me at all. The liberals have succeeded in their plan to cause racism in voting, and got Obama elected by having people vote for his skin. Now, they are going to try again by getting people to vote for Hillery Clinton's gender. I would not be surprised if the succeed again. It's funny how Mrs. Clinton counts as a woman, but Mrs. Palin did not (though granted, she was running for vice president).--David B (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2016 (EDT)

California narrowly avoids making it a crime to tell the truth

A bill to make it a crime to question global warming hokum was recently spiked in California.[29] I doubt this will slow the Dems down much. Liberal prosecutors are eager to accused conservative groups of fraud, law or no law. By the logic of this bill, any political issue could be criminalized. Is your church promising salvation? Our fraud investigators have some questions. PeterKa (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2016 (EDT)

Hillary blames Trump for rally violence

Is there no line Hillary's sleazy campaign won't cross? Shouldn't rally violence be a bipartison issue? Well, she's already blamed Trump for ISIS, so why not rally violence too: "Hillary Blames Trump for Rally Violence: 'He Created an Environment in which It Seemed Acceptable'". Isn't is obvious that what has created the "environment" is the media's over-the-top anti-Trump rhetoric, not to mention the Soros-funded rent-a-mobs? Here is a clip of what happened in San Jose. Don't forget that the liberal media could not find a way to condemn either the rioters themselves or the police who stood by when Fergusan burned.

Guess what? The Clintons have their own scam university called Laureate.[30] While Hillary's State Department pumped in $55 million, Bill skimmed off $16.46 million.


Everybody can see the PGA has Trumphobia. The rebuke by Trump was you better have kidnapping insurance. For anybody who doesn't know, one of the top 7 countries is where the PGA chose. [31] --Jpatt 16:15, 5 June 2016 (EDT)

Hillary posted names of intelligence agents

Let's put this on the main page: "Hillary Clinton Posted Names of Hidden Intelligence Officials On Her Email." This includes a "beloved and hardworking" defense attachee in Malta, who's name must be redacted. Hillary is worse than a Rosenberg or an Aldrich Ames. California, save us from this menace. PeterKa (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2016 (EDT)

Cuomo signs anti BDS executive order

I don't know if anyone else thinks this should be on the main page, but Governor Cuomo in New York just signed an executive order instructing the state not to do business with companies that participate in the anti-Israel BDS campaign. As far as I know, this is the first such law/order in the country.--Whizkid (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2016 (EDT)

Two crews of Bernie bros beat each other up

Gotta see it to believe it: "Bernie Supporters Accidentally Beat Up Each Other, Thinking They Were Assaulting Trump Fans...". The only remaining question is, How does Hillary blame this one on Trump? Thug America has endorsed a presidential candidate. It's not Trump. PeterKa (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2016 (EDT)

That's ridiculous! They may yet find a way to blame Trump, Rush, Bush, or some other republican, though. --David B (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2016 (EDT)

Curiel and Trump

Trump can trigger a media uproar as easily as turning over his hand. Here is what he said about Curiel, the judge in the Trump University fraud case: "The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great, I think that’s fine." Even if we interpret this remark as sarcastic, criticizing judges, juries, and police for being white is utterly routine in Obama's America, as Ann Coulter demonstrates in this classic column. Trump is cleverly and cynically using race to distract attention from more serious matters -- in this case the incriminating pre-trial documents Curiel is releasing. PeterKa (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2016 (EDT)

Well, as I undersand it, Trump may have a hard time winning a recusal; but should he loose, how will Trump backers and a neutral public interpret the findings? RobS#NeverHillary 17:02, 9 June 2016 (EDT)
Trump hasn't even filed a motion to recuse.[32] This is just politics. PeterKa (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2016 (EDT)
The problem with what Trump is doing is that he is referencing his own statements about the Wall and Mexicans as a basis to conclude that the judge is partial. No, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to pick a new judge by patiently explaining that you are an incurable jerk. A valid argument for recusal must be based on statements and actions made by the judge. Trump wondering if Curiel might be influenced by his ethnicity has Paul Ryan and the media all aghast, but it's perfectly normal for litigants to do this. PeterKa (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2016 (EDT)

Are conservatives psychos?

Back in 2013, it was widely reported that conservatives had more “psychoticism” based on this study. Now it turns that the data was "accidently" flipped. It's actually liberals who are more likely to be "uncooperative, hostile, troublesome, socially withdrawn, manipulative."[33] Oops! Pretty much 100 percent of the prison population votes Democrat, so the original findings should never have passed the smell test. PeterKa (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2016 (EDT)

With better footwork, he may have a future on The Apprentice

Obama's obsessive interest in pop culture continues: "Take THAT, Trump! Watch Obama prove it’s a ‘serious job’ via slow jam & skit with Jimmy Fallon." PeterKa (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2016 (EDT)

Obama demanded Iranian judge recuse herself

I wonder if Paul Ryan thinks it is "textbook racism" when liberals do it. "The Obama Admin Blocked An Iranian-American Judge From Hearing Iranian Immigration Cases." PeterKa (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2016 (EDT)

Warren and Pocahontas

The incoherent rage Trump inspires in the media is quite a sight to behold. Here is the Washington Post: "Trump’s ‘Pocahontas’ attack leaves fellow Republicans squirming (again)." Trump's attacks on Warren are a response to her speech in which she called him a "thinned skinned, racist bully." In terms of liberal-speak, that takes the nastiness level pretty much all the way to the top. In response, Trump has been calling her "Pocahontas." That strikes me as tame by comparison. It is a reference to an old joke that the WP pretends not to understand. Warren was hired by the Harvard Law School as their "first woman of color" based on an obviously fake claim to be a Cherokee Indian.[34] PeterKa (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2016 (EDT)

Port St. Lucie Islamic terror attack

How ironic is it that the attack involved two of the liberals' "sacred cows", Islam and homosexuals - groups that Barack Obama and his regime publicly profess to support, yet were all too willing to covertly play against each other by turning one group violently against the other. What happened is a tragedy to be sure, yet in spite of all this, what are the odds that both groups (in their perpetual state of liberal denial and foolishness) will continue to pledge their loyalty to the Great Pretender and his Democrat stooges? Northwest (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2016 (EDT)

Two of Obama's favorite causes finally collide head on. This must put the White House in a tight spot. May I suggest blaming a YouTube video? All I can say is that ISIS had better not attack a global warming conference. PeterKa (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2016 (EDT)
Podhoretz nails it, as usual: "So determined is the president to avoid the subject of Islamist, ISIS-inspired or ISIS-directed terrorism that he concluded his remarks with an astonishing insistence that “we need the strength and courage to change” our attitudes toward the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community."[35] Isn't this an interesting use of the word "we"? I'm pretty sure this "we" doesn't mean, "Me and my fellow liberal Democrats" or "Me and my fellow Islamophiles." No, no. He means Americans, i.e. American Christians and conservatives and our supposedly benighted attitudes toward gays. I mean, how low can you go, Mr. President? PeterKa (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (EDT)

After the FBI report on Hillary, then what?

With an FBI report on the Clinton email scandal expected any day, Republicans need to start asking, what's next? Andrew C. McCarthy makes an excellent case that the Obama Justice Department is irredeemably compromised, so a special prosecutor is the wrong way to go. The Constitution anticipates that Congress will act in cases of this type through the impeachment process. There is no precedent for impeaching a former official, but at the same time there is no bar against doing so. She can be declared unfit to hold public office by a majority of both houses. PeterKa (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2016 (EDT)

I tell my Democrat friends, "it's like watching a disaster in slow motion. Better choose wisely on a VP pick, cause she won't finish a first term". RobS#NeverHillary 23:18, 13 June 2016 (EDT)

Liberals are receiving unintended consequences to bringing Muslims into their countries.

For years, you, a conservative, have been championing religous immigration into Europe. The word hypocrite springs to mind.--SammiL (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2016 (EDT)

Citing various experts on the future demographic makeup of Europe is not championing a matter occurring anymore than citing leading meteorologists predicting rain in an area is championing someone's picnic to be ruined. See: European atheism and 21st century decline.
I realize that some atheists and militant atheists are starting to exhibit some irritableness and/or battle fatigue due to 21st century desecularization, the growth of fundamentalism and the resilience of religion (see: Atheist pessimism about the atheist movement), but that doesn't give you a license to engage in spurious allegations. Conservative (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2016 (EDT)
I do realize that experts in the social sciences (Kaufmann is an expert in political/religious demography and Jenkins is a historian) have their limitations, but demography is one of the stronger areas of social science in terms of empiricism/predictability.
Kaufmann assumes continued high levels of immigration to Europe due to an aging population, labor needs and the attachment/"political investment" that liberals have sunk into multiculturalism. With rising anti-immigrant sentiment due to: labor competition, nationalism/nativism/culture clash and the rise of the European right-wing parties, I am not sure if Kaufmann is right about this matter. But it is true that businessman/corporations often have quite a bit of influence on politicians and they like cheaper labor, so that would favor Kaufmann's prediction. Conservative (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2016 (EDT)

Political correctness kills again

It's the Foot Hood massacre all over again. Everyone the Orlando shooter worked with knew he was a powder keg ready to blow. Nobody could do anything for fear of being called an Islamophobe. See "Co-worker: Omar Mateen homophobic, 'unhinged'" and "Orlando Shooter's Former Co-worker Says Employer Ignored Unhinged Behavior Because he was Muslim" If you can believe InfoWars, the FBI twice had to call off its investigation of the killer because Hillary's State Department declared the guy's mosque off limits.[36] PeterKa (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2016 (EDT)

The Daily Caller has a less sensational, but still outrageous, explanation of why the FBI investigation was called off: "FBI Called Off Investigation Of Orlando Shooter Because They Thought His Coworkers Were Racist." PeterKa (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2016 (EDT)
" If you can believe InfoWars." Hee hee. GerryV (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2016 (EDT)

Was the Orlando shooter gay?

Who didn't see one coming? "Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was gay, former classmate says." Daddy has an interesting take: "“If he was gay, why would he do something like this?” Seddique Mateen asked." In other words, if a non-gay Muslim shot up a gay bar, that would be perfectly understandable in dad's book. Imagine growing up gay and having a father with this attitude. Shooting up a bar starts to make more sense all the time. PeterKa (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2016 (EDT)

This story has a picture of Mateen looking pretty darn gay: "Ex-wife’s bombshell claim: Club shooter was gay" The FBI asked the ex not tell the America media, according to the article. I guess we're just not ready. He must be an embarrassment to ISIS at this point. Perhaps they will disown him. PeterKa (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2016 (EDT)
Your perspective seems to have been influenced by the politically-inspired machinated thinking of homosexual activists themselves. They are such a depraved group that they would rather see America destroyed by violence, tyranny or disease than assume any blame for their own group's acts, much less repent of those acts. Shooting up a bar with cartridge after cartridge of ammunition in this unprecedented way could never "make sense". Pursuing unnatural desires to the bitter end necessarily leads to violent acts be they violence against one's body, one's mental balance or one's society. VargasMilan (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2016 (EDT)
This one is probably too big to cover up. But if they could, they'd blame crosstalk or something ridiculous like that, as they did in the 2015 Philadelphia derailment. Citing a gay guy for being overly emotional, well, that would be trafficking in stereotypes. The Obama FBI doesn't do that. It would be like accusing a woman of overreacting during her period. The latest is that Disney warned the FBI about Mateen back in April.[37] So we must now consider the possibility that the FBI is more politically correct than Disney. PeterKa (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2016 (EDT)
Looks like there's some hope for Disney to actually change it's policy right now to go back to before 1991 where they instituted a certain infamous holiday at the beginning of June], though not by much. If they could warn the FBI of Omar Mateen despite most likely knowing he was gay, they probably could in the future end Gay Days. Who knows, maybe whoever succeeds Bob Iger can actually eliminate Gay Days the very first day of assuming command. Still, either way, the FBI may have messed up regarding this. Next time someone is made president, we probably should make a law via the usual method of making laws to forbid the use of political correctness or SJW-isms when conducting investigations to ensure they can live up to the fullest, and that any claims of racial profiling is to be thrown out of court. This whole PC, SJW thing is getting WAY out of hand and is interfering with investigations. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2016 (EDT)

What's up with Paul Ryan?

Okay, maybe this is part of a clever scheme to dump Trump and get us a more electable candidate: "'Muslims are our partners': Paul Ryan wallops Trump a day after terror speech as he insists U.S. battle is 'not a war with Islam' Otherwise -- Did any Republican support Ryan because they wanted him to echo Obama? Our leaders seem to be competing in a nutty blame game. Trump blames Muslims, Obama blames Christians, and Hillary blames the NRA. At least Trump did finger Obama's obsessive political correctness,[38] which is more than you can say for Ryan. PeterKa (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2016 (EDT)

Too soon. VargasMilan (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2016 (EDT)

Obama loses his cool

What does it take for Obama to lose his cool? A massacre of 50 Americans in Florida? Didn't do it. Trump speculating on why Obama doesn't use the phrase "radical Islam"? Bingo![39] Of course, what phrase the president might use in this context is a secondary issue. But it is important to identify the enemy somehow. See, Obama can send in the drones or kill Bin Laden. But as long as he doesn't call the terrorists by any bad names, he can think of himself as Islam's friend. In short, he is making a fetish out of verbal gymnastics that the Muslim world doesn't give a rat's behind about. PeterKa (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2016 (EDT)

Gay bar in Port St. Lucie, Florida is the scene of the most devastating Islamic terrorist attack since 9/11

Distance Port St. Lucie, Florida - Orlando, Florida: 110 mi

But perhaps that's just nitpicking. --AugustO (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2016 (EDT)

Fixed.Conservative (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2016 (EDT)

Response to Sally Kohn of the Daily Beast

The problem isn't any one group that looks for an authority above the Bible.

The problem is the hateful intolerance towards those who won't be bullied out of maintaining the Bible's ultimate authority—an intolerance disguised as a desire for social progress—and the consequences of that intolerance.

Unrighteousness is unrighteousness.

We must stand against hate and scoffing at Bible authority.

Whether in Islam, the homosexual movement or the gun-grabbing tyrants.

Whether in hundred-thousand-dollar fines against bakeries or at a nightclub.

VargasMilan (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2016 (EDT)

Huh? Why are you writing a response here? It seems unlikely that she reads this page. Her most recent article doesn't look relevant. PeterKa (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
If you really want to know, check her Twitter feed. She was on a consciousness-raising mission to spread awareness about enduring hateful intolerance—the perpetrators of which by steps melted right in with Christianity for some strange reason—until it was reported that the Muslim killer was also a regular patron at the club, etc. It was a tu quoque—anyone could have used the same steps as the ones she used in the service of bloodstaining her own political causes. VargasMilan (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2016 (EDT)
Here is a summary on Michelle Malkin's website (Twitchy). And here is a recounting of the step-wise argument she made together with Obama's similar "merging" remarks after the shooting. Both articles were written before it was learned the shooter was a regular at the bar. VargasMilan (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2016 (EDT)

Does Trump want out of the race?

So argues this article: "Trump Is Looking for a Way Out." Terrorism is the ultimate he-man Republican issue. If Trump can't make the recent shootout in Florida work for him, politics may not be his thing after all. The polls aren't in yet, but the early signs sure don't look good. He doesn't want any help either. Other Republican leaders should, "Just please be quiet. Don't talk. Please be quiet.”[40] I guess he plans to win silent, strong and Gary Cooperish. Hugh Hewitt is a voting member of the RNC Rules Committee and he wants to unbind the delegates in Cleveland. So it's not over till it's over. PeterKa (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2016 (EDT)

Setback for globalists:

There has been another setback for globalists today in regards to the Brexit. A liberal pro EU MP was killed by someone with links to the BNP.[41]. Say, haven't you shown support for the BNP in the past Andy?--SammiL (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2016 (EDT)

Speculation here, but it could be more likely that that the killer who claimed ties to the BNP may actually be a plant by the pro-EU side attempting out of desperation to discredit Brexit and bring it down by pretending to be on the Brexit side (much like the Westboro Baptist Church pretends to represent Christianity as a whole, but are really Democrat plants) - but the Brexit supporters have likely seen through the pro-EU side's ruse and tonight's referendum vote is reflecting this. Northwest (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2016 (EDT)

Here's a headline

Forbes magazine reports Russian intelligence may have hacked compromising information from Hillary's emails that Putin could use to manipulate and blackmail Hillary Clinton. [42] RobS#NeverHillary 23:27, 17 June 2016 (EDT)

So how long?

So how long is this gonna take? I've put in a lot of hours and haven't seen no merit pay yet. I sure could use page move, page delete, and page unlock, but everything I do seems to just get ignored. Not very motivational, just vague promises.

And you know, there is a huge amount of interest in what I'm working on right now. It wouldn't be too difficult at all to move to another hosting facility where my work would definitely get more exposure and be more appreciated. RobS#NeverHillary 14:03, 18 June 2016 (EDT)

I think you might get better results if you put this on Andy's talk page. Conservative (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2016 (EDT)
No. I'm tired of being ignored. There is all of 5 editors active on this wiki. When are we gonna see some action and movement?
You are not being ignored. I recently admired your Obama "Summer of Recovery" article right here on Talk:Main Page. And more recently Conservative indicated that he had sent you some correspondence. I read some interesting claims on the Nixon/Watergate section, but wasn't sure if you added it, or even if it were true or not because there were no citations. Finally I think DavidB4 assisted you with a source you had used. Maybe you could place a summary description like a bold outline on your user page to paint in broad brushstrokes what you contributed. If you ask, maybe more people will tell you what they think. VargasMilan (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2016 (EDT)
No, I was mistaken. That was User:JustinD who helped you with a source. My regrets for the error, Justin. VargasMilan (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2016 (EDT)
No, I'm just trying to get page move rights so I can fix something like this:
Category:Clinton administration
Category:Obama Administration
It drives me ABSOLUTELY NUTS everytime I look at one Category using a capital "A", and another using a small "a". Discussion on simply developing Naming Conventions is taboo, and this second Category has been screwed up for damn near 8 years now. I probably would have contributed more to that Category in the those 8 years (as I'm sure others may have, too), but there is just a lackadaisical "Who gives a rot" attitude about discussing or fixing something so simple. It just looks on the face of it so Micky-Mouse & unprofessional. Just looking at those two Categories, and my inability to do ANYTHING about it, makes me wonder everytime I need to add something to one of those two Categories, "Why am I here? "Why bother trying?".
This is one, simple, illustration that could have been fixed long ago with my user rights, which according to all three active Sysops on this site, NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. RobS#NeverHillary 18:01, 19 June 2016 (EDT)
I know it's not really the solution you were looking for, but since I can do nothing for you in the direction you are really seeking, I think I've moved everything over from Category:Clinton administration to Category:Clinton Administration as you wanted, and as you say, should have been done before. --David B (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2016 (EDT)
Thanks. But I was kinda thinking a small "a" should be the proper convention. RobS#NeverHillary 17:42, 20 June 2016 (EDT)
I could make the reverse change, but CP's rules seem to say it needs to be this way, unless I am misunderstanding them.--David B (TALK) 08:12, 22 June 2016 (EDT)

A "fart-in" in Philly

Even when we're stuck with a nominee like Trump, we'll always be classier than the Democrats: "Activists plot ‘world’s largest fart-in’ during Hillary’s DNC speech." PeterKa (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2016 (EDT)

Grammar/tense error on home page

Under "Quick Links" on the left, the first link reads, "Conservapedia: How to edit a wiki videos". Someone might want to change that to all singular or all plural. --David B (TALK) 16:13, 20 June 2016 (EDT)

Fixed.Conservative (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2016 (EDT)

New news topic


Might as well suggest a new news topic.

Apparently, Hillary Clinton just revealed that Obama had been aiding terrorists actively, and Donald Trump took the opportunity to go to Twitter and remind everyone that he was right about that:\


Pokeria1 (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2016 (EDT)

If you consider the Iranian regime to be our most dangerous enemy (as I do), you can justify helping ISIS on an "enemy of my enemy" basis. Of course, Obama has assured us that the Iranians are incredibly moderate,[43] so that would be an odd argument for him to make. PeterKa (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2016 (EDT)

More Trump

Hillary is currently 6 points ahead of Trump, right where she was before the massacre in Florida.[44] Terror is the only issue on which Trump has an edge compared to Hillary. As discussion shifts other subjects, Trump's numbers will only get worse. A majority of the delegates to the convention in Cleveland will be anti-Trump. They are "bound" to vote for Trump by RNC Rule 14(d). Unless the Rules Committee votes to renew this rule, it will expire and the delegates will become "unbound." As a practical matter, there is no way to prevent the delegates from voting as they like, rule or no rule. Former Congressman Enid Mickelsen was recently named chairwoman of the Rules Committee. So what will she do? Judging from this story, I'd say Trump has a problem: "Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump are going to be people that we point our children toward and say, 'I want you to be just like them when you grow up.'" PeterKa (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2016 (EDT)

More support for the theory that Trump doesn't actually want to be the Republican nominee: Paul Manafort, his campaign manager, approved the appointment of Mickelsen as Rules Committee chairwoman.[45] Trump's behavior after the massacre in Florida also had a suspiciously self-destructive quality. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to hammer away on terrorism, he dropped hints that Obama is a Muslim. What demographic does that reach out to? PeterKa (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2016 (EDT)
The demographic that Andrew Schlafly belongs to. This website is full of his allegations that Obama is a Muslim. GerryV (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2016 (EDT)
Most likely because Obama probably is an Islamic. He's done absolutely nothing to defend Christianity or Judaism while going out of his way to kowtow to Islam at every opportunity - in fact, remarks made by Obama himself (linked on the Obama's Religion article) are a sure indication toward him being an adherent of that terroristic political ideology that pretends to be a "religion". Liberals who pretend otherwise only indicate willful ignorance on their part. Northwest (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2016 (EDT)
Why would Trump run for president if he didn't actually want to be president? Here are some answers: "Trump’s Dead Broke Campaign has Been Paying Trump’s Companies (and Trump’s Family) a Lot of Money." Turns out, the campaign was a bankruptcy scam, just like his casinos. PeterKa (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2016 (EDT)
National Review is calling it the "scampaign." (See "Trump’s Fundraising Report Exposes His Scam Campaign".) Twenty percent of campaign funds go to Trump companies. In addition, there are salaries for Trump himself, his family, and his flunkies. When he said his campaign would be "self-financed," he must have meant that he would be financing himself from his campaign money. Who would donate to the Trump campaign after this? The campaign currently owes Trump $44 million! It's hard to see any way he can go forward from here. PeterKa (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2016 (EDT)
This development has evoked strong opinions across the political spectrum: "Crushed. I would feel much better if he boycotted his own venues, planes, hotels—or at least stiffed his employees!" VargasMilan (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

Mateen suffered from sickening lusts

These ISIS degenerates always say they do it for "Allah." Now the veil has been lifted on their sick, twisted world: "Omar Mateen’s Alleged Male Lover: ‘He Did It For Revenge’ Against Latino Men." It seems that Mateen got it on with a Puerto Rican he met at the club who forgot to mention that he was HIV positive. PeterKa (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2016 (EDT)

I see the The Young Turks have seized upon this news item to blame "gay self-loathing" for the massacre. The implication of this theory is that we should focus on teaching gay children to love themselves. To me, this is a runaround to avoid addressing the Islam/political correctness issue. This guy was very obviously dangerous, yet the authorities could do nothing. Even if he wasn't motivated by his love of Allah, being Muslim gave him a protective bubble of political correctness. It's a problem we can lay on Obama's doorstep and on his determination to "stand with the immigrants." PeterKa (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2016 (EDT)

How about those NBA Finals?

LeBron was unbelievable in those last three games, he pretty much singlehandedly pulled the team up to one of the greatest comebacks of all time. The block he had on Iggudala was unlike anything I've ever seen before. Meanwhile Steph Curry pulled off quite an impressive choke job, what a chump! Maybe if he ever practiced his defense instead of showboating like a moron he might have been able to lift his team up. So where is all the caterwauling about the "overrated sports star" and the "devout Christian" now? YorkHunt (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2016 (EDT)

That is only half of the equation. The other half, which you fail to address, is the media hype. Curry gets little hype; LeBron gets media hype to the point of absurdity, calling him things like "superhuman". Restoring Overrated Sports Stars based on media overhype next.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
This is absolutely ridiculous. No NBA player was discussed and covered more this season than Steph Curry, and deservedly so! He was a unanimous MVP, he's arguably the greatest shooter in basketball history, and his team set a season record for wins. But he is a defensive liability and, for the second consecutive season, he was almost a non-factor in the NBA Finals (despite their winning last year). If you are going to criticize LeBron James, Peyton Manning, Kobe Bryant, Tom Brady et al for sometimes underperforming in big games, you are a hypocrite not to do the same for Steph Curry or Kevin Durant. Eg (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
You don't seem willing even to consider the over-hype by the liberal media for LeBron James, Peyton Manning, Kobe Bryant, and Tom Brady, which is the more important side of the equation.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2016 (EDT)
If LeBron was over-hyped, he arguably lived up to it in the finals this year when he basically single-handedly led the Cavs back. Curry got a ton of attention this year with the Warriors going 73-9, and he was the unanimous MVP, what's your basis for saying Curry got little hype this year? MatthewT (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
James, Manning, Bryant, and Brady between them have won 14 championships, been voted or selected to 55 Pro Bowls and NBA All-Star Games, won 12 regular season MVP Awards, and won 9 Super Bowl/NBA Finals MVP Awards. Those are staggering numbers, and all of them are more than worthy of all the hype they have received, whether you like them or not. James, Manning, and Brady will each be regarded as among the top 5 players in the histories of their respective sports, and Bryant should be considered in the top 10 of his. And again, NO basketball player, including LeBron James, received more hype and attention this season than Steph Curry, deservedly so. But you give him a pass for flopping in the NBA Finals in consecutive seasons.--Eg (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
You seem to be saying that it is impossible to overrate James, Manning, Bryant, and Brady. Is that liberal logic at work?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
Reading comprehension is important. I am NOT saying that it's impossible to overrate those players, I am saying that they are not overrated.--Eg (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
But you never address in any meaningful way that side of the equation: their overrating by the media. Instead, you rant that they "have won 14 championships, been voted or selected to 55 Pro Bowls and NBA All-Star Games, won 12 regular season MVP Awards, and won 9 Super Bowl/NBA Finals MVP Awards," as though that somehow makes it impossible to overrate them. The media's calling LeBron "superhuman" is overrating him no matter how many NBA Finals he has won (and he's won fewer than many other players).--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2016 (EDT)

Empirically, the religious won the sports front hand down (see: Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism).

Some atheists/agnostics can't see the forest through the trees. Conservative (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2016 (EDT)

Brexit wins!

So, it looks like the so-called "experts" who predicted Brexit's defeat in the UK referendum are now going to have to eat crow now that the Leave side has emerged victorious over the Remain side (and could lead to the beginning of the end for the European Union once its other members' populations begin echoing similar sentiments to get out). Chalk one up against socialism and the forced imposition of illegal Islamic refugees that has led to the chaos Europe is currently in. Northwest (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2016 (EDT)

Once we get rid of Obama, Britain can join NAFTA. Then it will be the North Atlantic Free Trade Association. The Swedish and German governments are determined to let in as many Muslims as possible. In addition, they want to admit Turkey to the European Union. Eighty percent of Turks are pro-ISIS, so it's hard to see how the story of the EU can have a happy ending. PeterKa (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
Mark Steyn is getting in his, "I told so"s.[46] PeterKa (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
Is there a source for that ISIS-Turkey claim? MatthewT (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
I got it from a Farage speech, but it seems he misspoke. According to Pew, 73 percent of Turks view ISIS unfavorably, 8 percent favorably.[47] PeterKa (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2016 (EDT)

This needs to be made very clear, Brexit succeeded because of the support of Labour Party voters, i.e, what Americans call liberal.[48]--SammiL (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2016 (EDT)

The leadership of the Labour Party opposed Brexit. So the voters you describe rejected their own leaders, just as millions of ems will reject Hillary Clinton on Election Day in the U.S. later this year.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
Union-based anti-NAFTA and anti-free trade sentiment is a major force in U.S. politics as well. One can imagine Ohio and other post-industrial areas voting for Trump on this basis. One survey showed that only half of Labour's voters even knew that their party opposed Brexit. Doncaster, Milibrand's old constituency in the North, went heavily for Brexit.[49] PeterKa (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2016 (EDT)
Is the "Rust Belt" key to a trump victory? --SammiL (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2016 (EDT)
Given: the growing use of robotics; governments and political parties having less and less ability to control people; the increasing difficulty of engaging in censorship (internet, satellite television and world travel easier); and globalization being a potent force in the world; and religious people having more children than irreligious people, I think labor parties and liberal ideologies are going to have a hard time in the 21st century.
Long term, many rust belt individuals will have to learn new skills if they want to prosper. In the meantime, Trump does have a point about fair trade. I think better deals could be negotiated. Conservative (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2016 (EDT)

Mateen not gay after all?

So says the LA Times: "FBI investigators say they have found no evidence that Orlando shooter had gay lovers." Frankly, the FBI blabbermouths that this story is sourced to need to learn that sometimes it's better not to tell your findings to the press. Accusing ISIS heroes of being gay is the best anti-terror propaganda of all! Every potential terrorist should be asking himself, "If I shoot up this bar, will my homophobic dad start thinking that I'm gay?" The Obama administration has already tried to blank out the Allah and ISIS references in the 911 transcript. So it's not like they have a problem with falsifying public records, at least not if the target is the American people. PeterKa (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2016 (EDT)

Even After Death

"Disgraced UN official John Ashe died and he has close ties to the Clintons." May I nominate this superb piece of grammatical illiteracy for the "Trustworthy Encyclopedia's Untrustworthy Grammar Award" for the year so far. AlanE (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

I fixed it. Conservative (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

Roe v. Wade all over again.

Bad news, guys: The Supreme Court chose to force Texas to abandon its pro-life statutes to protect the abortionists, meaning like in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court sided with the Abortionist agenda over the actual welfare of the people.


Our job of getting abortions illegal have just become even MORE difficult. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

If you read Conservapedia's culture war article a demographic shift will occur in the USA in the 21st century which will favor the pro-life side.
It took about 300-400 for the legal slave trade to end in the West. It is expected to take about 100 to 130+ years (maybe somewhat longer due to anti-immigrant sentiment rising in Europe) to usher in an age of desecularization in the West. The wheel of God sometimes grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly finely. Conservative (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

The Christian cavalry is coming

"High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family."[50] - Eric Kaufmann.

Right now, the pro-life TRUMPet call is faint/borderline as far as the calvary. With various Hillary scandals brewing, the 2016 Trump/Clinton presidential race is hard to call. However, somewhere between 2020 to 2045 you will begin to hear the trumpet louder due to desecularization forces in the USA (see: American atheism). By the way, pardon the pun. :)Conservative (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2016 (EDT)

"Setback for globalists" because the markets fell....

I really don't understand the logic of that headline. UK voters chose to leave the EU -- that much is a setback for glo0balists, I get that much. But to frame the overwhelmingly negative market reaction -- investors world wide saying, with one voice, "we think this is a horrible idea" -- is no setback for globalists: if anything, it's a setback for the nationalists who are seeing their ideas scorned by the free market. GerryV (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2016 (EDT)