Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Most famous woman in China goes missing)
(Most famous woman in China goes missing)
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 672: Line 672:
  
 
Lastly, I didn't read the 9/11 report, but they probably have a lot of good advice on preventative measures against terrorism.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
 
Lastly, I didn't read the 9/11 report, but they probably have a lot of good advice on preventative measures against terrorism.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
:After the 1993 bombing, Clinton was criticized for treating terrorism as a law enforcement rather than a national security problem - using the FBI and DOJ lawyers rather than the Pentagon and CIA to fight it. Clinton didn't want a foreign crisis to interfere with Democrat's chance  of getting re-elected after living through the 1960s and later seeing what happened to Jimmy Carter in the Iranian hostage crisis. The 9/11 Commission Report and creation of Homeland Security kept that mold. Since Clinton, the liberal communists have controlled the DOJ & FBI. Under Obama, the entire FISA apparatus is now directed at Republicans, rather than Al Qaeda, the KGB, Mexican drug cartels, and weapons smugglers whom it was designed for. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:16, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
+
:After the 1993 bombing, Clinton was criticized for treating terrorism as a law enforcement rather than a national security problem - using the FBI and DOJ lawyers rather than the Pentagon and CIA to fight it. Clinton didn't want a foreign crisis to interfere with Democrat's chance  of getting re-elected after living through the 1960s and later seeing what happened to Jimmy Carter in the Iranian hostage crisis. The 9/11 Commission Report and creation of Homeland Security kept that mold of treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem. Since Clinton, the liberal communists have controlled the DOJ & FBI. Under Obama, the entire FISA apparatus is now directed at Republicans, rather than Al Qaeda, the KGB, Mexican drug cartels, and weapons smugglers whom it was designed for. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:16, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
 
::@Conservative: That sounds like you got your information from ''Fahrenheit 9/11''. Actually, the FBI claimed it could not corroborate the claim that the terrorists were going to fly a commercial jet into the towers, THAT'S why they didn't act on it. You can read about it [https://web.archive.org/web/20040719225448/http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf here]. But I do agree, it was ultimately a failure regarding muslims, Middle Eastern policy, and immigration/VISA policy. That DOESN'T mean we should gut the military. And besides, 9/11 ultimately happened due to Clinton (and let's not forget the FBI being in shambles was because of Clinton basically conducting a purge and implementing yes-men to the position).
 
::@Conservative: That sounds like you got your information from ''Fahrenheit 9/11''. Actually, the FBI claimed it could not corroborate the claim that the terrorists were going to fly a commercial jet into the towers, THAT'S why they didn't act on it. You can read about it [https://web.archive.org/web/20040719225448/http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf here]. But I do agree, it was ultimately a failure regarding muslims, Middle Eastern policy, and immigration/VISA policy. That DOESN'T mean we should gut the military. And besides, 9/11 ultimately happened due to Clinton (and let's not forget the FBI being in shambles was because of Clinton basically conducting a purge and implementing yes-men to the position).
 
::@RobSmith: Huh. Clinton didn't want to destroy chances at reelection, eh? I thought he wouldn't have cared at all about America considering he apparently helmed various anti-American protests if ''The Clinton Chronicles'' is of any indication. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:33, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
 
::@RobSmith: Huh. Clinton didn't want to destroy chances at reelection, eh? I thought he wouldn't have cared at all about America considering he apparently helmed various anti-American protests if ''The Clinton Chronicles'' is of any indication. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:33, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
Line 792: Line 792:
  
 
Three months ago, Fan Bingbing was China's most popular actress. Now she has been unpersoned like a character in ''Nineteen-Eighty Four''. Here is CNN: "[https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/14/asia/fan-bingbing-china-celebrity-intl/index.html Has China's most famous actress been disappeared by the Communist Party?]" Fan's mistake was to get on [https://www.forbes.com/sites/russellflannery/2017/09/22/actress-fan-bingbing-tops-new-forbes-china-celebrity-list/#4703c6f74e35 the ''Forbes'' list of richest celebrities in China]. It seems that there is one thing China still hasn't imported: Rule of law. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:17, 16 September 2018 (EDT)
 
Three months ago, Fan Bingbing was China's most popular actress. Now she has been unpersoned like a character in ''Nineteen-Eighty Four''. Here is CNN: "[https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/14/asia/fan-bingbing-china-celebrity-intl/index.html Has China's most famous actress been disappeared by the Communist Party?]" Fan's mistake was to get on [https://www.forbes.com/sites/russellflannery/2017/09/22/actress-fan-bingbing-tops-new-forbes-china-celebrity-list/#4703c6f74e35 the ''Forbes'' list of richest celebrities in China]. It seems that there is one thing China still hasn't imported: Rule of law. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:17, 16 September 2018 (EDT)
 +
:Huh? You're citing CNN. Can't you find a more reputable and credible source? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 12:55, 16 September 2018 (EDT)

Revision as of 10:55, 16 September 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

Contents

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)
Yes, what Apple, Facebook, and Google did is collusion - in this case a crime - a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. They colluded to eliminate fair competition from a mom n' pop start up and extend monopoly corporate control.
As to the Trump Tower meeting, it still hasn't been reported one Russian in attendance was the translator for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Biden and that he worked for the U.S. State Department. Or that the "dirt" Veselnitskaya brought with her was dirt on Clinton Foundation donors. Or that the "dirt" was dug up by Hillary Clinton's dirt diggers. Or that Hillary Clinton paid the Kremlin for dirt on Trump. Or that Hillary Clinton's dirt diggers were unregistered agents of Russia. These are the facts of the Trump Tower meeting, obscured by that racist rag, the New York Times, coming out of the closet and going full bore racist. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:19, 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 2016 election. Yet, they are still on YouTube/Facebook, etc.Consevative (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2018 (EDT)
Never before has America allowed a clique of technology firms to control over the nation's political speech, according to this article. The closest thing to a precedent is Jay Gould, who was criticized for trying to control the telegraph system in the nineteenth century. Neither the railroads nor the telephone company ever tried to tell Americans that their political views weren't welcome on the phone or elsewhere. PeterKa (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2018 (EDT)
I think I figured out why my Top Story news feed read zero views (cause as I scrolled down I found the same link with 25K hits). Whenever CNN appears in my recommended links, I report it as hate speech and offensive (something I'd recommend everyone do - that's how Alex Jones got banned). CNN ceased to appear, unless I enter a search term for s specific topic. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:41, 7 August 2018 (EDT)
  • The list of companies that refuse to do business with InfoWars keeps growing: Stitcher, Apple, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, and now MailChimp.[20] Even YouPorn is now too good for the likes of Jones.[21] (Was Jones ever on YouPorn? No one seems to know.) I don't see anyone claiming that any of these bans were triggered by recent bad behavior by Jones. Sandy Hook was six years ago. These moves are the result of collusion among the executives at the various firms. In the last few years, Jones has gone from a fringe conspiracy theorist to an influential pro-Trump figure. That's almost certainly what the problem is. If you think Trump is a racist and a traitor, and that his supporters are inhuman and deplorable, it follows that supporting America's president is worse than anything Jones could say about Sandy Hook, Pizzagate, or gay frogs. PeterKa (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2018 (EDT)
    • Now it's Amazon: "Amazon seems to have quietly stopped recommending Alex Jones products." The only explanation the article gives is that Jones is a "conspiracy theorist." You sure don't have to do much to be a conspiracy theorist nowadays. Just ask questions like "If the Russians really did hack Podesta's email, why didn't the DNC let the FBI exam the servers?", "Are we sure that global warming will kill us all, or is necessarily a bad thing?" or "Why is it collusion when Don Jr. meets with some Russians in Trump Tower, but not when Hillary pays Russians intelligence agents to produce the Steele dossier?" PeterKa (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2018 (EDT)
(Edit conflict) Even Paul Joseph Watson, InfoWars' biggest audience draw, doesn't say tech companies "colluded" against InfoWars; he called it a "dogpiling". And he also reported their actions as a "potential" abuse of power. "Collusion" is what Hillary did in selling 20% of our Uranium and pocketing the profits for the Clinton Foundation which has a 90%+ administrative overhead, not the Trump Administration's meagre contacts and not the tech companies who made sure to have plausible deniability. You just handed Hillary a Christmas present in August with your "collusion", and had it been noticed, could have been used by the Democrats ("Crackpot conservatives react to Alex Jones' ouster by accusing tech companies of crimes") to embarrass you if it weren't for what followed:
Alex Jones made an official statement and says he blames China (following Drudge Report) and any responsibility that points elsewhere serves as a distraction. VargasMilan (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2018 (EDT)
Before the Russia hoax, the word "collusion" generally referred to a secret agreement between companies that are supposed to be competing in the market. ("an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal–but always secretive–to limit open competition," according to Wikipedia) PeterKa (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2018 (EDT)
Absolutely correct. Hillary selected the word "collusion" because it's not a crime (technically, collusion is under the Anti-Trust Act, but it's always been selectivity enforced. It's a word that riled populists c.1896-1912. Read Ira Tarbell, History of Standard Oil). What happened to Alex Jones was the result of collusion. What Hillary & the Obama administration did was conspiracy. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:10, 8 August 2018 (EDT)
Oh no, I inadvertently sent her a Christmas present in August too! But I think the collusion against Alex Jones was limited to Apple. Let me try again. Recently Democratic Congressmen asking questions in one of their Committee hearings say, roughly, (where Alex Jones claims Republicans are half asleep), we can look to content providers to preserve choices keep the public informed, but I'm concerned because that's all the more reason to allow them the ability to divert away the wild influence of the Alex Jones Show which, really, caused the need for this investigative committee hearing on choices to begin with! We'd have to start all over!
The censors at Apple, Facebook etc. are social justice warriors and they really aren't that bright. Facebook tried to ban Diamond and Silk and called them dangerous. See Conservapedia:Community Portal#Twitter_reactions_on_the_news. Apple SJWs see the hearing, say "oh yeah!" and they cancel Infowars' podcasts. Apple management is supposed to be getting pressure from China. They think they can throw China a bone and get away with it, so they let Alex Jones be their trial balloon.
Facebook SJWs are still grinding their teeth about the embarrassing memo that exposed that they were pretending that different results in their company were caused by sexism that needed to be remedied not merely differences in interest. And there was the Diamond and Silk episode where Zuckerberg said their being banned was a "mistake". The SJWs at Facebook want to be included. And hey, Zuckerberg isn't going to be testifying a second time, is he? Who's gonna stop them? Then the lesser outlets: It's already big news in their circles. Are the SJWs at the lesser outlets going to go on record as being opposed politically to both Apple and Facebook? Well Twitter isn't making a statement. It's a judgment call. VargasMilan (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2018 (EDT)
  • This article fingers Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) as the driving force behind the crackdown on Jones. If so, it represents an extension of Warner's campaign against Russian bots. PeterKa (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2018 (EDT)

NM school shooter-trainers: Radical Islamic terrorist plot

It's interesting that the MSM is ignoring the fact that the New Mexico people training kids to become school shooters were radical Muslims, and that what they were doing was another Islamic terrorist plot: [22][23][24][25][26] The main suspect also has indirect connections to the 1993 WTO bombings. Of course, the Left believes that if we enact massive unconstitutional gun control/confiscation laws, those radical Muslims will try to become productive Americans. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2018 (EDT)

Even more, this appears to be a religiously motivated hate crime more than racial. The parents are simply teaching the basic tenets of their religion to their children. There certainly will be more of this in the future. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:19, 9 August 2018 (EDT)
I think that was sarcasm, folks. VargasMilan (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2018 (EDT)

Also, one of the suspects lived in the U.S. illegally for 20 years: [27] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2018 (EDT)

The Trump Tower meeting

For the last several days, the MSM has been raging about this Trump tweet concerning Don Jr.'s Trump Tower meeting. If the Dems win the midterms, we can expect a bill of impeachment with this meeting as the central item. So Don Jr listened to a Russian agent complain about U.S. sanctions? I can't say that I understand why the Dems think this is a problem. It hardly compares to, say, Ted Kennedy attempting to negotiate an alliance with the Kremlin against Reagan in 1983. Kennedy's memo to Andropov was published in the London Times in 1992. Yet no U.S. publication considered it worth a mention until after Kennedy died in 2009.[28] PeterKa (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2018 (EDT)

Never gonna happen. The Trump Tower meeting was a Clinton-FBI sting operation. Facts prove it, despite media crap. Trump Sr had nothing to do with it. Nothing illegal happened anyway, at least on the Trump side. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:20, 10 August 2018 (EDT)

Law to get Antifa

There is a new law to get Antifa. The breaking of certain criminal laws will be eligible for enhanced punishments if the perpetrator is wearing a disguise! The Antifa cosplaying protest method is about to be swatted down even if Antifa switches to other costumes. BTW, did you notice I used the phrase "enhanced punishment"? Someone being familiar with that kind of specialized law jargon is a sure sign they are a real journalist. VargasMilan (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2018 (EDT)

Like Boris Johnson said, Muslim women look like bank robbers.`RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:36, 10 August 2018 (EDT)

Mueller wants to interview Trump

Mueller wants to interview Trump, but Trump's supporters know that it's much more likely a perjury trap than an opportunity to clear his name. We also think Mueller could even use information illegally gathered from FISA databases as well as illegal investigations following from that information, which is outrageous when you consider the databases were meant to protect the United States from concerted foreign activities against us, not to spy on a presidential campaign or a sitting U.S. President [Nolte, John (2018) Breitbart website].

The executives of Fusion GPS having to do with the dossier their company produced that has been proven by the clumsy attempts at incrimination for which they tried to use it as a vehicle to falsely apply to President Trump, have been missing since the full leaking of the dossier. Meanwhile Carter Page, whose behavior was claimed by the Deep State to be the whole rationale for allowing a presidential campaign (Trump's) to be spied upon, has been speaking freely, openly and publicly about his activities over the weeks examined by the FISA reports (and even over the time described by the fraudulent dossier purporting to describe his activities that was used to illegally access the FISA database) as well as anytime after that. thanks

So it's not Trump who's acting guilty about his behavior—it's that with legal counsel he's avoiding the ill-intent of persons who spied on Trump through FISA who could now go to Mueller to give him information to use while he goes on a fishing expedition; and meanwhile again Trump hasn't even been investigated for what his dealings were with Russia—despite the liberal media's clamorous and scornful doubt about Trump's uninvolvement and in turn despite whose basis for suspicions never materialize. You'd sooner say it's the Fusion GPS participants who were acting suspiciously, and whose principals have consequently now been subpoenaed to testify by the members of a Congressional Justice Department oversight hearing. VargasMilan (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2018 (EDT)

How deep is the deep state? How wide is the ocean? How high is the sky? These seem to be the only questions MSM are interested in. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:49, 10 August 2018 (EDT)
@Vargas Man, it's the collusion between the Clinton campaign and Obama FBI that's at issue -- and by extension their payment through Christopher Steele to Russian gangsters for dirt on Trump. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:59, 10 August 2018 (EDT)
Yes that's fine. But I keep seeing on Twitter and Google news links that Trump could end the investigation by letting Mueller interview him. You may be long past this, but it may be inside baseball to a lot of people, so I wanted to back up and reinforce who's acting suspicious on the face of it and who isn't, as the liberal news has inadvertently produced an obvious contrast by going after Devin Nunes (due to the volume of it, someone called it a newsbomb) for saying Trump shouldn't let himself be interviewed and then those news sources pretending to speculate that Nunes must mean Trump has something to hide rather than that he should avoid being the object of a fishing expedition to harm Trump or the members of his administration with illegally obtained evidence and illegal investigation from an unlawful search and seizure from which he ought to be protected.
And protected, just like every other American is protected by law, if there is no probable cause for the search, a search which, even though there may be no criminal actions discovered, may result in a disclosure of legal but private activities from which, likewise, every American has a right to be free as stated in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Some people thought Carter Page, an account of whose activities was distorted into qualifying as probable cause for a search of him as presented to the FISA court by top FBI administrators and of whose same false depiction of Page was permitted to be the key piece of evidence that allowed the FBI to surveil the Trump campaign, would be a witness that would cast suspicion on Trump because Page didn't attend a particular informal Presidential advisory committee Trump set up to hear the ideas of experts for which Page was recruited as a member. Page instead flew to Europe, and while he was in Europe he suddenly travelled to Italy and then the U.K. He was then hired to write a report—and I think the unspoken conclusion of those who examined accounts of his activities was that all this was the result of someone trying to implicate Page as meeting with spies, but that the alibi that it left Page with was so bad that he could never have come up with it as a result of his own independent choices of action. Carter Page's demeanor is like he has total recall and knows someone who has total access to guilt-disproving records of what he did while he was in Europe and hasn't avoided interviews. Contrast that with the Ohrs and the others at Fusion GPS who have been avoiding discussion of their activities for one-and-a-half years. VargasMilan (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2018 (EDT)
I'll divide response into two parts. (1) interviewing the president or the subject of the investigation is not unprecedented; look to (a) Nixon's response to the Special Counsel, (b) Reagan's in Iran-Contra, (c) Bill Clinton in Whitewater, and (d) Hillary Clinton. I presume Guiliani argued for written responses (like Nixon and Reagan). Bill Clinton did a lengthy videotaped deposition. Guiliani should stand by the Hillary Clinton precedent - no oath administered, no videotape, no transcript, and a team of lawyers present.
(2) Carter Page was approached by Russian intelligence in 2013; however Carter Page than went to work for the FBI as a paid informant, wore a wire, and helped gain a conviction, for which John Carlin and Preet Bharara publicly acknowledged his assistance (as an anonymous informant). The DOJ & FBI presented to the FISA court the 2013 recruitment attempt, and withheld the fact the attempt failed, and that Page was a paid FBI informant. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:42, 10 August 2018 (EDT)
  • Trump is commander in chief. He should act like it. Tell Mueller what questions he is going ask and exactly how he is going to ask them in. If the document leaks, we must conclude that Mueller's office unable to deal with classified information. The independent counsel law expired long ago. Legally speaking, Mueller is just another DOJ employee. PeterKa (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2018 (EDT)
The whole question evolves around whether Trump will be afforded the same courtesy Hillary Clinton was - no oath, no transcript, no videotape and a team of lawyers present. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:14, 10 August 2018 (EDT)

James Fields

What do you do when your car is surrounded by armed Antifa militants? In Charlottesville, James Field put the pedal to the metal and tried to escape. A white woman was killed. A video shows that Field's car was smashed by bat-wielding leftists seconds later. He was acquitted of second degree murder in state court, but now the Feds have indicted him for "hate" based on his social media postings. Anne Coulter is on the case. The partisan fury directed at Field reminds me of what happened to Nakoula, the video maker Hillary blamed for Benghazi.[29] PeterKa (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2018 (EDT)

So a white guy is charged with a racially motivated hate crime against a white woman. Okay.....RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:38, 12 August 2018 (EDT)
Please refresh my memory as to when "Field" (sic) was acquitted of the charges against him? Fields has pled not guilty, but his trial for first degree murder doesn't start until November. Fields is also charged with 28 counts of hate crime acts causing bodily injury and involving an attempt to kill, related to his driving into a crowd. He also faces one charge of racially motivated violent interference with a federally protected activity. Lastly, he is charged with a hate crime act resulting in death, for the death of Heather Heyer. So yes, a white guy can be charged with a racially motivated hate crime if his victim is a white woman, if her death resulted from the hate crime. He didn't have to hate her specifically. Just as a bank robber is charged with murder if the police shoot and kill a bystander as part of their response to the robbery.--Brossa (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2018 (EDT)
  • The bank robber analogy makes sense only if you think Fields went to Charlottesville planning to mow down blacks and Jews. He has been treated for a list of psychological conditions. Surely it's more likely that he panicked. PeterKa (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2018 (EDT)
First degree murder in Virginia requires willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. Premeditation is determined on a case-by-case basis, but does not require planning at length or far in advance of the crime. Generally, time enough to second-guess an act is sufficient to establish premeditation. On the other hand, accidental killing while in the commission of another felony is second-degree murder in Virginia, and does not require premeditation at all - Fields is also charged with aggravated malicious wounding and malicious wounding in Virginia, which are felonies themselves. So no, Fields did not need to travel to the rally with the express intent to mow down Blacks and Jews. He could have formed that intent in the moments before he drove into the crowd and still meet the standard for first degree murder. Alternatively, if he was trying to injure protestors and Heyer's death was unintended, he could still be guilty of second-degree murder. I imagine that his defense attorney will argue that he had no intent to kill or injure, and the prosecution will argue that he did. The distance that he traveled before striking the crowd will come up, as well as his behavior and situation in the moments leading up to the incident, to establish whether he had an opportunity to second-guess his actions. That is, it will come up his state trial. Which has not happened yet. .--Brossa (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2018 (EDT)
Looks like grandstanding on the part of the prosecution. A fair and imartial jury might see the facts otherwise. This prosecutor looks like he/she/whatever is running for Congress. Better hope he wins, cause if he doesn't, he can kiss his political ambitions good bye. Unfortunately, he'll have to remain in his job as a biased, politically motivated prosecutor, or go in private practice where he can make more money. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:30, 13 August 2018 (EDT)
A ham sandwich can be charged with hacking the DNC, especially when there's not even a police report to say a crime may have occurred. So what's you're point? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:00, 12 August 2018 (EDT)
Is your point to spread more fake news like the mainstream media, alleging white supremacists murdered two state troopers in Charlottesville? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:11, 12 August 2018 (EDT)
Why, did I mention troopers? Has Fields been charged with the deaths of the troopers? My (my're?) point is twofold: one, Fields has not been acquitted, as PeterKa stated, and two, that by law a death caused during a hate crime act is a separate hate crime, even if the victim wasn't the intended target of the hatred. It isn't a difficult concept, so why the confusion? --Brossa (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2018 (EDT)
Can a lone person, threatened by a group that just prior had been classified as a terrorist group, get a fair trial after such biased reporting? Just like today, all 24 members from across the nation of the so-called Unite the Right coalition showed up at LaFayette Park in DC. But you'd never know the facts listening to mainstream media. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:10, 12 August 2018 (EDT)

Significance of Strzok firing

Of which there are many. I'll try to prioritize them here:

  1. It's a counter move by Rosenstein to head off Rosenstein's impeachment should the GOP retain the House after Kavanaugh's confirmation. While Rosenstein likely would survive in a Senate trial, it complicates ongoing investigations and hampers his ability to supervise. This is one indicatation the Mueller investigation is nearing an end.
  2. It confirms the findings of the IG report - Strzok and Page (and others) acted with bias. Both are no longer employed. One is a hostile witness, the other is a cooperating witness. Cooperating witnesses testify in private (Lisa Page). Hostile witnesses testify in public, and are fired (Strzok).
  3. Bruce Ohr is slated to testify in private August 28. He can cooperate like Lisa Page, or be grilled in public like Strzok and get fired. His wife Nellie is next.
  4. The man who started the paperwork on the Trump-Russia investigation, Strzok, has been fired for bias and failure to cooperate with investigators. A heads up for anyone connected to the investigation, beginning with Rosenstein and Mueller. Even if the GOP looses the House, the Huber investigation has all these facts. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:34, 13 August 2018 (EDT)
  5. He may be told not to use the security clearance he still has, unless it's really important! VargasMilan (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2018 (EDT)
Strzok's security clearance essentially allowed him to read FISA data, declassify it, and pass it along to prosecutors. The Carter Page FISA warrant was still active. When Mueller fired Strzok, that ended Mueller's real time access to FISA information. Mueller had to go with what they had. Papadopoulos was immediately arrested the same day, and Rosenstein expanded the mandate a few days later to go after Manafort. (This all occurred between Jul 27-Aug 2, 2017).RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:46, 13 August 2018 (EDT)
Undermining the constitution sure lets you rake in the dough at Go Fund Me: "Peter Strzok cheated on his wife, got fired, and liberals gave him $250,000 anyway." PeterKa (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2018 (EDT)
Strzok has political ambitions. 30 years ago Ollie North was the center of the Iran Contra scandal. He was convicted, but it was overturned. He ran unsuccessfully for Senate. Today he is President of the NRA. Strzok wants to run for Congress. Not Ocasio-Cortez, but Strzok is the future of the Democratic party - a man whose core beliefs is to criminalize political opposition, if he survives his personal legal battles right now. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:00, 15 August 2018 (EDT)

Why do you think Peter Strzok has political ambitions? Oliver North made a very good appearance for his trial. He was decked out in his uniform. Peter Strzok made a bunch of weird facial expressions during his appearance. From a visual appearance perspective (and both were in front of the cameras), North did much better.Conservative (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2018 (EDT)

North was convicted on a minor tax charge, and it was overturned on "a technically" - the Fifth Amendment, according to WaPo. North ran for Senate in Virginia, and was defeated because the state's RINO machine - Sen. John Warner and Ed Gillespie - teamed up to defeat him.
Strzok's political ambitions are apparent in his texts. The fact he thought he could use the hearing as a platform to take on Trump and the anti-deep state resistance movement, and win, proved it. He's got name recognition and fundraising ability. He just needs to come out of his legal problems without a criminal conviction.
In the 1980s, Jeff Sessions was denied a seat on the federal bench by Senate liberals; he ran for Senate and sat next to those same Senators who denied his qualifications, vetting qualifications for judicial nominees for decades. We're headed to the same place if Strzok doesn't get a criminal conviction that sticks.
It's interesting, Strzok used the same argument to defend his text messages that Trump used when a court overturned his Muslim travel ban - that people are entitled to express political opinions and a public servant can keep their bias from affecting their work. In Congress, Strxok could become the chief spokesman for civil servants using government time and communication devices to express biased political opinions. Strxok is more in keeping with the Democratic party core values than Ocasio-Cortez. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:18, 16 August 2018 (EDT)

MasterCard bans anti-jihadist Robert Spencer

Robert Spencer, owner of the invaluable Jihad Watch, has been banned by MasterCard for "illegal content." Apparently, criticizing Islamic law and monitoring jihad is illegal under whatever law MasterCard follows. See "Mastercard Forces Patreon to Blacklist Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer" PeterKa (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (EDT)

No more "BO leaks"

Trump has revoked the security clearance for former CIA director John Brennan. As a man who advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government on Twitter, he should have had his clearance revoked a long time ago.[30] Former associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr could be next. These are both key figures in the surveillance of 2016 Trump campaign by the Obama administration. The law says that security clearances lapse when the employee leaves his job. So why do either of these people have clearances to begin with? Well, there is a tradition of granting clearances to former top officials that goes back to the "Wise Men" of the 1960s. At the FBI, Ohr seems to have been quite notorious as a leaker. “Jesus. More BO leaks in the NYT,” Peter Strzok wrote to Lisa Page on Oct. 7, 2016.[31] A basic security clearance doesn't give you direct access to much in the way of exciting secrets. But it does give you the opportunity to go back into your old office and gossip. PeterKa (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2018 (EDT)

Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, Hesther Samuelson, and Huma Abedin still all have their clearances. When DOJ decided not to prosecute, the case was referred back to the State Department for disciplinary action. That, and an IG report that said the same thing. Nothing has ever happened. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 07:48, 18 August 2018 (EDT)
Brennan's security clearance seems to have the Deep State in quite a frenzy. See "Inside the security clearance revolt." After Brennan accused Trump of treason,[32] I don't see what choice Trump had. No one familiar with the history of the security clearance system can think it was ever nonpartisan. When the Democrats returned to power under Kennedy in 1961, the available advisers with current knowledge were Eisenhower Republicans. So the administration turned to Truman-era officials. These people had to be brought up to speed, and the "Wise Man" system of granting clearances to former top officials was born. In short, the security clearance system was never about free speech, but rather advancing the president's agenda. I'll believe the MSM is interested in free speech when they ask Obama about Dinesh D'Souza and Jim Risen. PeterKa (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2018 (EDT)
Brennan has been rendered due.process. He joins the ranks of communists in government, such as J. Robert Oppenheimer, who had their clearances revoked by presidential directive. Those who advocate a technocracy and worship at the altar of Oppenheimer should be required to read the FBI agent's report who recommended prosecution, not just a slap on the wrist by having your clearance revoked. Yes, an injustice was done in the McCarthy era - the Rosenbergs went to the chair and were scapegoated on trumped up charges - it should have been Oppenheimer who was executed for treason and colluding with the KGB; Oppenheimer, whose picture hangs in science labs throughout America, and use to brainwash children to admire and aspire to be like by cultural Marxists who control our public schools. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:43, 18 August 2018 (EDT)
To be fair regarding the Rosenbergs, they WERE proven via the Venona Documents to be Soviet spies, meaning they ultimately got EXACTLY what they deserved regarding the chair. That being said, Oppenheimer definitely should have gotten the chair as well (quite frankly, I don't know why they didn't do that to either him or Alger Hiss), instead of being honored by science labs. Sooner or later, they really need to remove Oppenheimer's picture from labs. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2018 (EDT)

A note on "classified information" and "national security" - What do these terms mean? These terms are thrown around quite a bit and rarely given context or meaning. Although there are exceptions, basically "classified information" refers to people - the identities of persons working in government, or for government, in specific positions and/or on certain projects. The identities and living place of members of the military and ICE, for example, are all classified information. Agent Peter Strzok's job title and identity was classified until December 2017, six months after he was removed from both the Counterintelligence Division and Mueller probe, despite now retrospectively, we see Strzok as a major player in the plot to elect Hillary and sabotage Trump (Strzok was the interdepartmental laiason betwern Brennan & McCabe). Two persons on the subpeona list, Jonathon Moffa and Joe Pienka, nothing is known about them, their lives, careers, job titles or positions in the heirarchy other than they are FBI agents and their names appear on certain documents related to certain events.

To be cut off from classified information means Brennan is now prohibited from mentoring and advising younger careerists working on problems in positions Brennan used to occupy, supervise, or interact with. It breaks an institution's continuity, and penalizes, severely, anyone who leaks the identity of a person working on a specific project to John Brennan. He has been ostracized, put out to stud, and out of the loop on anything the government is doing, with a stigma attached that to younger civil servants is not someone to model your career path sfter if you want to enjoy the comaraderie of goverment service in common cause. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:27, 18 August 2018 (EDT)

Don McGahn, Trump's Judas?

Aside CNN chief Jeff Zucker and Trump himself, no one did more to get Trump elected president than Don McGahn, author of the Supreme Court list and now White House counsel. Yet if today's New York Times expose is to be believed, he is also the head of the impeach Trump movement. McGahn goes back a long way with Rod Rosenstein, which explains Rosenstein's appointment as deputy attorney general. Trump has already tried to fire McGahn six times for leaking, according to this article. It seems he can't be replaced. The lawyers Trump offers the job to are all too afraid of Mueller.[33] PeterKa (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2018 (EDT)

Put the crack pipe down and stop reading the New York Times. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:57, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
McGahn supposedly sees John Dean, Nixon's turncoat White House counsel, as a precedent for what he is doing. PeterKa (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
Mueller would need poop on McGahn to cause him to flip like Dean did (as he's tred with Flynn, Manafort and Papadopoulos, but there is no there there with those guys). Mark Felt, an inside Deep Throat, would be more accurate. The NYT article is one more example of shoddy fake news, brainwashing, and unresearched information from the Deep State Ministry of Propaganda. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:21, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
Trump has already produced a tweetstorm on this story: "The failing @nytimes wrote a Fake piece today implying that because White House Councel Don McGahn was giving hours of testimony to the Special Councel, he must be a John Dean type “RAT.” But I allowed him and all others to testify."[34] This is even nutter than the NYT's version of events. It's an obvious conflict of interest for someone to act as both an attorney and as a witness in the same case. PeterKa (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2018 (EDT)
Yep. More fake news. NYT, Wapo, CNN, MSNBC etc. have two years of fake news to walk back. MSM are complicit in the collusion hoax. They had the recently released Carter Page FISA application in their possession since March 2017. Christopher Steele briefed them beginning in July 2016. They knew the dossier was a fraud since at least September 2017. If you want the news, read the Obamagate timeline. It is becoming recognized as one of the few authoritive sources on the factual record over the past two years. It will only become a more authoritive resource as events unfold. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:02, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
It's often said that Trump has farmed out judicial selection to the Federalist Society. But in fact McGahn and his assistant Leonard Leo are the key players. See "A look at the list helping Trump reshape the Supreme Court." In the past, judicial selection has been done by DOJ. Given how successful Trump's drive to reform the courts has been, it's no wonder the NYT is anxious to smear McGahn. PeterKa (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
It's an effort to keep the collusion narrative alive. The NYT has had the full unredacted Carter Page FISA warrant application in its possession since March of 2017. When WaPo confirmed in September of 2017 that the Steele allegations that the warrant was based on the were paid for by Hillary Clinton, they never reported the facts.
Brennan admitted as much the other nite to Rachel Maddow - he never had any evidence of Russian collusion up to the day he left office.
NYT, WaPo, and the MSM have invested too much in lies. They have not been hoaxed by Brennan, Comey et al about the IC meddling in the election, they are complicit. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:11, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
Furthermore, it should be noted this felonious leak came from the Mueller office, according to Guiliani.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:59, 21 August 2018 (EDT)

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

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

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

General Franco really is still dead

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

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

John McCain, RIP

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

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

Polls unchanged by latest media spasm

Cohen paid a whore and ran corrupt cab company. Manafort didn't pay taxes he owed from years ago. Despite the MSM's antics, the American public isn't blaming Trump: "NBC/WSJ poll: Trump approval 'remarkably stable' after a stormy week of bad news." In fact, Trump's approval numbers have been stable since May.[35] Mueller, your time is ticking away. After the midterms, we get a new attorney general. PeterKa (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2018 (EDT)

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

Liberal media wanting Pope Francis to resign.

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

I think that is short-sighted for any conservative to support the liberal media's effort to force the Pope to resign, even though I disagree with him on numerous political issues.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2018 (EDT)
LifeSiteNews.com has plenty of stories about the prominent conservative Catholic (former Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò — the Holy See’s former ambassador to the United States) accusing Pope Francis of covering up a prominent pedophiles misdeeds and him demanding the Pope's resignation. LifeSiteNews.com is very conservative and very pro-life.
If I am not mistaken, LifeSiteNews.com is run by conservative Catholics. At the very least, it has a lot of conservative Catholic staff.
While the Catholic Church has some conservative positions, Pope Francis takes some very liberal positions. And I do know that Pope Francis criticized Trump for his border wall position.
The recent spate of pedophilia scandals and the controversies surrounding it is the biggest thing to hit the Catholic Church since the the Reformation. It is very newsworthy.Conservative (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
My two cents: Impeach him. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:28, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
There is no mechanism to impeach a Pope. And I don't believe a Pope can be excommunicated by his fellow Catholics. I think a Pope could only excommunicate himself.
Regardless, the pedophile problem within the Catholic Church goes back to the 1950s/1960s as it normally takes about 30 years or so for a victim to go public due to the shame (The reports of pedophilia by priests started coming out in the 1980s and then gathered momentum in the 1990s). The Catholic Church has had about 30-70 years to cleanup this problem, but it hasn't done it due to clericalism, etc. Clericalism is still very strong in the Vatican so even if the Catholic cardinals could impeach the current Pope, they would not.Conservative (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
  • The New York Times today has an article swinging for Francis and denouncing his critics as "conservatives."'[36] So they are interpreting the controversy the same way as LifeSiteNews. Reminds me of the leaked Podesta emails proposing a "Catholic spring."[37] PeterKa (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
Pope Francis is sufficiently liberal/left on the political spectrum that he will never resign. Why? Liberals always double down.Conservative (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
The Vatican politburo could whack him, like they did John Paul I a few days after he delivered his "God is mother" speech. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:31, 29 August 2018 (EDT)
I read a book review for a book about Pope John Paul a long time ago that had a fairly secular perspective and only remember it saying that he inspired more petty disagreements than the cardinals would have liked to admit, and in the social awkwardness that followed his health was compromised by a misapplied kind of benign neglect. VargasMilan (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
He lived a total of, what, 9 days? His only papal announcement was an attempt to reconcile with feminists and the budding New Age movement. Vatican bureaucrats put a stop to that, got a cold warrier in John Paul II to work with Reagen to hasten the demise of the Soviet Union.
Today they put a Marxist in charge to rally the poor and oppressed masses as a cover-up for the greedy Vatican banking scandal - the churches refusal to pay damages to sex abuse victims who won Civil damages. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 03:55, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
The quote:
"He is our father; even more he is our mother."
This early example of gender identity disorder in 1978 got a Pope dead, real quick. Odd, this Pope has made far crazier pronouncements and has got away with it, so far. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:16, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
Now, theologically speaking, John Paul I was correct. 'El shaddai' is a name of God, usually translated God Almighty. The Hebrew 'shad' is a woman's breast; so you can imagine what a more literal translation is. 'The All Sufficient One' I once heard a Rabbi translate it. But the market in 1978, that received the Pope's inaugural statement, probably wasn't ready for this kind of unprovoked controversy, in the eyes of the permanent Vatican burraucracy that runs the church. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:54, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
John Paul I was pope for 33 days, not 9, and the idea that he was murdered was a KGB disinformation campaign. He died of a heart attack. He had suffered chest pains the night he had died, was being treated for heart disease as Archbishop of Venice, and according to accounts, almost turned down the Papacy because of his health, but decided that, if God had picked him to be Pope, he didn't have the right to refuse.--Whizkid (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2018 (EDT)
He was dead 9 days after he said "God is our mother;" if it wasn't an inside job, the good Lord put a stop to that junk before it got out of hand.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:43, 2 September 2018 (EDT)
Hmm. Maybe, but you'd think that if God were mad enough by his comments to kill him (when God doesn't kill people who say or write worse things), He'd do it before the Pope had actually made the comments so they weren't out there. And, if this were God doing it as an example or something, you'd think that He would kill the Pope in some way that it was obviously a divine message, instead of giving a man with a bad heart a heart attack. But I suppose the Lord works in mysterious ways.--Whizkid (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2018 (EDT)

Free markets

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

Do a text search for "monopoly", "restraint of trade", "platform" and "publisher" on this page where the conditions of a free market are discussed and why some of those conditions today possibly are not being met. VargasMilan (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
Trump and social media companies: "All he really has to do is strip them of their protections against liability for content. Since they are clearly not content-neutral operations, they have no right to limitations on their liability." - Vox Day[38]
Also, Trump Considers Regulating Google by Dr. Steve Turley
There is growing momentum to address this issue.
Given that a right-wing U.S. presidential candidate was elected to office and that right-wing politics is growing in Europe, the social media companies should have addressed their political bias earlier. Did their pride cometh before their upcoming fall?
By the way, Bing and Yahoo, generally give higher rankings to Conservapedia atheism articles than Google. Will the U.S. government lock horns with Google and cause them to lose market share? It took years for IBM to recover after locking horns with the U.S. government (For IBM it was related to an anti-trust legal case).Conservative (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
Using social media websites run by leftists to spread conservatism: "Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs." - Sun Tzu
I do think conservatives should develop competitive social media websites. Bitchute.com, a competitor of YouTube (which is owned by Google), is growing its market share.[39]Conservative (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2018 (EDT)

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

China's new silk road initiative will cause foreign ideas to seep into China. For example, outside of China, the Chinese government has far less control of overseas Chinese missionaries, foreign missionaries, internet, news organizations, etc. China's new silk road will go into Africa which is one of the most religious areas of the world. The Chinese atheistic communists might have less and less control over people's thoughts in the years to come. And the Chinese persecution of Christians may just fan the flames of evangelism (persecution creates martyrs, etc.). Conservative (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2018 (EDT)
China’s Belt and Road: Exporting Evangelism? Aided by the networks created by the Belt and Road, Chinese missionaries are heading abroad, much to Beijing’s dismay.[40]Conservative (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2018 (EDT)
You wanna make money? Invest in an Iranian company building cell phone towers in Africa, like Clinton advisors do. Places like Nigeria and Zaire. It's a huge market. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:34, 31 August 2018 (EDT)

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

"I want Trump to 'destroy the media'"

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

How Warren became an American Indian

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

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

"Anonymous" White House resistance

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

What makes you think it was McGahn? There are many officials who could have written that op-ed. Personally, I think someone from the National Economic Council or National Security Council wrote it -- not Bolton or Kudlow, but one of their deputies (who I think would qualify as a "senior official"). The NEC, in particular, has a lot of establishment globalists, inherited from Cohn, but who Kudlow chose to keep. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2018 (EDT)
After the Steele Dossier and over 100 years of leftists treachery, who believes the claim that the author is a senior official in the Trump administration? I will only believe this claim if there is sufficient evidence and so far there isn't. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence. And to top it off there is the audacious and fishy claim in the op-ed that Trump's cabinet contemplated invoking the 25th ammendment allegedly due to Trump's irrational behavior. Trump can be mercurial, but he certainly can also be a shrewd dealmaker (and as a result, it appears as if the USA is going to have more favorable trade relations with the European Union and Mexico).
And Chief of Staff John Kelly says that Bob Woodward attributed a fictitious quote to him.
Trump's critics have a big problem when it comes to believability.
We do know the results of the Trump administration so far are far superior to his two predecessors (low unemployment, 4% GNP growth, less burdensome/duplicate regulations, etc.).
This is just sour grapes from a denialist (or denialists if multiple people created the op-ed) that cannot come to grips with the results of the 2016 election.Conservative (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2018 (EDT)
I was taking the NYT's word for it that the author really is a "a senior official in the Trump administration." But RedState makes the case that this is more likely a lower ranking employee, for example a speechwriter. After the reading the article itself, it seems rather thin given all the fuss it has generated. PeterKa (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
If there is any question that the types of misinformation campaign we witnessed in the 2016 camapsign are not going on in the 2018 Midterm elections, this (the first in a series to dominate news cycles) should end those doubts. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:54, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
Stylistic analysis suggests the author is older, conservative, and male.[41] I guess that rules out Omorosa and Nicky Haley. PeterKa (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
It ought to be obvious this is not a person acting alone. Sure, there may be a mole, but the op-ed itself is likely crafted by a team of deep state ghost writers, then handed to the editors of NYT. The damage is aimed at sowing distrust within the White House staff itself, moreso than just an effort to smear Trump publicly like the pee-pee memo. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 05:33, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
It is a common practice for a reporter to use this type of jargon just to massage the ego of a source: "Who Is a Senior Administration Official? It Depends." As a gag, one reporter called the White House and asked to speak to a "junior administration official." No one called back. PeterKa (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
If it truly is a senior "senior official", I would guess Kevin Hassett or Kellyanne Conway (yes, I know the person in charge of the NYT's tweets called the person a "he"). They're both people who would praise the tax cuts and deregulation, but who presumably hate Trump's other policies, such as trade and migration. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
Bottom line: it still all stems from illegal FISA surveillance of the Trump team which harassed and blackmailed all Trump staffers (those originally close to him, or who came on board afterward) who were harassed and blackmailed out of the Administration without being criminally charged. Certain vacancies had to be filled by qualified people not necessarily onboard with the Trump agenda (this has been known since Flynn was executed). It's part of the ongoing coup. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:57, 7 September 2018 (EDT)

Dispute over foreign policy priorities

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

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

A. China.

B. Russia.

C. Islamism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The U.S. outpaces all other nations in military expenditures. World military spending totaled more than $1.6 trillion in 2015. The U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the total. U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world, combined."[42]

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

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

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

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

No, cut the budget and retreat into isolationism

Growing the economy and paying down the national debt should have a laser focus. If the United States gets to a point where the citizenry in many states are paying a lot more into the federal government than they are getting back, the risk of states engaging in succession goes up. The USA is already a deeply divided country. Also, limiting leftist/liberal indoctrination in schools/universities, etc should have a high priority as well given its divisive nature. For example, if a university student is getting school aid, the university should be forced to give students statistics related to students finding a job in that particular field before they sign up for that major.
The Afghan War is a costly distraction. And Donald Trump has a point about America and its recent wars. He said, "When are we going to start winning wars again"? The USA is not going to win the Afghanistan War. The terrain is very tough and Islamic extremists are fanatical.
"We have to win or not fight it at all." - Donald Trump.[43]Conservative (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
There is no way to "pay down the debt" without repealing the Social Security Withholding Tax (thus ending the program as it now exists) and entitlement reform (EBT, Pell Grants, Foundation Grants, etc etc etc). "Pay down the debt" is deceptive rhetoric that should not be used to mislead voters unless you are prepared to say exactly what you mean.
Answer my question: Who do you trust to manage the global heroin trade - the KGB, the Taliban, or China, without using narcotics as a weapon to corrupt American society and armed services as the Chinese did during the Vietnam war, or recycling profits into another 9/11 attack? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:12, 8 September 2018 (EDT)
At this point, American society is moreless immune from Afghan heroin, Big Pharma having been licensed to take over what previously was an illegal business, and now fuels the opioid epidemic. However, legalized marijuana in the United States has led to Mexico being a net importer of US grown marijuana, putting generations of Mexican pot growing families out of business. A few are beginning to cultivate the much more profitable opium poppy. So in the future between Big Pharma & Mexican opium growers, North America doesn't need Afghan heroin. Afghanistan is an EU, Russian, Chinese, Indian, and African problem. The EU & NATO are unwilling or incapable of managing the problem; nobody wants to see China, India, or Iran rise to be a corrupt global military hegemonic force capable of flooding countries with narcotics to defeat them. That leaves the Russian KGB/mafia as the only acceptable choice if the US were to withdraw from Afghanistan. But nobody wants to refight the 1980s Anti-Soviet jihad, either. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:48, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

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

Second, the USA could pay off the federal deficit fast by: Cutting the military budget by 50% (The USA does not have to have an empire and be the policeman of the world - especially in Afghanistan); selling off as much public lands as is feasible; eliminating as much non-essential services as possible (NASA does not need to go to Mars, etc.); entitlement reform (People used to work until they could no longer work) and respect the U.S. Constitution in terms of state's rights. The Tenth Amendment declares, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." For example, why is the federal government telling local schools that they cannot teach creationism? It's none of their business. And the taxpayers should not be paying federal government employees to regulate this matter (namely, Supreme Court justices, etc.). If you look at the history of colonial America they had states which favored various religious traditions and the states had varying degrees of tolerance (Puritans, Quakers - William Penn and Pennsylvania, etc.).[44]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winless wars and global leadership

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

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

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

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

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

China as a threat to the USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Private debt vs. public debt

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

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

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

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

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

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

RobS, 1) America won the cold war. And its biggest nation state rivals are Russia/China. Russia is unlikely to recreate the Soviet Union given its currently problems, etc. China's military is far inferior to the USA. By 2030, China could have the biggest population of Christians in the world which might make them less likely to attack the West (See: Growth of Christianity in China). 2) Barack Obama was elected wide largely because the nation shifted to left thanks to significantly high immigration (both legal and illegal) coupled with amnesty. Having a wall and a more sensible immigration policy is merited. On top of this, terrorist/criminals can come across America's porous southern border. Most U.S. mass shooters are more likely to be immigrants and/or the sons of immigrants.[45] Cutting back the military budget and building a wall with some of the savings is a prudent policy. 3) America does have a crumbling infrastructure. Having an even more enormous debt down the pike and an infrastructure problem is certainly not a recipe for economic success. 4) On top of this, an aging population is going to spike care for the elderly plus lower the number of people in their peak earning years. Furthermore, there is likely going to be a big drop in real estate prices once the baby boomers sell more and more of their homes. It is better to tackle the federal budget now rather than have a crisis later when conditions will certainly not be opportune (a more aged population). 5) Nations with unmanageable debt and/or high inflation (money printing) have greater difficulty in funding a defense.Conservative (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2018 (EDT)

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

"Although most of NATO’s members do not meet the 2 percent target agreed to at the 2014 Wales Summit.." - The Hill, 8/24/18[46]

"According to calculations by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, US spending on NATO and the defense of Europe amounts to $30 billion, or just over 5 percent of its defense budget." - September 2018[47]

Trump's wall on southern border: "Estimates range from as low as $8 billion to as much as $67 billion or more, depending on whom you ask and the number of miles of wall that get built." - Fortune magazine, 2018[48]

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

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

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

Monetary policy and job creation

It is argued that the US federal government caused the Great Depression.[49][50]

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

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

Whodunit?

It's possible that James O'Keefe will soon reveal the identity of the anonymous official: [51] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2018 (EDT)

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

Trump Blues by Carman

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

Caution: Sixty days of rage ahead

The Dems are planning to seethe with rage from now until the midterms, according to Axios. This year's election is shaping up to be the most consequential midterm since the Reconstruction vote of 1866-1867. The latest Cook Report forecast gives House Republicans 202 seats compared to 192 for the Dems.[52] The GOP has an edge in almost all of the 42 "toss up" seats, so we could be looking at quite a red wave. Cook forecasts the new Senate as 51-49 Republican. My own district (WA-06) is rated as solidly Dem in terms of both the local House race and the Senate race. PeterKa (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2018 (EDT)

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

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

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

Romping in Sweden

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

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

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

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

What happened to the crying liberal?

Janna DeVylder, "the crying liberal," is the face that of those who just can't live in the America Trump has restored to greatness. The image is here, for those who have forgotten it. She runs a design studio in Sydney, Australia these days. "When everyone gets a trophy, you don't know how to lose," the meme-makers jeered. "I’m not crying because we lost. I’m not crying because there’s no trophy. I’m crying because we are losing our collective humanity,” she responded.[53] The ancients admired the Stoicism of Cato, who fell on his sword in Utica rather than live a world ruled by Caesar. PeterKa (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2018 (EDT)

Why I don't believe in "science"

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

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

Most famous woman in China goes missing

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

Huh? You're citing CNN. Can't you find a more reputable and credible source? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:55, 16 September 2018 (EDT)