Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Alex Jones: info added)
(Alex Jones)
Line 280: Line 280:
  
 
:And based on the reasons given at the InfoWars site for the ban (all listed at its article here), I think it's a safe bet that petulant children are in charge at YouTube, Facebook, Apple, etc. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 09:55, 7 August 2018 (EDT)
 
:And based on the reasons given at the InfoWars site for the ban (all listed at its article here), I think it's a safe bet that petulant children are in charge at YouTube, Facebook, Apple, etc. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 09:55, 7 August 2018 (EDT)
 +
::It was the Sandyhook school shooting conspiracy theories surrounding Jones and the resulting lawsuits and negative publicity that ultimately caused this to happen. It gave an opening for his enemies to more effectively attack him.
 +
 +
::Jones pushes some right-wing crackpot conspiracy theories.
 +
 +
::The mainstream media has been relentlessly pushing the left-wing crackpot conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with the Russians in order to win the 2018 election. Yet, they are still on YouTube/Facebook, etc.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:33, 7 August 2018 (EDT)

Revision as of 10:33, 7 August 2018

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

Peter Strzok, the Joe McCarthy of modern red baiting

What's a red baiting movement without a bombastic windbag? Former FBI agent Peter Strzok went before Congress on Thursday, gave an opening statement lauding his own patriotism, and then refused to answer questions. He claimed an FBI lawyer advised him not to.[1] If it's true, the lawyer should be fired. Otherwise, Strzok should go to jail. In the weeks just prior to the 2016 election, there was a storm of news stories about Trump's supposed Russia connections that were apparently based on FBI leaks. A year and a half of investigation has added little or nothing to those early accusations. Yet Chris Hayes at MSNBC thinks Strzok should get a "monument to thank him for his professionalism and discretion."[2] PeterKa (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2018 (EDT)

Strzok testified Bruce Ohr gave the Steele dossier to the FBI. Next up: Let Nellie Ohr and Bruce Ohr testify who they gave fraudulent evidence to (likely McCabe) that was used to (1) open the Trump-Russia investigation without probable cause using paid opposition research, and (2) to hoax the FISA court. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:55, 12 July 2018 (EDT)
Strzok used the hearing less to answer questions than as an opportunity to pound away at anti-Trump and anti-Republican themes, much like a Rachel Maddow broadcast. Could the charge of FBI bias be confirmed in any more dramatic way? He's not being protected by the Congress, by the president, or by any other constitutionally designated authority. He doesn't even have a powerful position of his own as an FBI administrator anymore. The Deep State is enough -- and he knows it.
Strzok's claim to have exercised discretion led numerous news accounts of the hearing. But this is clearly perjury. There is no question that Strzok was the FBI agent who leaked the Russia story to the media in the closing days of the 2016 campaign. His lawyer has already admitted that Strzok “actively ensured that news reports didn’t overplay the seriousness of the investigation.” Once a reluctant redbaiter, Strzok is now a full-throated conspiracy theorist. See "Peter Strzok, A Cocky Liar to the End." PeterKa (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2018 (EDT)
Lisa Page is said to be testifying today. Lisa Page is the one who provided the text messages to the IG while she was cooperating with the IG investigation, before she was fired. It's unlikely Strzok & Lisa Page's stories will match up. In addition to a contempt citation which Strzok worked hard to earn from the first question, he may be facing purjury charges as well. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:45, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

Mueller indicts 12 more ham sandwiches

Hold the mustard. Make mine mayonnaise with a slice of cheddar. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:52, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

I assume this is aimed at the Trump-Putin summit. I guess Trump didn't get permission from Mueller. Why do we need elections or a constitution? Mueller knows best. PeterKa (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2018 (EDT)
Very well put, Rob: "Mueller indicts 12 more ham sandwiches."!!!! That would make for a great headline. Do I have your permission, Rob, to copy your clever phrase?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2018 (EDT)
Please do. And here's the best clip from the Strzok testimony. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:10, 14 July 2018 (EDT)
The Russians have a long history of technological success (Sputnik, nuclear weapons, etc.). Some of the best hackers in the world are Russian. Kaspersky, a Russian company, is a top of the line anti-virus software. Putin HATED Hillary Clinton. Wikileaks is well-known to have Russian ties and Assange hosted a television show on Russia Today (RT.com).
Also, consider: How the Russians hacked the Hillary Clinton campaign and passed its e-mails to WikiLeaks
The Russians exposed the hypocrisy of Clinton and her staff. The irony is that the left/liberals used to love the Russians during the Cold War.
Bottom line: Trump hardened the cybersecurity of the GOP. The Democrats/Clinton, after 8 years of Obama, became very complacent, arrogant and corrupt. One again, pride cometh before the fall.Conservative (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2018 (EDT)
There no evidence the Russians hacked the DNC - not even in the indictment. The DNC has never allowed the FBI see it's servers, which is what makes these indictments so corrupt and abusive, and demonstrates the DNC still controls DOJ.
If your fellow citizens, the Democrats, did not give the Russians the atomic bomb, there never would have been a Cold War, or an insane nuclear arms race that cost 25% of world GDP. The Russians would still be working on cracking the secrets of the atom. US taxpayers spent roughly the equivalent of $100 billion in today's money on the Manhattan Project; Russia today has a defense budget of $61 billion and a per capita income equal to Mexico. Your fellow citizens, the Democrats, gave Russia the bomb for about 500 bucks.
Mueller indicted these ham sandwiches for three reasons: (1) new evidence in the Murder of Seth Rich; (2) public hearings in the House which will continue all summer with 41 more witness/coup plotters to go; (3) to impugn the Trump/Putin summit. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:11, 14 July 2018 (EDT)

Good chance that Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2020

See: Hillary Clinton is probably running for President in 2020.

There will probably be a large number of Democrats running with lesser name recognition than Hillary Clinton and they will split their vote.

Hillary Clinton and the Clintons strong believe that dogged persistence pays off.Conservative (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2018 (EDT)

She's just scamming donors. Sanders has already instructed his financial backers to support Kamala Harris, and Hillary's donors can't get excited about Harris, Gillibrand, or Warren. So Hillary is just sucking up the establishment, anti-progressive money. (Similar to how Scott Walker got the Koch money, and Jeb Bush the establishment money cause Trump didn't need to ask either). Hillary hopes this will make her a king-maker later.
She's not running for the polls, she's running for the money. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:20, 15 July 2018 (EDT)
The Democrats feel a strong pull to nominate a woman. Non Hillary Clinton women candidates don't have the name recognition of Hillary Clinton.Conservative (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2018 (EDT)
Please read: From The Depths Of Hell, Hillary Clinton 2020 Could Be Brewing.
"To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee." - Captain Ahab, Moby Dick.Conservative (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2018 (EDT)
Please read: Will Hillary persist in 2020? Her actions suggest ‘yes’, Fox NewsConservative (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2018 (EDT)

The whole notion of a Hillary Clinton 2020 is totally preposterous. She is a narcissistic psychopath with poor judgement and she has no chance of winning. But the Democratic bench of political talent is very weak so she has a chance.

"the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead." - Solomon, Ecclesiastes 9:3Conservative (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2018 (EDT)

The situation brewing in the United States is similiar to the "Generation Gap" of the 1960s. The World War 2 generation of our fathers was vastly outnumbered by Baby Boomers. But it took Baby Boomers another 30 years, until the Clinton's, to get to the White House. The older generation felt their children were irresponsible, more interested in "sex, drugs, rock n roll" than nuclear proliferation, and clung to power. The Millennial generation has taken over the Democrat party now, but it's leadership are aging baby boomers clinging to power the same way their parents did.
Millennials, next to boomers, are about the stupidiest generation America has ever seen (disproving evolution). Gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, and recreational marijuana are more important than nuclear proliferation. Death by carbon emissions in 30 years is a scarier prospect than get nuked by North Korea in the next 10 minutes. Hillary understands all this, but the facts are, Millennials in the Democrat party feel their day has arrived. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:28, 16 July 2018 (EDT)

The Helsinki moment

For a brief, shining moment in Helsinki, Trump stood up to the Deep State. These days, not so much: "Trump says he misspoke on Russian meddling during press conference, accepts US intel findings." A fool entrusts the intelligence community with the authority to determine his legitimacy. Bush also had "full faith and support" in the intelligence agencies. Then they betrayed him on Iraqi WMDs. PeterKa (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2018 (EDT)

It was brilliant. Trump's given himself a free pass. He can say what he means to anybody listening, and blunt critics, leaving them sounding like braying asses. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:33, 18 July 2018 (EDT)
We're only after the rogue elements of the deep state, IC, and swamp. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:36, 18 July 2018 (EDT)
Here's the US intel findings we accept: the Russian GRU did try to hack into 50 election boards in 50 states, to probe voter rolls and manipulate tallies. They failed, as Rod Rosenstein, Jeh Johnson, and every other investigation found. This was the extent of "Russian meddling." The Russians did not hack the DNC in Washington, as rougue elements in the intelligence community would have you believe, to hide their own efforts to rig the election.
The wider issue is declaring voter technology as "critical infrastructure," like airports or the power grid, and have the federal government take over elections, like they did healthcare, the post office, the mortgage industry, or the food stamp program. Bi-partisan legislation must address the threat of foreign interference. Democrats would love federalization of elections. Republicans want to maintain local control, with some cooperation with Homeland Security to safeguard the system in 50 states, that don't have the same voting mechanisms state-to-state, county-to-county, or even precinct-to-precinct. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:55, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

Trump's food taster was poisoned in Scotland one day before the summit. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:34, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

Here is Anne Coulter: "Trump's entire White House staff turned on him for the Helsinki press conference. Gen Kelly rallied GOPs agst him. WHO HIRED THOSE PEOPLE?"[3] With Trump the voice of (relative) reason, this red scare is a level or two crazier than anything we have seen before. The Russians have been interfering in U.S. elections for a long, long time. Stalin sponsored Henry Wallace's campaign back in 1948. It's about time for America to adopt an adult attitude about these things. The Dems need to understand that what they are advocating logically leads us to war with a nuclear superpower. PeterKa (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2018 (EDT)
There's also the fact that Putin's already made repeated indications that he adheres fully to Communism, meaning his "conservative" and "Christian" positions are most likely a sham. I'll tolerate how Trump is handling Putin, since going to war with a nuclear superpower, the alternative, is a very bad idea (even if their nuclear arms are inferior to our own), especially if it's like how Ronald Reagan did things to get rid of Communism (and besides, right now, restabilizing the Middle East is the big fish currently, and if that means making them Christian kingdoms, so be it). However, I do think we REALLY need to make sure Communism is dead in Russia for good. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2018 (EDT)
Pokeria1, You couldn't be more wrong. Democrats hate Putin because he is not a communist. The leadership of the global communist revolution passed from Moscow to liberals in the United States in 1992 with collapse of the Soviet Union.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:19, 19 July 2018 (EDT)
Don't be so sure about that. I already gave you plenty of links during a similar debate/argument earlier showcasing that, no, Putin actually IS still an adherent to Communism, even giving a speech that if anything outright praises the Communist Youth World Conference and their goals, not to mention aiding North Korea and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua as well as Angola recently (all of which are Communist). If he truly were not communist, not only would he NOT aid them, he'd if anything make sure they're wiped out. That's how I would have acted in Putin's position, be completely genocidal to Communists. And do I really have to remind you that Obama and even Hillary Clinton prior to Trump being elected actually HELPED Putin, with Obama even stating in the hot mike incident that he's going to aid Putin in the second term? Or how about how Clinton actually tried to collude with Russia. Besides, technically, in the early to mid Cold War, the Democrats also hated the Communists enough to even BOTHER fighting them under Harry Truman and JFK (and the latter even supported McCarthy in his attempt at exposing the Reds during the Red Scare, one of the few Democrats to actually stand by him and ally with him.). Also, don't bother citing his so called "Christian conversion". He would have repudiated Communism to the extent of demanding for it to be wiped from existence if he truly converted, certainly not compare Lenin's body to a saint relic. Not to mention, it's extremely naïve to think that he's Christian just because he helms the ROC. Let me remind you that even Joseph Stalin helmed the ROC during World War II, and that guy is definitely no Christian even in terms of official membership, it was purely cynical exploitation of Russian nationalism to push Communism into defeating Nazism back then, and it's something similar now. Not to mention the current Patriarch of the ROC, Krill, is an unrepentant ex-KGB agent who is most likely in on the charade. It's like saying Hitler was a Christian just because he was raised Catholic. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2018 (EDT)
Putin's promotes national reconciliation. Unlike the Nazi party, which was outlawed and its members faced trial, the Communist party was welcomed into the new parliamentary democracy. They garner around 17% in elections. It is a controversial position to embrace a minority party as a coalition ally, that large numbers of people hate. But Putin does so to promote tolerance and healing, not the despicable ideology behind minority communists. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:19, 20 July 2018 (EDT)
National reconciliation?! This is your best defense for Putin? The Nazis were banned in Germany for good reason. And the Communists were even worse than the Nazis, at least in terms of overall bodycount and kill rate, maybe even methods of killing. I actually WOULD ban the Communists, just to make SURE that it's made painfully clear the Communists deserve punishment for all the suffering THEY caused. No, you don't do "national reconciliation" with them (and besides, there's a very big difference between promoting healing and tolerance, and literally telling the Communists that they're doing a good job and has his full support to the extent that their goals are aligned, the latter of which is what he clearly did in his speech at the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students Communist event). Besides, I don't think calling the fall of the USSR the greatest Geopolitical disaster indicates he wanted to do national reconciliation, but rather revive the old USSR, and national reconciliation DEFINITELY doesn't explain why he would not only annex Ukraine and that other country, but also give deliberate aid to the North Koreans, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, or Angola (and let me remind you that they don't fit national reconciliation at all because they AREN'T part of the Russian nation in any way beyond being indirect allies via Communism). It's like saying our continuing to provide aid to France, England, or the Contras in Nicaragua is meant to promote national reconciliation. Pokeria1 (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2018 (EDT)
Perhaps it was a mistake not to outlaw and execute a few communists at the time of the collapse. But Russia, Germany, and elsewhere saw fit to be magnanimous. Now one can envision a crisis scenario where a 51% percent majority would ever give power back to a party that vows to abolish democracy and human rights. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:53, 20 July 2018 (EDT)
Coulter noted another problem that was being neglected because of the phony Russia drama upon which the media is fixated:
While I'm sure Russia's invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea were a grave threat to every man, woman and child in America, Putin should also be held to account for the rape and murder of thousands of Americans on our own soil every year, as a result of apparently unstoppable illegal immigration. (Who knew a wall was such an inconceivable engineering feat?)
This leads me to suggest a useful way to get that done—start an Adopt-a-Border-Mile program where U.S. citizens and businesses get together to sponsor and build a specified mile along the U.S. border. You say that the walls won't match up, and they'll be wasting their time. Not at all. Think a miniature Transcontinental Railroad. The divisions between each adjoining set of walls will be built last and completed with a televised ceremony where the last spike, made of bronze, will be pounded in with a sledgehammer. It would be easy! VargasMilan (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2018 (EDT)
Well, it's certainly something. And I agree, building a wall needs to be done to deal with the more immediate threat to America's borders. We'll deal with Putin's actions towards Ukraine and Crimea later, even though I personally want that dealt with ASAP due to the fact that there were several inherent horrific implications with some of the celebrations, where they are singing old Soviet anthems and holding plackards of Stalin. That if anything points to Putin not being anti-Communist. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2018 (EDT)
Why's everybody in a huff? Candidate Obama granted us his divine wisdom back in September 2008 on how to deal with Putin when Putin annexed Abkhazia; we need to propose a UN Security Council Resolution where Putin can veto it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:21, 19 July 2018 (EDT)

Editing shutdown

Was editing on Conservapedia shut down for the night at 12:30 PDT earlier? If so, how was it that that kid who vandalized the God article earlier managed to get past the shutdown to create his account (probably yet another sock of the same foul-mouthed juvenile delinquent who's made numerous vulgar vandalism edits and posts and has made vulgar and obscene death threat edits against me, Karajou and other editors here) and then make his vandalism edit before he got blocked? Northwest (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

I'm looking into this software issue further.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2018 (EDT)
It was an unusual software glitch. Thanks for mentioning it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2018 (EDT)

Mueller and the War of 1812

If Mueller succeeds in provoking a war with Russia, he can look to the War of 1812 as a precedent. Although the War Hawks used the slogan "free trade and sailors' rights," the opportunity to label the pro-British Federalists as traitors was clearly a major factor as well. There were no fresh British provocations in 1812. The timing of the declaration of war was determined by the needs of President Madison's reelection campaign. The former Revolutionary War officers were mainly Federalists and no one who understood military strategy thought an attack on Canada by a hurriedly snapped together militia force made any sense. The war effectively ended the history of the Federalist Party, so in that sense it was a striking success. PeterKa (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2018 (EDT)

While war is always a distinct possibility, defense spending is the larger issue. The latest US defense budget is $800 billion dollars; the Russians spend $61 billion. The reason the US defense budget got so bloated is because of exaggerated CIA estimates throughout the Cold War for decades that maintained that Soviet GDP was half of US GDP, and Soviet defense spending was twice US defense spending. When the Soviet Union collapsed and joined the IMF, and World Bank experts were invited in, we discovered it was all a big lie to build up the military industrial complex (which now includes defense industries in NATO countries, as well).
The reality is, the entire annual budget of the Russian Federation equals three days of US federal spending. The CIA was never held to account for its bogus intelligence estimates that Congress relied on to set defense spending.
The reality is, we live in tri-polar world where China has an up and coming economy, and Russia is hopelessly in a decling situation. China has the wherewithall for the latest technology in every field of defense spending. An arms race or missile defense race would bankrupt the Russians all over again. The only reason Russia was not allowed to join NATO, as its Warsaw Pact allies did when the Soviet Union collapsed, is because this would create a 4000 mile border between NATO and China, China would feel isolated, and an arms race would ensue. Russia really, since the mid 1990s, wants to either join NATO or partner with NATO against its two biggest threats - China and radical Islamic terrorists within its own borders.
For this cause, it was decided in the mid-1990s to keep up the myth of the Russian bogeyman. The U.S. and Russia have an agreement: we two have 94% of the nukes. Although no one can prevent China from rising as a Great Power with the largest modern conventional military, the U.S. & Russia will never allow China to get the edge on us with nukes. This means constant modernization of existing stockpiles with the latest technology, something very costly to Russia if it wants to remain a great power, and something even more costly to the U.S. if we had to go it alone. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:47, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

Knife attack in Germany

Here's one of the few, rare times this sort of thing has made the mainstream news: There was a mass murderer attacking people on a train in Germany....using a knife. This is one more example of how banning a weapon won't stop murderers from killing people. Too bad no one on that train had a knife (or gun) to defend themselves with.... [4] --David B (TALK) 14:28, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

1. That was not on a train, that was on a bus. The text in the article is quite clear and if you cannot be bothered to read it than at least look at the picture in it.

2. How exactly does this prove that banning weapons "won't stop murderers from killing people"? Nobody died, though 14 people were injured before the attacker was overpowered by the passengers. If anything, this could be used for the opposing argument: no guns, less people dying. If the attacker had had a gun would there have been more or less fatalities? LivingInGermany (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2018 (EDT)

The German authorities are not letting people know if the attack was done by a Muslim immigrant (or immigrant). I wonder why! Conservative (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2018 (EDT)
Of course they aren't!
(And yes, I read and noted the article along with several others [I wanted to find a non-US source, even though I first read it from a US MSM source] then made the comment some time later. By then, I'd forgotten that it was a bus, instead.) Let me counter your argument with this: If any of the passengers has owned a knife (or gun) imagine how unlikely it is that more than three people would have been hurt. The attacker was already breaking the law with the intent to murder. Breaking it to carry and use a weapon in unwarranted aggression is just one more offence to add to the list. --David B (TALK) 19:22, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

The T word

First it was deplorable, later inhuman, and now traitor. The media's preferred buzzword for Republicans keeps changing, but the meaning doesn't. Trump is in good company since the Founding Fathers were all accused of treason as well. In 1765, Patrick Henry told his detractors in the Virginia House of Burgesses that, "If this be treason, make the most of it." With Russia hardliners like Mattis and Pompeo setting policy, America is actually taking a tougher line against Russia now than it ever did under Obama. The "situation with Russia" currently consumes Washington, but it is not the No. 1 priority of any significant group of voters. See "Gallup Poll Shows Americans Couldn't Care Less (Literally) About 'Situation With Russia'". PeterKa (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

Here is the Wall Street Journal: "Why Trump’s Detractors Cry ‘Treason’." The tactic is mainly about delegitimizing the 2016 election and has very little to do with Russia, according to this article. The intelligence community's assessment that Russia meddled is based on evidence that is still secret. If there actually was convincing evidence, I'm sure Mueller, Strzok or some other Deep Stater would have leaked it by now. OK, Russian intelligence did apparently spear-phish Podesta's gmail account and they certainly used Facebook trolls to organize anti-Trump rallies immediately after the election. Technically, that's meddling right there. But the media is suggesting something more sinister -- that the Russians stole the election from Hillary. Multiple hackers got into Podesta's account and we don't know whether or not Wikileaks got his email from the Russians. Be that as it may, Trump should obviously not participate in the delegitimization of his own election. To treat his reluctance to back Hillary's favorite conspiracy theory as disloyalty suggests that Hillary is our real president. PeterKa (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
We just blew holes in Mueller's fraudulent indictment. Posting it up now. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:14, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

The FISA application

The application for the Carter Page FISA warrant has finally been released. It's 412 pages long. The Deep State really didn't want this one to come out. Did the threat to impeach Rosenstein do the trick? PeterKa (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

This means Horowitz is nearing the end of his FISA abuse IG investigation. Credit to John Lausch. Could mean indictments from John Huber, too. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:41, 22 July 2018 (EDT)
The application is essentially the Steele dossier with some captions on it, according to the brilliant and indispensable Andrew McCarthy.[5] The FBI gave a certification to the effect that the claims taken from the dossier were "verified as accurate." So legally speaking, these now discredited claims are on them. Nonetheless, I think it's clear that Devin Nunes got it wrong. The FBI didn't trick the FISA judges. The judges were full participants in this scam and should be impeached. The only reason we know about this warrant is because the FBI (presumably Stzrok) leaked its existence to the press in the closing days of the 2016 campaign. The early leaks did not mention Page. Rather, they presented the warrant as a basis to spy on the Trump campaign generally. Under the "two hops" principle, the warrant could have encompassed a wide circle of people only distantly connected to Page. Although the FBI must know all there is to know about Page at this point, there has never been any suggestion that he might be charged with anything. In other words, this is blatantly partisan political spying. The section of the FISA act that is being used here was written by Ted Kennedy in response to the Church Committee revelations and in order to prevent further political spying. To use it as a pretext for such spying turns the intent of the law on its head. PeterKa (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2018 (EDT)
(1) Louise Mensch of the UK Heat Street was the first to print about FISA. Her information came either directly from Steele or Brennan's UK oconus lures or London SpyGate operation. (2) The warrant was based on Steele's information, which Steele leaked to Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News, which then was represented as independent corroboration. They used Steele - a foreigner - to corroborate himself. That's how the DOJ hoaxed the court. (3) One week after securing the warrant by representing Steele as a "reliable source", the FBI fired Steele for talking to the media and being an unreliable source. They then went back to the court 3 more times over the next 10 months with the same template representing Steele as reliable, never telling the court Steele had been fired for being unreliable. This timeframe represents the Trump transition and first eight months of his presidency. (4} The FISA authority granted over Page gave surveillance authority over the entire network Page was in contact with, i.e. the entire Trump campaign, transition, and administration, as "agents of a foreign power", thus stripping them all of their constitutional due process rights. (5) FISA abuse explains the high turnover of personal. RobSDeep Six the Deep State!
Great points to put in the appropriate entries here!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2018 (EDT)
It's bigger than Watergate. It has an international dimension. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:46, 22 July 2018 (EDT)
Here is Mensch's original article: "EXCLUSIVE: FBI ‘Granted FISA Warrant’ Covering Trump Camp’s Ties To Russia" (November 7, 2016). It does mention Page. But as the headline makes clear, the warrant was always about spying on the Trump campaign as opposed to spying on Page personally. PeterKa (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2018 (EDT)
FISA Title I authority grants authority to apply the same extensive intrusions upon all contacts of the target. Title I allows the FBI to compile a list of all inbound and outbound electronic communications - text, email, and phone, past, present, and future - and then to apply the same surveillance against everyone on that list. IOW, the entire Trump network, as if it were a foreign spy ring, terrorist organization, or drug cartel. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:02, 23 July 2018 (EDT)
  • The judges who approved the warrant were Anne Conway (Florida), Rosemary Collyer (DC), Michael Mosman (Oregon), and Raymond Dearie (NY). FISA judges are district or appellate court judges who receive seven-year FISA terms. So everyone on the FISA court was an Obama appointee at that time. The application baldly claims that Carter Page was a Russian agent. If there any evidence to support this allegation, we would have heard about it by now. PeterKa (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2018 (EDT)
    • But Anne Conway was appointed as a judge by George H. W. Bush, Rosemary Collyer and Michael Mosman were appointed judges by George W. Bush, and Raymond Dearie was appointed a judge by Ronald Reagan. So apparently Obama nominated Republican-appointed judges to the FISA court.VargasMilan (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2018 (EDT)
    • Going back to the doubts toward the FISA application's validity, Hugh Hewitt remarked on a New York Times piece covering the released application: "Read it closely for any indication that released documents provided evidence other than Steele Dossier. Evidence. Not assertions." VargasMilan (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2018 (EDT)
      • There is way more to it than is being reported now, giving the public time to digest. In a thumbnail: some Steele information came from the FBI's illegal surveillance before the warrant was granted, was passed to Steele, embellished by Steele, and handed back to the FBI to hide the FBI's illegal misuse of the FISA database. The warrant also provided retroactive approval as a CYA memorandum.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:19, 23 July 2018 (EDT)
      • A simple example: Carter Page says he never met the two guys the Steele dossier alleges he did. Page traveled to Moscow in mid-summer 2016. That itinerary came from illegal use of the FISA database within the DOJ/FBI, was passed to Nellie Ohr (wife of Bruce Ohr), who happens to be a Russia expert and worked with Christopher Steele. The team of Steele & Nellie embellished the travel dates (which could be corroborated) with fictionalized accounts of meetings. Steele then leaked it to media hoping to get the lies in print, and gave the embellished accounts back to the FBI. When Michael Isikoff wrote about it in September 2016, the DOJ/FBI slapped the Yahoo News account (with Steele as the unnamed source) into the FISA application to corroborate the Steele dossier. The only thing that could be verified and corroborated were the travel dates, which came from an illegal 702 "Carter Page travel" about query within the FBI, without probable cause. Numerous other examples abound.
      • This demonstrates collusion between the FBI and FusionGPS (or rather, the Clinton campaign). The October FISA application was as much about retroactive cover for Obama DOJ lawbreaking as it was a future insurance policy against the election of Trump. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 05:22, 24 July 2018 (EDT)
  • Here is James Comey's signature on page 63 of the FISA application: [6]. Judge Rosemary Collyer signed on page 83.[7] PeterKa (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2018 (EDT)

FBI lied to the court: simple illustration

Page 320 in a footnote:

The FBI does not believe that Source #1 [Steele] directly provided this information to the identified news organization [YahooNews] that published the September 23 [Michael Isikoff] News Article. [8]

The Grassley Memo released in February 2018 pages 4-7 and the Nunes Memo both prove the FBI fired Steele for unreliability yet continued to vouch for his reliability.

Rod Rosenstein

Rod Rosenstein vouched for Steele's reliability in the third renewal [Page 320 above]. Rosenstein was just asked about it under oath two weeks ago:

"...We sit down with a team of attorneys from the Department of Justice. All of whom review that and provide a briefing for us for what’s in it. And I’ve reviewed that one in some detail, and I can tell you the information about that doesn’t match with my understanding of the one that I signed." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:01, 24 July 2018 (EDT)

More lies

"It turns out this was a total lie. Carter Page FISA application expressly LIED about source of the dossier."—Ann Coulter VargasMilan (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2018 (EDT)

This was because the application said the FBI speculated that the Dossier was paid for by someone opposing Trumps's candidacy. There was no need for the FBI to "speculate"; they knew very well that it had been funded by Hillary's campaign. VargasMilan (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

West Nile

I am curious about the assertion that the CDC and media are concealing the fact that the first cases of West Nile disease identified in the U.S. were in 1999. The websites of the CDC, NIH, NCBI, and even the USDA all make that fact very clear. The information is not concealed. What is the purported motivation for doing so? --Brossa (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2018 (EDT)

Not in the news stories, and no prominent explanation on any government website about how the disease was imported to the U.S. from Africa. Do you have a link that you think gives this point prominence? If so, please post here and I'll look at it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2018 (EDT)
You may not care for the source, but Wikipedia is a mainstream site, and their articles on West Nile Fever and West Nile Virus in the United Statesare clear that the first cases in the US were in 1999. Their article on West Nile Virus reiterates this, and mentions that the strain in the US matches one from Israel in the same year. As far as news stories go, herearemultiplelinks frommainstreammediasourcesfromacrossthe politicalspectrum, many of which are from the last year; all of them mention that West Nile came to the US in 1999. It is of course true that not every news article about West Nile mentions that it came to the US in 1999, but as the disease is now endemic in North America and Central America, and as time goes by, that fact becomes less noteworthy. It has been and still is widely reported, however.
As for government websites, I would not expect them to explain how the disease was imported from Africa, because that is not what happened. If you are referring to the virus coming from Israel, then yes, that information is readily available, and not concealed: FromtheCDC. Fromseveralothersources, too, including the popular press. While there was some early chatter about West Nile perhaps being a biological attack on the US, nowadays the precise source of the strain that came to the Western Hemisphere is of academic interest only. So no, most generalist information sites don't mention the Israel connection, but that information is easily found on both government and media sites. Do you think that Israel being the source deserves greater mention? The main page headline states that the media and CDC conceal the fact that West Nile was introduced to the US in 1999, not that the media and CDC conceal that the disease was introduced from Israel, and it was the first point that I was questioning, not the second. If on the other hand you have reason to believe that the true source of WNV in the US was Africa rather than Israel, and that that truth is for some reason being suppressed, I am curious what evidence you have for that position.
As far as the prominent mention of the 1999 date goes from government websites, which was the initial claim, here is the CDC page that shows the statistics and maps for all cases in the US since the very first New York cases in 1999.
West Nile link from the NIH.Here on the NIH's intro page on infectious diseases; as you see the first sentence in a very short blurb on West Nile mentions the introduction to the US in 1999.
Link from the USDA, with date of US introduction.
More broadly, looking at government sites, when you search USA.gov for "West Nile Virus", the very first result states up front that West Nile came to the US in 1999. In fact, almost every link from that search either states that West Nile came to the US in 1999, and/or in the cases of departments of health of individual states, mentions when West Nile first arrived in their states (like OK, WA, WI, NYNJ,PA,MA, DE,TX, and UT to link to just a few).--Brossa (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2018 (EDT)
So as to state what is obvious, but perhaps not to the non-participants in this discussion, the U. S. Government used to screen immigrants for "loathsome and contagious" diseases, but by 1999, the screening was at least relaxed, in addition to the border being already unsecured, so as not to hurt anyone's feelings or/nor to allow the immigrant to suffer a prejudicial reduction of opportunities to be an American on account of their poor health but at the expense of disease exposure to American citizens already living here. VargasMilan (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2018 (EDT)
The US has previously screened, and continues to screen, immigrants and refugees for illness prior to allowing entry into the country. A brief list of illnesses that would prevent entry is here, from the CDC, or here, from the Federal code, with broader coverage here.The list has changed over time, and is subject to revision by Presidential executive order in response to new infectious threats. In the past it has included things such as poor vision, varicose veins, and limb deformities that would limit the capacity to perform unskilled labor. The 'loathsome and contagious' list previously included epilepsy, toenail fungus, senility, and favus (a fungal scalp infection that is now easily treated with medication). A more recent and controversial change was the removal of HIV in 2010, and the addition of requirements for proof of vaccinations for multiple illnesses. The list still includes many communicable diseases, drug abuse, and some mental illnesses.
While changes in the list of excluded illnesses may merit its own discussion, the topic is of no relevance to West Nile virus. Human beings are dead-end hosts of the West Nile virus: even when ill with West Nile, we do not produce enough free virus in the bloodstream to infect mosquitoes, which is a step that is needed to spread the disease to a new host. There have been accidental infections of lab personnel who were working with West Nile, and there have been reports of infections due to blood transfusion (all blood in the US has been screened for WNV since 2003) and maternal transmission through breastfeeding. However, these transmission methods do not lead to epidemics or to the establishment of a local animal reservoir of the disease. The natural reservoir of WNV in the wild is birds, and for WNV to get a foothold in the US would have required the entry of either a live infected bird or live infected mosquitoes, NOT an infected human. Secondly, West Nile was never on any list of excluded illnesses anyway, so there was never a time at which someone with West Nile would have been kept out before "the screening was... relaxed". Furthermore, even if West Nile was communicable human-to-human, and was previously on an exclusion list for immigrants or asylum seekers, that would not have prevented any other type of traveler from introducing it to the US, like, say, a diplomatic envoy from Italy or a tourist from Australia (both are places where West Nile is endemic).--Brossa (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2018 (EDT)
I can see a poor peasant immigrant sneaking through the border while carrying a pair of chickens with the know-how to raise them by building a chicken coop here in the United States. Or imagine an exotic bird smuggler from the Caribbean. Everybody knows you can't bring a mammal into Great Britain that doesn't have a rabies shot, so it's just common sense to think there is a list for animals too.
So that recital about animal contagion undermines your argument as a distinction without a difference; I said in addition to the border already being unsecured. Don't you care about that possibility? Doesn't the fact that too many people not only tolerate but actually support illegal border-crossings presuppose they completely disregard—or, in what has, in today's world, never been so clearly seen—actually pursue, in accordance with their political beliefs, to the heights of utter lunacy, the removal of any disease-prevention screening standard the U.S. government applies to people or animals?
The week containing the 20th or 21st of July in America is shown by meteorological recordings to be the hottest of the year. Let's hope with the cooling temperatures, cooler heads will prevail to jointly overcome the border-psychotics. VargasMilan (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
Do you have evidence to support the notion that West Nile virus was brought to the United States by a peasant sneaking across a border carrying chickens, or that the virus was introduced as a result of relaxed immigrant/asylum seeker exclusionary health criteria? That an immigrant, legal or illegal, had anything to do with West Nile introduction at all? It's one thing to say that relaxed standards or insecure borders leave us open to the introduction of novel illnesses; it's quite another to say that this particular disease was introduced that way, as opposed to say a cargo ship with stowaway birds or a passenger airplane carrying a few mosquitoes or a shipping container with some stagnant water at the bottom, or a American citizen smuggling in some aquarium plants. It would be no fairer to say that West Nile arrived in the US after immigrant health criteria were relaxed, implying a causal link, than it would be to say that Neo-Nazi activity in the US increased after Donald Trump took office, also implying a causal link.
But the exact mechanism of the introduction of WNV to the Americas, is not the essence of the headline, or the essence of my initial question. Neither is American border control policy. The headline stated that the media and CDC conceal the fact that West Nile was introduced to the US in 1999; ASchlafly later added that it is not prominently noted that it came "from Africa", either. I don't feel that either statement is true; additionally, the second is doubly wrong since the information on source is not concealed, and the source was Israel, not Africa. Where is the evidence for a coverup or for an African origin for WNV?--Brossa (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Putin's enemy No. 1

Earl Browder was head of the U.S. Communist Party from 1930 to 1945, Stalin's loyal henchman. His grandson Bill Browder is the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act and the man Putin loves to hate. See "The Extraordinary Courage of a Putin Foe". PeterKa (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

Yep. Press accounts neglect to portray how the Russian public sees communists, who destroyed their country, then return as billionaires to buy up the country for pennies on the dollar, take assets out of the country, then try to destroy and bankrupt the country all over again through sanctions (the Magnitsky Act) after it frees itself from communists. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:53, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

Maria Butina, the media's favorite Russian spy

The media sure is awfully concerned with Maria Butina's links to the National Rifle Association. Do they worry that she may have gained access to America's most sensitive rifle secrets? She also traveled to the U.S. in April 2015 to met with two mid-leval Obama administration officials. I wonder if they were colluding. Check it out, Mueller.[9] PeterKa (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2018 (EDT)

The real target is John Bolton, who made a video for The Right To Bear Arms, a group in Russia which Butina chairs seeking to emulate the U.S. Second Amendment in the Russian constitution.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:53, 24 July 2018 (EDT)

Worst U.S. president ever

There is no consensus as to which U.S. president was the worst. But Woodrow Wilson, president during World War I and the original Red Scare, clearly belongs on the short list. With Taft, Teddy Roosevelt, and Princeton professor Wilson on the ballot, the 1912 election was an elevated affair. There was erudite debate and some terrific choices for president. But somehow Americans didn't end up making the best choice.
Wilson was a segregationist and a KKK fanboy. His principle of self-determination was used to sort out European boundaries at Versailles in 1919. The history textbooks neglect to mention that it originated as a way to justify southern secession. With Wilsonian hysteria targeting German-Americans and Reds, Columbia fired three professors explaining that “what had been wrongheadedness was now sedition. What had been folly was now treason.” Finally, Wilson's ideology, called progressivism, was a model for FDR's liberalism. See "Real Mass Hysteria, American Style." `PeterKa (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2018 (EDT)

To be fair to Wilson regarding the original Red Scare, the Communists DID deserve what they had coming to them during that event of being hunted down. Still, he's definitely among the worst even with his fighting against the Communists. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2018 (EDT)
Wilson was a "one-world" globalist/liberal internationalist firmly in the tradition of Immanuel Kant. He did a lot to undermine U.S. sovereignty, and his redrawing of Europe's boundaries caused much resentment that still exists to this day (not to mention that it lead to WWII).
Wilson's racism and white supremacism are 100% compatible (and not at all contradictory with) his liberal internationalism -- both views came from his belief in the Idea of Progress, that mankind is getting better, both racially (whites more highly evolved than others) and politically (the nation-state is outdated, time to unite humanity). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2018 (EDT)
I'm in agreement with you, actually. I was just saying that his Red Scare was ultimately a good thing due to how horrific the Communists truly were. Pokeria1 (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
  • There was at least one president who was even worse than Wilson: James Madison. He launched the War of 1812, which nearly broke the country, simply as a reelection gimmick. Here is Wikipedia's article on presidential rankings. Wilson is No. 7 and Madison is No. 14. Grover Cleveland, a model conservative, is No. 20. No one is worse than Trump, of course. PeterKa (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
The worst presidents ever, are two: Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, both Democrats during the 1850s. Between the two you have a historical record of Southern factionalism in a rabid defense of slavery, the results of which are the Dred Scott decision, the attempted spread of slavery into the territoties, Bleeding Kansas, the John Brown raid, and ultimately the Civil War. Both of them did nothing to stop it. Karajou (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
Bingo. It's in the blood. Franklin Pierce is the great-great-grandfather of George and Jeb Bush. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:02, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Obama was the worst U.S. president. He buried the USA under a mountain of debt. Fomented racial division. Undermined the most fundamentalism building block of society - the family (homosexual "marriage"). His foreign policy was a train wreck. And he was very anti-Israel.Conservative (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

Don't forget trying to federalize elections, turn America into a surveillance state while declaring war on local cops. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:16, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
Not to mention openly supporting hard-left groups and especially Communists to the extent that he outright lionizes the likes of Che Guevara, something that not even FDR was that open about (even his siding with Stalin had him at least using World War II as an excuse to do so). Oh, and also going far in trying to force people into supporting abortion and any other left-wing cause via the "pen and phone" method. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
Wilson, Truman, and Carter were especially bad presidents because they were "one-world" internationalists who undermined America's independence and freedoms by entering into permanent international alliances (which promote world socialism), something that George Washington explicitly warned against. Lyndon Johnson was especially bad because he took many steps to advance socialism and the welfare state at a domestic level (not to mention changing the law in 1965 to promote mass low-skill migration). FDR and Obama were especially bad because they were both liberal internationalists who also supported domestic socialism. I think these are the worst U.S. presidents.
P.S. -- Woodrow Wilson was a staunch theological liberal who did not have a high view of the Bible and biblical Christianity (his speeches when he was president of Princeton attest to that). --1990'sguy (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2018 (EDT)
Well, I'll give you Carter (since he DID try to give concessions to the Communists in the name of world peace until he learned they backed out of human rights and then was weak in dealing with them), not to mention FDR and Obama (the former sided with Stalin, and allowed for the mess of communists within the Democrat party, something which not even Teddy Roosevelt, who helped pioneer progressivism, would have ever allowed for, and the latter doesn't even try to hide that he supports communist revolutionaries), but at least Wilson and Truman, heck, even Johnson, actually ATTEMPTED to fight Communism with the first Red Scare, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, respectively, so they did a little bit of good in my book especially knowing how the Communists tried to exterminate religion (too bad Johnson expanded the welfare state, though...), so they're actually better than those three, though only by marginal amounts. Oh, and don't forget Clinton, that guy was practically a prototype Obama in how he did things (probably the only reason most of his left-wing agenda didn't succeed was the whole 1994 Republican Revolution business), and if the book by that FBI agent is of any indication, he actually hired Leninists as his security detail (and that's not even getting into how he allowed known homosexuals into the White House and even allowed them to make out in there, something that was unprecedented going by the book). Oh, and he also lost the codes to the football and barely even cared. Actually, I also may have to count Thomas Jefferson as among the worst presidents, since he advocated, ironically enough, for massive expansion of government even when promising he wouldn't, he supported the Jacobin cause to such an extent that he even wrote a letter about it after the wake of the September Massacres as well, and there's evidence pointing to him effectively starting the Democrat Party's infamous tactics (modeled after the Jacobins, of course) via his Jeffersonian Democrats after the signing of the Jay Treaty, including burning effagies of the guy responsible for the treaty, John Jay back in 1795. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2018 (EDT)
About Truman, let's remember that he fired General MacArthur because the latter wanted to destroy the communist regime with nukes. It was the U.S.'s best opportunity to end communism in China, as the regime had just been established and was weak, but it wasted that opportunity and allowed that regime to strengthen and become the emerging superpower it is today. Truman's record on communism is not as great as most history textbooks make it sound. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2018 (EDT)
Maybe so, but the fact that he even had us fight in Korea at ALL suggests he still had SOMETHING against Communism. Otherwise, why send us to fight in Korea at all? Pokeria1 (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2018 (EDT)
Truman was a fan of Stalin and Mao. But he was a politician first and his focus was always on winning U.S. elections. Until Congress exposed Alger Hiss in 1948, the fact that his administration was riddled with Communists did not overly concern him. As far as why Truman intervened in Korea, he had been burned in the "Who lost China?" debate earlier.
The Truman/MacArthur dispute was not about nuclear weapons. Truman was preparing a ceasefire proposal. MacArthur preempted this proposal by issuing a public communique that called for attacks on bases and supply lines in China. In those days, such insubordination was shocking. Nowadays, Mueller and Rosenstein can indict Russian officials in order to undermine an upcoming U.S-Russian summit and it's considered business as usual. PeterKa (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2018 (EDT)
Okay, in that case, I'll probably move him down quite a bit (though I must admit, considering Obama could pull off making clear he supported Communism via Che and Mao openly and still get elected to two terms, I'm actually surprised that Truman DIDN'T try to be open about that). Pokeria1 (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2018 (EDT)
Truman lived at a time when it wasn't culturally acceptable to express sympathy for communism. The counterculture movement and the New Left helped change that public mentality. Remember, Truman lived around the time of the Red Scare -- expressing support for communists then would be political suicide. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2018 (EDT)
The Dems treated the Russians as our friends until the Republicans won the 1946 midterms and showed that being openly pro-communist was not a politically viable position. Being Stalin's friend was a hard habit to break. This is Truman at a campaign rally in 1948 at the time of the Berlin Blockade: “I got very well acquainted with Joe Stalin and I like Old Joe. He is a decent fellow. But Joe is a prisoner of the politburo. He can’t do what he wants to. He makes agreements and, if he could, he would keep them. But the people who run the government are very specific in saying that he can’t keep them.” PeterKa (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2018 (EDT)
Basically, the communist left (Ayers, Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis, Barack Obama) view themselves as victims of the surveillance state, and have been kept out of power by government snooping and civil rights violations. Given the chance to run things, the first order of business was to seize the surveillance apparatus and turn it on their percieved oppressors who kept them out of power for so many decades. Never mind the fact that conservatives always wanted to preserve the system, whereas progressives clear intent is to overthrow and destroy it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:41, 27 July 2018 (EDT)

Facebook financial setback

It's not going bankrupt anytime soon, but Facebook has seen 20% less growth than they projected for this last quarter. They knew growth was beginning to slow, but it's caught them a little off guard at the speed of decline. [10] I wonder why this might be...perhaps because:

  • People are realizing they have better things to do with their lives than just writing about it all day?
  • Facebook is no longer the "cool" option for young folks, now that all of the old fogies have started using it?
  • People don't trust facebook with private information anymore (I wonder why....)?
  • Perhaps even people are starting to realize facebook is censoring people the company doesn't agree with?

It's not like the end of Google, facebook, twitter, Microsoft, Apple, and every other liberal company in the tech sphere is starting to collapse....That will probably never happen. However, it is interesting. --David B (TALK) 21:14, 25 July 2018 (EDT)

I would also add to your list the problem of online abuse. I've never used platforms like Twitter or Facebook, but I've heard some real horror stories about being harassed, especially from women. "Political Twitter" has become a toxic hellscape; I really don't why anyone would want to join that mess to begin with. I agree that social media will probably never end; it's just too addicting to people who crave attention. However, I think users will probably switch more towards apps like Snapchat or Facebook Messenger which is more "friends only" communication. --AnchorDown (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
I'd prefer that people shift from Facebook (which we've long criticized here) to other platforms like Snapchat, but it seems that Snapchat's value has really declined - its company is worth less than half now compared to what it was worth when it had its public offering.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
Yes, I've heard of such things as well--good point AnchorDown. It seems that some (mostly the "I don't need privacy, I have nothing to hide" crowd) have no problem with exposing private details to people who have no business having it, which opens them up to abuse. Meanwhile, those who overestimate their online privacy and have poor ethics use such details to say things they really shouldn't. The only one who wins out is the social media platform, because users are active and therefore generating advertisement revenue and providing valuable information to sell. Just remember, when a product is free, it is not the product--you are.
At least with facebook (unlike Twitter) users can restrict information to their circle of friends (and Facebook, and google, and other advertisers, and those who buy such information from Facebook) if they would only use such controls and actually only "friend" those who are their friends. That doesn't fix the other problems, but it can at least help with this one. (Mind you, I still don't like or trust it though.)
At any rate, there is a psychological drive to seek approval from others, and the sooner the better. While it could be that one-on-one and small group social options will take over, it will be hard to beat the "likes," "loves," "retweets," "thumbs-ups," and other such approval feedback systems. --David B (TALK) 01:05, 29 July 2018 (EDT)

The Central Park rapists

In the liberal catechism, the innocence of the "Central Park Five" is now an article of faith. These men were convicted of raping investment banker Trisha Meili in New York City in 1990. The defendants all confessed, two separate juries convicted them, and the convictions were affirmed by the appellate courts in four separate appeals. The case was hugely well-publicized and took place in the capital of the nation's legal community. One defendant explained that he "only held her legs down" while another man did the deed. Sorry gangbangers, but that's still rape. There was no serious dispute as to guilt until 2002, when a DNA test concluded that semen found on the scene was from Matias Reyes, an imprisoned serial rapist. After the test, The New York Times proclaimed that Reyes had acted alone and that the reports of "wilding" that night were a fiction. It is illogical to conclude that the men convicted were innocent based on DNA that the prosecution had never claimed was their's.
How could politically correct opinion turn around like this? In the 1980s, feminism and victim's rights were ascendant and rape was the ultimate horror. In the 1990s, the feminists threw away their credibility to defend Bill Clinton. By 2002, what mattered was that the victim was white and that the defendants were non-white. One is even a Muslim, which in the post-9/11 era made him the real victim. For more details, see this Anne Coulter column. PeterKa (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

Ok. So the DNC is rallying blacks back to the Central Park Jogger case to counter the WalkAway movement prior to the 2018 Midterm elections, and to call Trump a racist. Mind you, the $41 million settlement paid to the Superpredators was paid by Democrat Mayor Bill DeBlasio to embarass Trump. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:54, 28 July 2018 (EDT)
I should explain that soon after the Central Park attack, Trump placed this full page ad in four New York newspapers: "Mayor Koch has stated that hate and rancor should be removed from our hearts. I do not think so. I want to hate these muggers and murders." It was his first foray into politics. PeterKa (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2018 (EDT)
Yes. It all makes sense. The five who were convicted were suspected in a series of other ongoing Superpredator attacks which were occuring over that same period of months. Their confessions were coerced and overturned. In 2014, at the height of the Obama riots, Obama was not about to forget the misuse of law enforcement to secure convictions which Trump supported, at the same time Trump was questioning Obama's legitimacy in the birther movement. The Russia collusion hoax and FISA abuse scandal is Obama's payback to Trump whom Obama regarded as an amatuer in the game of politics. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:09, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
The term Superpredator originated in the Central Park Jogger case. Incidentally, although there were several attacks and many victims, the lone 'Central Park jogger', like Hillary Clinton, was a graduate of Wellseley and Yale, which sparked New York prosecutors to resolve the case. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:27, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
The word "superpredator" originated in the late 1990s, according to the article you cite. The Central Park jogger incident gave us "wilding." PeterKa (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2018 (EDT)
A distinction without a difference. One of the accused said, "I look back on these past 25 years with labels of 'wolf pack,' 'super-predator' ... it's unbelievable the injustice that we have suffered..." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:31, 29 July 2018 (EDT)

Left-wing media: authoritarianism's best friend

The Left loves to portray conservatives and the conservative media as somehow being enablers of authoritarianism (though they have no evidence other than the fact that they support limited government policies that the Left hates), but the left-wing media is actually the biggest enabler of the police state.

For example, CNN Turk -- CNN's Turkish network -- is literally a propaganda mouthpiece of the Erdoğan regime,[11][12] while Google is seriously considering abetting the Chinese police state by introducing an extreme-censored version of its search engine in the country.[13][14] Meanwhile, in the U.S., the MSM opposes the release of classified FBI and DOJ documents, opposes the Second Amendment, and has zero sympathy for Christians and conservatives wishing to exercise their First Amendment rights to speech and religion. The media also demonizes anyone in Europe who dares to question the globalist, anti-patriotic establishment there. The real authoritarians in this world who want to wipe out freedoms come from the Left and the mainstream media. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2018 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more; shadow banning is the latest authoritarian trend in leftist censorship. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:18, 2 August 2018 (EDT)
Conservapedia would never ban someone without good reason KenoathMate (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2018 (EDT)
Unlike the MSM, we don't claim to be a neutral platform. And yes, minus your apparent sarcasm, we do only block for a good reason (vandalism, socking, 90/10). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2018 (EDT)

Bigotry -- the Left's MO

There have been several stories in the news in the past few days underscoring the left's bigotry and pandering. For example, the anti-Trump "Calexit" people have a new plan to divide up the state to create an "Autonomous Native Nation" buffer zone to separate it from the rest of the U.S.: [15] But the guilty white liberals who think it's so important to pay for the sins of their ancestors don't actually want to give up their own land and lives -- they want to give up the parts of the state that voted for Trump and force them under Indian tribal rule. As the co-founder of the Calexit movement stated just yesterday, "the primarily Trump voters who live in that area will have to do what brown-skinned people tell them to do because brown-skinned people will be in charge, and if they don't like that, they're welcome to leave California". In other words, this plan isn't for the guilty leftists to make a genuine restitution (if it were, they would hand over their own land and property to this proposed reservation), it's to punish the Trump supporters whom they abhor.

Another thing, the NYT recently wrote an article complaining about the fact that some states are primarily white-skinned: [16] Imagine if they said this about an African country having too many dark-skinned people, Mexico having too many Hispanics, India having too many Indians, or China having too many Chinese. It's not surprising that the NYT is complaining about white people, since they hired (and defended and justified) an anti-white bigot: [17] The Left has no problem with her behavior -- but what would their reaction be if she changed the word "white" to "black"? It's textbook racism.

In only the past couple days, we've seen some good illustrations of how bigoted the Left is, and how any perceived conservative bigotry pales in comparison. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2018 (EDT)

And there are many more examples. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2018 (EDT)
Word usage side note:
Q: how can you tell if a tweet is racist?
A: it depends, true racism can only come from a position of power
Q: how can you tell if it's from a position of power?
A: when the tweeter doesn't get fired for it
— David Burge
VargasMilan (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2018 (EDT)
Racism today is defined as criticism of the President. Progressives drilled that into our heads for more than 8 years. It is their own definition. It still applies, and will continue to apply. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:48, 3 August 2018 (EDT)
  • I am surprised nobody has mentioned Sarah Jeong in this context. She is a Korean-American tech writer the New York Times just added to their editorial board. She has history of anti-White tweets and also hates her own parents for being Christians. See "It Wasn’t Just a Few Tweets". I'm not sure I want to live in a world where anyone can dig up your old tweets and get you fired. But if the messages are about blacks or gays, the NYT won't hesitate to apply the "old tweet" standard: "By Its Own Standard, the New York Times Should Fire Sarah Jeong". PeterKa (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2018 (EDT)
I briefly mentioned her at the end of my comment above, in case that's what you meant. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2018 (EDT)
Jeong was the exemplary case that inspired Burge to pen that dialogue: the Times refused to fire Jeong while the American news environment is filled with cases of others being fired over lesser attacks on non-white groups while defenses no different than those the Times gave to preserve her employment were unavailing. VargasMilan (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2018 (EDT)
I think most of us assumed the repeated Jeong tweets were harsh, individual outbursts that colored a bigoted observational writer's career. But, on the basis of the evidence, which was finally totalled up as the first news cycle passed into another one, it would be more accurate to say she only chose a writing career to serve as an extension of her... Preoccupation?—No, when the "commentaries" pile up into the scores, hundreds, nearly a thousand, [18] they approach something closer to an obsession,—her obsession with allocating different types of actions, reported, misreported or speculated on her part, according to the race and ancestry of the person who did or had expected to perform them for the purpose of dismissing any redeeming quality white people might possess.
Someone on Twitter suggested the hiring of Jeong by the Times was for negative publicity, as they couldn't expect to gain any positive publicity after they had attached their fortunes so closely to the success of the Obama administration and the Hillary campaign; and I think I will be adopting that as my "null hypothesis" as the journies say. VargasMilan (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
Candice Owens took a Jeong tweet and substituted black for white as an experiment. She got a 12 hour suspension from Twitter.[19] So much for the "non-white people can't be racist" argument. PeterKa (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

The whole story is manufactured bait - to divert you from the Russia collusion hoax and NYTs role in promoting it, where the focus should be. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:37, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

No, the Trump-Russia collusion hoax (which is in summer re-runs like Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with that Russian woman in 2016, so—notice—certain news organizations have had a measure of extra time on their hands, should they wish to consult with one another) is a diversion from the arbritary removal of Infowars members from the venues of the free speech oligarchs of the English-speaking world. Political freedom is the freedom from arbitrary treatment by the government, and the removal from on-line political forums is a violation of Infowars' rights to political freedom and free speech.
As Paul Joseph Watson said, a small group of owners of these venues have a monopoly on these forums, and if, as seen recently, Trump can't block hecklers because he's in a public forum, then the rule-abiding Infowars certainly can't lawfully be removed altogether from four forums the same day and with no evidence-based explanations or notice. This is nothing less than a deliberate slap in the face to those who have come to believe in and expect constitutional or non-arbitrary government; a throwing down of the gauntlet. If you have summer vacation plans, Rob, I would advise you to change them, because this must have been pre-planned, and now we can likely expect the friends of tyrants to start filling the breach by replacing the free speech they denied others with propaganda speech of their own. VargasMilan (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2018 (EDT)
A cooler head than mine examined the forum content responsibility question and had this to say: "[C]ensoring certain views based on politics means that Facebook is a publisher not a platform and therefore they should have their liability waiver on illegal user posted content revoked." — Cassandra Fairbanks. By this I understand her to mean that they have to police and remove all speech, for example, like that which might be considered a threat or an invitation to engage in illegal conduct, like what Antifa might do, or to face liability if illegal conduct ensues. Meanwhile in reality, to the contrary, Antifa is still allowed at Facebook after they announced and then participated in events where they were abusive, and Facebook closed Infowars' account when they did nothing of the sort. VargasMilan (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2018 (EDT)
Also, about what I said about monopolies, I want to briefly explain what I was refering to which many might already know, but some might not know: When large-scale sellers sell the great majority of a type of good or service, many times they are able to shift the way the good or service is sold in a way that doesn't have to do with its quality or price. For example the number of places where it can be bought. When this is done to keep buyers away from a competing good or service, it's called restraint of trade and is what is commonly thought of when one thinks about the disadvantages of monopolies. VargasMilan (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2018 (EDT)
For example, Apple dropped the Gab app (Gab is a rival for Twitter) from the Apple app store, and apparently the app store is a monopoly, so Apple would be practicing restraint of trade against Gab. VargasMilan (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2018 (EDT)

created a talk concerning the news feed article regarding sarah jeong

While the article in the news section says that Wikipedia does not allow mention of her racist twitter past a quick search of her Wikipedia page clearly shows a reference to the controversy of her racist tweets.

Yes, people like Christina Hoff Sommers pointed out and spread reports of what was going on at Wikipedia through Twitter, so that those Wikipedians attempting to conceal the racist remarks published from Jeong's Twitter account were forced to relent and allow that history to be presented in Jeong's biographical entry at Wikipedia. VargasMilan (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2018 (EDT)
Actually, it's all good news. A racist homophobic bigot like Joy Reid at MSNBC can come out of the closet now. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:23, 7 August 2018 (EDT)

Alex Jones

Sooo...after hearing rumors of Alex Jones allegedly banned from the internet, I searched for Alex Jones on YouTube. The number one result was CNN and - as God is my witness - had NO views after being posted for one hour. The rest of the results are hit pieces on Jones. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:54, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

And based on the reasons given at the InfoWars site for the ban (all listed at its article here), I think it's a safe bet that petulant children are in charge at YouTube, Facebook, Apple, etc. Northwest (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2018 (EDT)
It was the Sandyhook school shooting conspiracy theories surrounding Jones and the resulting lawsuits and negative publicity that ultimately caused this to happen. It gave an opening for his enemies to more effectively attack him.
Jones pushes some right-wing crackpot conspiracy theories.
The mainstream media has been relentlessly pushing the left-wing crackpot conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with the Russians in order to win the 2018 election. Yet, they are still on YouTube/Facebook, etc.Conservative (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2018 (EDT)