Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Time to archive this page?)
(Time to archive this page?: reply)
Line 141: Line 141:
 
:::I would say go ahead and archive anything that hasn't been active in the last week. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 08:01, 18 January 2019 (EST)
 
:::I would say go ahead and archive anything that hasn't been active in the last week. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 08:01, 18 January 2019 (EST)
 
::::I did not even read PeterKa's comment, but that's exactly what I did. When archiving, we should care more about how old/stale the discussions are than how many bytes the page is ''after'' archiving. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:43, 18 January 2019 (EST)
 
::::I did not even read PeterKa's comment, but that's exactly what I did. When archiving, we should care more about how old/stale the discussions are than how many bytes the page is ''after'' archiving. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:43, 18 January 2019 (EST)
 +
::The last time this page was archived, by User:Conservative, the archive left 100kb here to read.  Many users write sections with footnotes or wikilinks, particularly RobS and Conservative.  Their longer-studied and deeper understanding results in reasoned discourse from which it takes longer to reap the benefits (by successive readings, as time allows), but provide a more complete diet with which to nourish our conservatism than one that is arbitrarily disconnected from the important information, interpretations and reasonings out of which their discourses grew. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 08:57, 18 January 2019 (EST)

Revision as of 07:57, 18 January 2019

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

Archive Index

The shutdown

It is now day 20 of the shutdown. The liberal media is hyping polls that supposedly show a public backlash against Trump. Bill Clinton currently holds the shutdown record; Twenty-one days in 1995 to 1996. Did he suffer any backlash from it? Not that I recall. The bottom line is that if Trump succeeds in getting a wall (or "steel slat barrier"), he's our golden warrior. Otherwise, he can kiss 2020 goodbye.
January 11 is the moment of truth. That's when find we out whether or not the federal employee unions hate the border wall so much they are willing to defer their paychecks. The partisan lineup in the House is 235 to 199. So 18 Dems need to switch to resolve this crisis. The Secure Fence Act had bipartisan support in 2006. This act was supposed to build 700 miles of double fencing. Only about 40 miles of it actually got built. Now opiates are pouring across the border. How can the issue be less urgent now than it was then? That no virtually no Dems support border security at this point is Trumpspite. PeterKa (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2019 (EST)

What should Trump do? I don't think declaring a national emergency and bypassing Congress is a good idea. What next? "I have pen, I have phone"? A Republican president should not act like an Obamaesque emperor. From their statements yesterday, it's clear that Chuck and Nancy see themselves as the tribunes of those hardworking federal employees. I say cut out the middle man and negotiate directly with AFGE and the other federal employee unions. It's just like negotiations with North Korea, which never went anywhere until Trump leaned on China. PeterKa (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2019 (EST)
Everybody will get everything. The laid off workers will get paid for being laid off. DACA kids will be resolved. Immigration reform. The wall will get built. And Pelosi will get a minimum wage hike or whatever's dear to her heart.
The issue isn't a wall - it's a slogan. They don't want to give Trump his winning slogan. So it's gotta be called "infrastructure" or border security or some such. All they need to do is put it in an infrastructure package and give Pelosi and Schumer a couple new airports or highways and it's a done deal. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:42, 10 January 2019 (EST)
I don't care. I'm going to open the package and make a lot of noise with my fellow conservatives when it happens. VargasMilan (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2019 (EST)
Everybody's a winner. It's like the Financial Crisis of 2008. Henry Paulson and Tim Geithner asked for an emergency meeting for emergency spending of $450 billion to save the planet from global financial apocalypse, Immediately, without further hearings. Congress asked for a delay, and came back in 72 hours and appropriated $750 billion with all kinds of pork barrel for their states and districts. Trump's only asking for $5.6 billion. You always want a crisis to go to your waist with pork, not to waste. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:11, 10 January 2019 (EST)
They're arguing over a slogan, "Build the Wall," not its cost or efficiency. What's Pelosi's price to give Trump a victory and take the heat in 2020 for betraying her hate rhetoric, is the issue. And it further highlights the weakness of the Impeachment case, since she's fearful it'll get Trump re-elected.
Alternatively, IMO, the idea is to bring impeachment charges just before the 2020 elections, and put pressure on GOP Senators running for re-election. Democrats have nothing to loose, they only have one incumbant Senator up in 2020. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:42, 10 January 2019 (EST)
Judging from this video, the Dems are ready to concede on everything except the word "wall." I'm certainly fine with a "secure" double border fence. Congress approved this idea in 2006. After the Dems took control of Congress in 2007, they removed funding for the fence from the budget. But the Secure Fence Act is still the law, and property has already been bought to allow it to be built. PeterKa (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2019 (EST)
How about, "smart border defense"? Trump agrees to give up a demand for "Wall funding," in exchange he gets wall funding, fencing, drones, infrared sensors, more agents and facilites. Democrats get DACA reform, infrastructure, etc. The total price tag should be about $50 billion instead of the $5.6 asked for. That's how compromise works. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 20:56, 12 January 2019 (EST)
In the 1970s, Gov. Ronald Reagan wanted to charge tuition at California universities. The Board of Regents were adament - they refused to end California's tradition of "Free Tuition." Reagan agreed to drop the demand, and instead asked for a "Student Fee." The Regents immediately agreed. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:08, 12 January 2019 (EST)

The Democrats need big government more than Republicans do. Non-essential government workers and programs are being starved. Trump is starving the enemies supply line. That is why Pelosi/Schumer often appear rattled in public. They know they will have to cave first.

Trump needn't give DACA road to citizenship in exchange for a wall. And if he does Coulter and others will vilify him.

Trump merely needs to keep using his bully pulpit and keep hanging tough.Conservative (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2019 (EST)

It's not going to work like that. Immigration judges are some of the non-essential workers laid off, border apprehensions can only be held so many days without a hearing, and without a deportation order they must be released inside the United States.
Trump himself wants DACA reform, and he'll get it. It'll all be rolled into an infrastructure bill.
They only issue is a slogan, "wall." Trump never promised to build it across the continent, and has already backed off use of the term, (for now). Dems simply need cover for voting for a wall, which they'll get in "infrastructure" and "DACA reform." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:52, 12 January 2019 (EST)
The issue of "a wall" is ridiculous to begin with. It's only designed to keep people of Latin American heritage out. Canada has the most liberal, open borders policy in the world. They invite anyone in to dance across the border to the U.S. This has been true at least since the 1950s, when the KGB inserted Col. Rudy Hermann into Canada cause it was easier to get Canadian citizenship, and as a Canadian citizen it was easier for him and his family to enter and get U.S. citizenship. No one is suggesting we build a wall across Canada.
Wake up and smell the coffee. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:25, 13 January 2019 (EST)

Rosenstein resigns

With any luck, the anti-Trump revolt in the Department of Justice will soon be quelled: "Rosenstein to leave DOJ once new attorney general confirmed: report." Rosenstein has been a friend of Hillary since he cleared her back in 1998 when he was an investigator for Ken Starr. He lied to the Senate at his confirmation hearing to conceal this fact.[1] Rosenstein's wife is a Clinton lawyer. On top of all that, he signed the Carter Page FISA warrant which was used to justify electronic eavesdropping on the Trump campaign.
Rosenstein wrote a memo to justify Comey's firing, and later supervised an investigation of that firing. (He apparently wanted Comey out so Mueller could be reappointed FBI director.) Somehow Sessions was recused from supervising the Mueller investigation, but not Rosenstein. The Ethics Office at the DOJ must be a partisan stronghold. PeterKa (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2019 (EST)

Tash Guahar and many other coup plotters are still in DOJ. And Barr is a deep state fixer. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:50, 10 January 2019 (EST)
The whole purpose of the Mueller investigation was never Russia collusion; it was to thwart Congressional and Inspector General investigations into Obama DOJ conduct. The very existence of the Mueller probe thwarted compliance with Congressional subpeonas and the IG investigation, with the added benefit of attacking Trump. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:58, 10 January 2019 (EST)
So your favorite institutional barrier to inequitable treatment within the Justice Department has been breached by the machinations of a partisan office-holder? Boo-hoo-hoo!—Join the club, pal. That may be an amazing discovery to you, but we've had to suffer with all of the other ones too in order of magnitude of damage for over a year now. They're so un-self-aware they go out of their way to embarrass Trump when, ironically, the newsreading public simply hasn't gotten through the national self-embarrassment generated by their biggest bosses to have reached their own unwittingly-produced supply yet. VargasMilan (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2019 (EST)
Say what? This is about recusement in general, the DOJ Ethics Office, or the IG system? PeterKa (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2019 (EST)
Read it again: "your favorite institutional barrier to inequitable treatment within the Justice Department". I'm sure we all have a favorite; yours just happened to be the expected execution of the appropriate conflict-of-interest policies by the supposedly-responsible recusal administrator, at least at the moment you were saying it, but close readers have all been hurt by the same disappointments at the time they take place and each time they recall the highlights reel, whether it be Strosz, Lisa Page, Comey, Rod Rosenstein, the acting Attorney General (I forgot her name), whoever was tasked to preserve the Page-Strozs e-mail record. It's good that you read the news, but I was pointing out with you as a typical reader that Department-policy-ignoring favoritism (or disfavoritism) was the rule not the exception. VargasMilan (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2019 (EST)
All of the senior staff at the Ethics Office recommended that Whittaker recuse himself. One of standards for recusal is that there has to be somebody else better qualified available for the assignment. In other words, they're saying that Rosenstein is more qualified and less conflicted than Whittaker, which strikes me as patent nonsense. No, I'm not surprised to learn that the Ethics Office is filled with partisan hacks. What does surprise me is that I have not encountered any media analysis (mainstream or conservative) of why the office never recommended that Rosenstein recuse himself. PeterKa (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2019 (EST)
Whittaker will recuse himself when NY AG Lettia James recuses herself. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 08:33, 11 January 2019 (EST)
That was the germ of truth in my reply. There was a story about the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the non-recusal of Robert Mueller and the recusal administrator (a woman), but it apparently crash-landed that same day and was never mentioned again. I blame the levels of bureaucracy; there's no point in the conservative media catching a little fish when the bigger fish are still there.
But heads up, Peter, the deep state is trying for a win beyond the Sessions-Mueller-Rosenstein trifecta. It's come to this: hopefully Trump's own party will vote against Trump's Attorney General nomination. [2] VargasMilan (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2019 (EST)
Of course, one tends to assume that longtime federal staff are acting out of liberalism, or are at least afraid of WaPo. But until the recent stories on Whittaker, I haven't seen any specific news that confirms such cynicism about the Ethics Office. That the staff is now leaking on Whittaker is so....ethical.
That Barr is friends with Mueller just shows that the leadership of the justice department is inbred. Mueller is still the guy who drove New York Governor Elliot Spitzer out of politics by setting him up with a hooker sting. Rosenstein is in the habit of deferring to Mueller whereas Barr has experience supervising Mueller. So the relationship dynamics should be quite different. PeterKa (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2019 (EST)
I should have said: a deep-state win beyond the Sessions-Mueller-Whitaker trifecta of bogus conflict-of-interest determinations especially since Trump has never spoken against Rosenstein's tenure as Deputy Attorney General as such, but the deep state is trying to manufacture an effectual cloud of doubt around Whitaker. VargasMilan (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2019 (EST)

There ain't no ethics investigation cause ethics investigators can't look at documents and evidence Mueller is holding. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:00, 12 January 2019 (EST)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the tipy top

I thought I was following the adventures of AOC because she says so many stupid things that I enjoy laughing at. But according to the Huffington Post, it's because she is "a direct threat to conservatives because her very existence in Congress." This is HuffPo's idea of science. Seriously: "Conservative Men Are Obsessed With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Science Tells Us Why."
Aside from her entertainment value, there is another reason to follow AOC. As the recent "dance video" episode shows, she wields an awesome amount of media clout. A video AOC made in college was posted from a recently created Twitter account. Immediately after it was posted, various media outlets announced in unison that conservatives were attacking AOC dancing. Yet it's not clear whether any conservatives even knew about the video at that point. PeterKa (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2019 (EST)

Yes. You make a very important point. When all is said and done, she is the doll in Tales of Hoffman. Pelosi, Benny Ray Lujan, and the Soros machine are absolutely sexist for thier use and abuse of this woman. She was recruited and hired for her ability sell. No one respects her for her ideas, left or right, cause she has none. Someday, God willing, she'll wake up and see the Democrat establishment and Soros machine respects her intelligence as much as conservatives do. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:22, 11 January 2019 (EST)
The AOC dance video was edited from a longer video and posted by a conservative YouTuber on December 2. Nobody noticed it until AnnonymousQ1776, presumably someone who works on AOC's behalf, put it on Twitter on January 2.
The AOC phenomenon has a definite manufactured feel. The left was too enthusiastic at the news of her primary victory. Wasn't Rep. Joe Crowley a Democrat too? He must have taken a dive. Perhaps it is all about promoting her "Green New Deal." Nobody who thought global warming was a real problem would use such a slogan. It cynically turns what's allegedly a global crisis into yet another pork barrel project or make work program. PeterKa (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2019 (EST)
Even in Congress there is a division of labor, a specialization of tasks. This goes into and even beyond the make up of committees. Very few "legislators" write laws, which is the highest task - they only vote on them. In committees, some are good at questioning witnesses, others are useless and a waste of time. Each party in fact has a few members with no committee assignment, and work the floor. Some are good at giving press interviews, others are policy wonks who spend night and day studying the latest government reports.
Ocasio-Cortez's talents obviously are outside the halls of Congress - party outreach, organizing, fundraising, TV appearances. The Pelosi machine establishment will give her a wide berth provided she continues to bring in {1) voters {2} donations. While at work, she'll be instructed by staff and party bosses what to do, what to say, how to vote. As long she doesn't go off script, she'll be okay. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:12, 12 January 2019 (EST)
When she was in college, a hot young AOC used her dancing skills for good. Now she dances with Al Sharpton. This clip is almost as disgusting as the infamous "Hillary and Obama in love" image. PeterKa (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2019 (EST)
That's called outreach or organizing. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:33, 13 January 2019 (EST)

Who's going to pay for the wall? El Chapo

El Chapo is Mexican, isn't he? His assets are estimated at $14 billion: "Ted Cruz explains how he's going to make El Chapo pay for the border wall." Cruz calls his proposed legislation the "Ensuring Lawful Collection of Hidden Assets to Provide Order Act." This idea is way better than declaring a national emergency and bypassing Congress! PeterKa (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2019 (EST)

Yes, it's simply designating funds from asset forfeiture to a specific project. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:36, 13 January 2019 (EST)
And of course the title of the legislation spells out an acronym of ELCHAPO. As a Republican office-holder Sen. Ted Cruz is a frustrating ally—his gimmicks are so corny. VargasMilan (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2019 (EST)
This article argues that declaring a national emergency would allow Trump to surrender on the wall and then blame the courts. PeterKa (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2019 (EST)

Liberal lies

Sen. Mark Warner told Jake Tapper of CNN he received Gang of Eight briefings on Trump-Russia in the Summer of 2016.[3] Warner did not become a member of the Gang of Eight til January 2017. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:52, 13 January 2019 (EST)

MPL:700,000,000

CP went over 700 million over night. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:11, 14 January 2019 (EST)

Great catch! Posted.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2019 (EST)

William Barr

I expect that William Barr will be our greatest attorney general ever. Why? Because the media is taking extraordinary steps to derail his nomination. During previous federal shutdowns, we were treated to an endless parade of sob stories about the suffering federal workers. Usually, these stories are bogus. But the federal workers actually did miss a paycheck on January 11. Although this is a historic first, the event was barely covered. These days, the media is focused like a laser beam on Mueller and Russia. There hasn't been much in the way of real news about either subject lately. It's all about getting the base hepped up for the main event, Barr's confirmation hearing.
Barr's memo to Rosenstien defines obstruction of justice as "sabotaging a proceeding's truth-finding function." It also applies this definition to the question whether Trump committed obstruction by telling Comey to "let...go" of the Flynn investigation. He concludes that, "Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction." Rosenstien apparently disagrees with Barr on this matter since he is planning to resign as soon as Barr is confirmed. PeterKa (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2019 (EST)

There's really only two questions: (1) Will 1Q GDP be up or down? If it continues upward, that tells us we don't really need all these liberal, leftist, union dues paying, Democrat donating leeches and deadbeats in the civil service system and can let them go: and (2) How will Sen. Pat Leahy vote? If yes, the fix is in, nobody gets prosecuted for nothing, just like in Fast & Furious and Benghazi. If no, the gloves come off. There will be casualties on both sides. RobSDeep Six the Deep State!
As to the Barr Memo, the only issue in Senator's mind is Was Barr engaged in lobbying for the job for hinsrlf, signalling the President he'd let him walk once everyone knew Sessions was getting fired after the election? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:58, 15 January 2019 (EST)
Of course, the answer to that question is "yes." But if Barr's legal advice is sound and offered sincerely, why should that matter?
That's a good point about the shutdown. Eventually, someone will get the idea, "Do we really need all these nonessential employees?" Obama went on a huge hiring spree, so there is plenty of excess staffing at this point. There is a labor shortage in the private sector, so anyone who can be let go should be let go.
Hey, it looks like we are not the only ones who are thinking this way: "I’m a senior Trump official, and I hope a long shutdown smokes out the resistance." PeterKa (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2019 (EST)
Get focused. The following excerpt has been in open source for 20 years. I recently shortened it and cleaned it up after Barr was nominated. Here it is: William Barr rebukes Bill Clinton. It was originally posted as The faired-haired boy.
I could say more about John Kerry's subcommittee investigation into narcotics smuggling and BCCI which follows Iran-Contra and overlaps Barr's DOJ tenure, which again Leahy plays a role, but first familiarize yourself with Barr's role in Iran-Contra. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:37, 15 January 2019 (EST)

Trump goes to McDonalds; reportedly draws ire of snobs

@Logo_Daedalus: "Andrew Jackson rolled a massive cheese wheel into the White House & had people come off the street to gouge chunks off it for themselves—yet the decorum pundits who wish they were in Victorian England will gasp—as if a McDonalds platter is not pure iconic americana.

"I really don't understand how these people have maintained their "shock" at Trump being extremely representative of America—it can only be that they are ashamed & scandalized by their country in general—Trump just reminds them of their alienation from their countrymen.

"He's obviously getting re-elected. Nobody comes close to his embodiment of America."

VargasMilan (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2019 (EST)

File:3ffad1524670ef2d42f101e26139da67.jpg
A new level of demeaning the Office of the President was reached when Johnson showed off his scars from gallbladder surgery to photographers and the world. Johnson is said to have given instructions to staff and press interviews while sitting on the toilet.[1] Johnson regularly used the "N" word.
Oh, if we had the old days when president's honored the office and showed respect and decorum! RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:11, 15 January 2019 (EST)
Andrew Jackson and LBJ are taking it back a ways. But you can see Bill Clinton getting his McDonald's fix here and here. In SNL's version, he steals a burger from a random customer. PeterKa (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2019 (EST)
Yes, that was the beginning of what we now call "the permanent campaign." In the old days, after a candidate took office, he focused on the people's business and started undoing all his promises. Clinton never stopped campaigning and filling the airwaves 24/7 will lies and promises. Of course, Democrats were all giddy about his McDonald's visit, "the kinda guy you'd like to have a beer with," which Elizabeth Warren just stole from the Clinton playbook. But after the Kavanaugh smear, nobody in their right mind would ever drink a beer with Elizabeth Warren. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:45, 16 January 2019 (EST)

Sexist thinking uncovered in Trump

"There is a feeling sweeping the land: A new way of engaging in politics in our country. And this is towards a dying ideology known as sexism.

"Sexism is a belief that men are superior to women and a kind of doubt that the privileged treatment that men receive in society was earned.

"You may ask yourself why a term whose name indicates a kind of political ideology or worldview with regard to sex differences in general only applies to men and why a more accurate name that could be used indicating the meaning combining words in a pattern already having currency in politics, "male supremacy", lies unused and has all but disappeared.

"Is it because you think this is a sign of a kind of mental disorder—perhaps a kind of 'hyper-discrimination' to discriminate against all men all at once by using a supposedly-neutral term selectively (that is, unequally) against men, ironically to complain about the problem of equal treatment on the basis of sex—that is being played out in the political arena? That's fine. But you'd better shut your yap about it!"

VargasMilan (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2019 (EST)

Two things I strongly suspect are true. Donald Trump was superior to Hillary Clinton when it came to winning the presidency in 2016. And Putin was superior to Hillary Clinton when it came to political cyber warfare and got by the DNC's defenses. Hillary and her fans: In politics and in the technical/computer world, it is still often a man's world and your side lacked machismo. One of the definitions of machismo is "exhilarating sense of power or strength." :) Conservative (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2019 (EST)
There is no evidence whatsoever that (a) Russians hacked the DNC, and (b) WikiLeaks got Democrat emails from Russia.
How easily you fall for liberal fake news and leftist propaganda. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:30, 16 January 2019 (EST)
Conservative has something better than an infallible ability to detect fraud in stories against Trump and his allies that are here today and gone tomorrow—and it shows in his writing. He has faith in America and its freedom, without which even "certified truthful" stories don't sink in to those politically hostile to Trump (in resistance to those daring to deflate their ethos) but only collapse against each other in their minds into heaps of mutually incomprehensible rubbish. VargasMilan (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2019 (EST)

More remediation for men

“Masculinity is fine but it's a problem when it's toxic. It’s also really bad for boys and men. They feel they can't show emotion, can't be affectionate to mates. They're raised to be tough. "Don't cry. Be in charge." @bkjabour #auspol #TheDrum —Bridie Jabour on Australian Broadcasting Network's "The Drum".

That's big of you to acknowledge that masculinity is fine. I was beginning to feel insecure about whether we still qualified(?) A good way to make friends is to reason about someone while making use of the conceptualizations with insulting assumptions in which you've placed them for political convenience. Has anyone ever spoken like this? There used to be jokes about the hyper-masculine, like in movies, giving them the "diagnosis" of "testosterone poisoning", but now were supposed to take it seriously as a categorical-level sociological classification (hint: yes, as soon as the phony narrative using the politically-convenient conceptualizations with insulting assumptions hardens and enough people have forgotten its pseudo-scientific origins)?! VargasMilan (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2019 (EST)

Fake news (papers)

Here a bit of an interesting story: [4]
It seems some leftist activists weren't content with how far the MSM is going to try to make lies into truth, and distributed their own forged version of the Washington Post. It made claims about Trump stepping down, something the author, Roychoudhuri, said "...is more reasonable than our current reality...and it's anything but far-fetched." --David B (TALK) 18:15, 16 January 2019 (EST)

That is if you ignore the signature approach of the liberal media towards the Trump Administration: that of the (empirically proven) piling on of negative coverage to the point of even damaging their own reputations as journalists in the process.
Roychouduri is a total troll who hopes to induce anger in conservatives by pretending he's incapable of gathering the relevant facts before making sweeping generalities that serve to flatter liberals. VargasMilan (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2019 (EST)

Pelosi and the State of the Union

Guess what? Pelosi won't let Trump address the House for the traditional State of the Union.[5] She cites the shutdown. But it is safe to assume that she is more concerned that AOC, Tlaib, or some other freshman will yell something rude. It could just like a football game, with Democrats kneeling and Republicans standing. Whatever the reason for it, the era of Democrat legislators treating Republican presidents with respect is apparently over. Trump should address just the U.S. Senate, our legitimate legislative body given the Dems' recent antics. PeterKa (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2019 (EST)

The Senate might not have the seating capacity. Better yet, Trump should have it at his Washington hotel. He could donate the time and space, and take a tax deduction for the fair market value of providing accommodations for 500 people. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:27, 17 January 2019 (EST)
I like the idea of having the SOTU at Trump International Hotel. President Trump is a simple man. If the Dems cared about reopening the government or any of the other issues they bray about, they'd hold the most imperial SOTU ever and fawn over him.
If I was Trump, here is what I'd say: "The congressional leaders have informed me that legislation to secure our southern border and reopen the government cannot be passed. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. I urge all furloughed employees to seek alternative employment. I expect the government to reopen following a 30 percent workforce reduction." PeterKa (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2019 (EST)
It's like they are daring him to declare a national emergency. When he does, history will record the seriousness with which Pelosi wanted the people informed on the national emergency. Pelosi herself called border defense a moral issue, the argument is over how much money to spend. Meanwhile they're vacationing in Puerto Rico and flying all over the world. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 08:05, 18 January 2019 (EST)

Time to archive this page?

This page has gotten quite large, more so than in the past when it has been archived. Does anyone mind if I go ahead and archive most or all of the content here? It might be nice to tidy up a bit, and not need to scroll down through 50,000+ words to get to the bottom every time. --David B (TALK) 20:00, 17 January 2019 (EST)

Great idea! Please go ahead and archive this!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2019 (EST)
VargasMilan, I did consider leaving the last few, but perhaps not carefully enough, as I see that the last few sections have been active fairly recently. However, do you think it is useful to have content from December still here? It's not like it is getting deleted, just moved. Looking back at some of the other archives, I'm seeing some which are themselves considerably less than 100kb, which is what this page currently is. 100kb still seems like a lot of data to download every time, especially for those using slower internet connections. --David B (TALK) 01:34, 18 January 2019 (EST)
I would say go ahead and archive anything that hasn't been active in the last week. PeterKa (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2019 (EST)
I did not even read PeterKa's comment, but that's exactly what I did. When archiving, we should care more about how old/stale the discussions are than how many bytes the page is after archiving. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2019 (EST)
The last time this page was archived, by User:Conservative, the archive left 100kb here to read. Many users write sections with footnotes or wikilinks, particularly RobS and Conservative. Their longer-studied and deeper understanding results in reasoned discourse from which it takes longer to reap the benefits (by successive readings, as time allows), but provide a more complete diet with which to nourish our conservatism than one that is arbitrarily disconnected from the important information, interpretations and reasonings out of which their discourses grew. VargasMilan (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2019 (EST)