Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Proportional representation and the Democratic nomination)
(What does Trump want?: reply)
Line 853: Line 853:
::[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 12:18, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
::[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 12:18, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
::::There is a lot to learn from this whole incident - including the fact that the purchase was paid in gold. Nowadays we'd just print more money to pay for Greenland, and no one would feel or burden the cost. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:45, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
::::There is a lot to learn from this whole incident - including the fact that the purchase was paid in gold. Nowadays we'd just print more money to pay for Greenland, and no one would feel or burden the cost. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:45, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
::Wait. The story was about the Floridas, not the Louisiana Purchase.  Napoleon never got around to selling the Floridas, and a few months later the Spaniards revolted and re-acquired their country from Napoleon's brother, who had been running things, and deprived Napoleon of his military access to any of the Spanish colonies. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 00:06, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
== Proportional representation and the Democratic nomination ==
== Proportional representation and the Democratic nomination ==

Revision as of 23:06, 21 September 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

Who will win the Democrat presidential primary?

See also 2020 presidential election
Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee Who will win?
Chance of becoming
Democratic nominee
Candidate CA
End of
End of
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE 28.5% 20.2% 24.9% 25.5% 23.3% 23.6% 23.5% 23.5% 22.7%
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 1.6% 2.0% 2.7% 2.4% 2.2% 1.8% 2.2% 2.4% 2.3%
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 11.1% 8.3% 6.8% 6.8% 5.9% 6.1% 5.3% 4.5% 4.4%
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 2.5% 1.4% 2.8% 2.9% 1.9% 1.4% 0.9% 0.8% 1.0%
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 12.5% 27.4% 19.6% 13.2% 12.3% 10.8% 10.9% 6.6% 7.4%
Rep. Beto O'Rourke O'R TX 4.0% 1.3% 1.9% 1.3% 1.1% 0.5% 0.9% 1.2% 0.9%
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 11.2% 7.5% 11.1% 12.0% 12.3% 13.4% 12.7% 12.2% 12.5%
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 15.9% 21.5% 21.7% 26.1% 30.5% 31.5% 33.4% 35.2% 36.6%
Sec'y Hillary Clinton Cli NY 1.7% 1.5% 1.7% 1.8% 1.5% 2.0% 1.9% 3.6% 3.4%
Andrew Yang Yan NY 5.5% 3.3% 3.8% 4.2% 4.4% 4.0% 4.4% 5.4% 5.2%
Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee Who will win?
Twitter followers
Candidate CA
as of
end of
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE   03.6M:1 +19,000 +20,000 +17,000 +13,000 +14,000 +12,000 +17,000 +8,000
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 04.4M:2 +28,000 +19,000 +9,000 +6,000 +4,000 +3,000 +6,000 +3,000
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 01.2M:2 +72,000 +50,000 +27,000 +13,000 +11,000 +9,000 +23,000 +48,000
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 00.6M:2 +34,000 +90,000 +16,000 +8,000 +5,000 +4,000 +15,000 +5,000
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 03.6M:2 +245,000 +39,000 +28,000 +28,000 +24,000 +20,000 +25,000 +11,000
Rep. Beto O'Rourke O'R TX 01.4M:1 +4,000 +40,000 +53,000 +13,000 +9,000 +11,000 +20,000 +14,000
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 17.8M:2 +134,000 +69,000 +82,000 +63,000 +50,000 +51,000 +63,000 +22,000
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 07.8M:2 +225,000 +101,000 +57,000 +60,000 +55,000 +45,000 +65,000 +27,000
Sec'y Hillary Clinton Cli NY +70,000 +74,000 +86,000 +87,000 +50,000 +66,000 +22,000
Andrew Yang Yan NY 00.5M:1 +25,000 +20,000 +77,000 +22,000

VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 14:47, 1 July 2019 (EDT) VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 15:56, 22 July 2019 (EDT)

Biden cannot win the enthusiastic support of blacks and progressives. As the far left whackos drop out one-by-one, that leaves Harris, who can re-create the old Obama enthusiasm. So let's look at two scenarios:

(1) Electability; Biden does not have it over Harris. Among white privilege Democrats, yes. Among blacks, minorities and progressives, no. Biden's nomination will be be seen as one more slap down and ride on the back of the Democrat bus.

(2) Race war: So we'll see another race war in the Democrat party between 'ol time law and order defenders of segregation like Biden (a few traditional Democrat babyboomers - the Kerry voters of 2004), and those who see Harris as the legitimate heir of Obama's legacy. Biden-Harris runoff in the Spring of 2020 will make race the key issue - the Democrats general election strategy. Post-convention, Harris will carry the antifascist momentum into November against Trump.

The only way to avoid theses scenarios (all out internal Democrat party race war) is for Biden to bow out now, or be resoundingly rejected in Iowa and New Hampshire. I can't see Biden (or Warren or Sanders) beating Harris in South Carolina on Super Tuesday.

With Biden in, race remains the focus. With Biden out, Dems can debate healthcare, Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, immigration or whatever else suits their fancy. Pity poor Biden right now, he thinks he's a civil rights crusader, but to protect his legacy he has to bow out now. Or for the good of the party, he has to play the role of an older male white supremacist up to August 2020 just to defeat Trump. Tuff decision. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:15, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

The Democrat base is divided between West coast (California) and East coast. They fight over blacks in the South, Chicago Illinois, and Texas. So you have Harris who carries California and the South (and Chicago), and then a bunch of East coast liberals, Biden, Booker, Warren, Sanders, De Blasio, etc fighting among themselves. Sanders support eventually goes to Warren. Booker's goes to Harris. The only reason De Blasio and Sestak are in the race is to oppose Biden. The West, South, and blacks across the country are united behind Harris. The fight is between East Coast liberals, who ultimately (the longer it goes on) because of internal division among themselves must bow to the West and South's decision. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:29, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
It's a good illustration how the American system works. While Texas plays no role in Democrats' November strategy (particularly with Beto out), Texas does play a role in picking the nominee. As to Illinois, which sometimes can be considered a toss up in November, it likewise weighs heavily toward Harris.
IOWs, the electoral strategy people focus on in November is too often overlooked in primaries, where ideology and vision is considered the focus. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:35, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
We'll see this week if the three-week-long "four dwarves" formation holds up after the Biden/Harris switcheroo. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 23:40, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
Me: "What do you think of Kamala Harris?" Honest liberal: "Too phony." Me: "Then how about someone like, say, Yang?" Honest liberal: "[scowls] Not phony enough!" VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 00:55, 2 July 2019 (EDT)
Biden was never a serious candidate. He was drafted as a placeholder cause of name recognition. His heart was never in it, even less so now. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:10, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

Theconservativetreehouse.com has an update laying out the present DNC game plan. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:17, 2 July 2019 (EDT)

The format of the latest update is rigged; Harris and Biden have traded places. Harris has jumped from No. 4 to No. 1. The % column is outdated and misleading. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:47, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
Lol, that's a funny accusation, but no. The candidates are in alphabetical order; you're supposed to click on the column description at the top and the whole table will sort itself according to that column. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 15:02, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
Just a suggestion: have the most recent data first, left to right (and re-label the June 17 entry. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:08, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
July 8, 2017 Polling data: Shows a steady erosion of Biden support. He only remains in cause of his lead in General Election polling date. But this shows his support is tepid among Democrats. When the general election data begins eroding from 10+ he's out. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:57, 8 July 2019 (EDT)
[Pitches idea, holds up hands flat along the same plane and looks upward as if stepping back from a large display] "Kamala Harris and the Four White Dwarfs!" VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 21:37, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
I think we can all agree Kamala Harris is the prettiest presidential candidate in the history of the Republic, even prettier than prettyboy Pete Buttigieg. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:42, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
July 15: Warren gains .2 while the frontrunner Kamala looses about a point. The .2 gain are white racist Democrats (probably homophobes, too) who have dumped Biden and Sanders over their demented senility and are scared of a black president. So Warren's gain and Kamala's loss is Warren exercising her feminist white privilege. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:16, 15 July 2019 (EDT)
July 19: Someone asks Warren a direct question about her lying about her Native American heritage, and when people wake up the next day, they read about it, some not having heard about it, and her odds drop 0.6%. She is still up for the week, however, and so her odds are expected to rise for the sixth straight week. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 13:57, 20 July 2019 (EDT)
It's the same story. Biden and Sanders are through. White Democrat racists who are becoming engaged are not getting on board with the people of color: Booker, Harris, Castro, Gabbard. So they naturally gravitate to Warren. Socialism and ideology have little to do with it. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:16, 20 July 2019 (EDT)
July 22: I replaced Williamson with Clinton, because Williamson's still stuck at 0.2%. I also corrected an error with Castro—I accidentally added 50,000 to his new followers. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 16:37, 22 July 2019 (EDT)
Lay off the drugs, kid. Dope kills. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:57, 22 July 2019 (EDT)
July 23: It also kills your chances for gaining the presidency: Kamala Harris wants marijuana possession federally decriminalized and criminal records expunged for non-violent marijuana convicted offenses. [Ann Coulter notes that prosecuting drug sales and drug use is a vital backup for plea-bargaining in cases where witness intimidation is common, and that drug possession is almost never prosecuted when not originally accompanied with more serious charges.] Tulsi Gabbard's fellow partial-ethnic-Indian pounces, calls Harris "not qualified to serve as commander-in-chief". Tulsi gains 0.3%; Harris loses 2.1%, probably capping off a four-week losing streak. VargasMilan (talk)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren tops out at 20.4%, Biden continues 15-day rapid climb at 18.0%. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 18:35, 23 July 2019 (EDT)
July 24: V. Pres. Biden dishes out his criminal justice reform plan, long on stirring otherwise inert different activities around and short on any kind of accountability for results. The differentness of the activities, I suspect, would make it easier to explain when, predictably, the players drop the ball. This is reported to be a case of targeting blacks to vote for him, which seems possible, because, if we can believe RobS's claims, Biden's previous criminal justice reforms were deleterious towards black communities. Meanwhile Biden persists in maintaining a strong lead in polls. Biden's odds climb 1.5% overnight. At this rate, he will pass Warren in a few days.
Kamala Harris demonstrates her keen sense of timing as she calls for impeachment of President Trump at the very moment when the investigation runs out of gas. And Trump isn't as innocent as a naked baby; for Kamala, he's clothed in a uniform of all manner of prejudices that only the most experienced eyes can discern, by means of which he'll march America away from our cherished diversities (cherished everywhere except within group identities) to its doom. This spikes her odds by +1.5% until the British oddsmakers inform themselves an hour later that she's just jawboning for the Democrat side. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 15:06, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
The damage is done. Blacks are even less enthusiastic about Biden than they were about Hillary. That's what caused Hillary's loss. Listen to the first 3 minutes of this video. This is THE ISSUE blacks vote on. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:21, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
Maybe this is the issue blacks will vote on: “When Black people commit a crime THEY GET 3 strikes, when illegal aliens commit crimes they get amnesty & benefits” VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 18:14, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
And maybe you can EXPLAIN yourself for quoting Shaun King, who only identifies as black, but isn't really.
"I love how @shaunking who is white and @Kaepernick7 who is half-white, have raked in millions by continually telling black people that they are less than white people.
"Two white men claiming the system is rigged for whites, as they rig the system to enrich themselves is funny."—Candace Owens (July 5, 2019)
VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 20:43, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
Shaun King is a molder of opinion, particularly among younger blacks. King has about as much African blood as Kamala Harris does. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:17, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
Elizabeth Warren rode the impeachment train up and down the hill as well, but her proposal to cancel student debt yesterday makes its way to the top of the agenda today, and her support rises on populist helium. Meanwhile, she works to pre-emptively deflect conservative criticism by proposing to break up the big tech oligopoly. Sen. Warren sees it in her interest to jockey for position at this early phase of the campaign. Her support rises 0.7%, but is significant, because if it holds, it would mean rising odds in favor of winning for seven straight weeks. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 16:33, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
Warren's campaign right now is a fight for college kids, whom she needs as volunteers and workers. It's a small sliver of the electorate, with low turnout. Her promises to these kids are predicated on the hope that the middle class taxpayers she needs these kids to act as door knockers for are not paying attention right now. This scenario is played out constantly. Virtually are competing for the same segment of voters right now, with Tom Steyer spending tens of millions thru his NextGen PAC. Abortion, student loans, and climate change are being hammered home. This issues of interest to adult middle class voters, taxes, foreign policy, healthcare etc. are given short shrift. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:31, 24 July 2019 (EDT)
July 25: No news today, except Trump gained another 1.5% to his odds of winning the presidency 24 hours after the Mueller Hearings. Trump's enemies used the hearings as a springboard off of from which to bounce, but most didn't fall for their deceptions, so he ended up with an out-and-out increase to 49.3%. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 16:55, 25 July 2019 (EDT)
July 26: No news. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 15:56, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
Biden promises to fight back next Wednesday, looks like he's going to be clotheslined by the double team of Harris and Booker. Biden got his panties in a bunch cause Harris asked him personally to nominate her at the California Democrat Convention. Evidently Harris's behavior violated snowflake etiquette. RobSDeep Six the Deep State!
Yeah there was a downward spike for Biden this afternoon. People who see Biden way ahead in the polls didn't expect him to say he needed to do more to defend himself. But I don't know whether the drop will resolve itself back up leaving a true spike or remain as a solid downward shift. Personally I'm shocked by the etiquette lapse and what it means and will need some time for deep thought to resolve it. Either that or for watching cute animal videos on YouTube. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 18:42, 26 July 2019 (EDT)
July 27: Coming next week:
Broke: Kamala Harris and the four white dwarfs.
Woke: The Harris-Biden-Warren Triumvirate!
VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 00:21, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
We got the Liz v. Bernie socialist cage match Tuesday, and the Biden v. Kamala grudge match Wednesday. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:14, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
Busing was the issue last time. Now we're onto mass incarceration. Booker is loaded for bear. Biden is finally on board with corrupting our children with marijuana. Booker and Harris will say "too little too late." RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:21, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
Liz and Bernie will try to out-socialist each other, despite both being exposed as frauds and exploiting workers this past week. I suspect they'll bid up the cost of their programs from 150% of World GDP to 200% before it's over. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:27, 28 July 2019 (EDT)
The moderate-to-conservative wing of the Democrat party consists of minorities, whereas the fringe whacko far left is white, per CBS poll. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 10:51, 29 July 2019 (EDT)
August 6: RobS, on July 1, 2019 you wrote:
Biden cannot win the enthusiastic support of blacks and progressives. As the far left whackos drop out one-by-one, that leaves Harris, who can re-create the old Obama enthusiasm.
Since Biden is back in the lead, do you think it's possible for Biden to take Kamala Harris or Cory Booker as a vice president and get the enthusiastic support of blacks through this form of encouragement? VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 08:05, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
August 19: Kamala Harris' odds plummet for six straight weeks; Elizabeth Warren's odds soar for nine straight weeks. Results have proven Peter Ka's theory correct, and we need a new theory from RobS. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 18:17, 19 August 2019 (EDT)

Twitter data

If I'm reading the Twitter data correctly, between June 26 and July 8, 20,000 Twitter followers dumped Buttigieg and moved to Sanders, putting Buttigieg in 4th place behind Sanders 3rd place; Biden has fallen off the map to last.

Furthermore, it can not be argued that the data is invalid cause Biden and Sanders have established name recognition and following while other's do not.

So given the latest data, we have Harris maintaining a growing lead, Warren flattening out in second, Sanders with growing interest in third, Buttigieg's swift rise falling back to fourth; Marriane Williamson holding on to half of her impressive swift rise in fifth, Booker flattening out in sixth, Castro holding a fraction of his DNC-and-media-orchestrated-rise-to-counter-Gabbard in 7th, Gabbard likewise holding a near identical fraction with an impressive 500,000 total compared to Castro's 200,000 and Marriane Williamson and Booker's 2.5M. Biden is on life support, while Beto has flatlined at zero (Beto's 1.4M followers are all white privileged crackers in Texas; amazing that the DNC would put Castro on the same debate stage to destroy the DNC's strategy to carry Texas in the General Election).

While there is some overlap - namely that Twitter followers are relatively informed and follow more than one candidate, and shenanigans - namely much of Marianne Williamson's followers and donors are Republicans who consider her an articulate spokesperson of Democrat values, I think Vargas Milan is on to something with valid and valuable data. Much more than national polls which are at best published every three or four weeks, and state polls which often times are non-existent or conducted by outsiders. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:12, 11 July 2019 (EDT)

July 15: Warren gains .2 while the frontrunner Kamala looses about a point. The .2 gain are white racist Democrats (probably homophobes, too) who have dumped Biden and Sanders over their demented senility and are scared of a black president. So Warren's gain and Kamala's loss is Warren exercising her feminist white privilege. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:14, 15 July 2019 (EDT)

We don't know

Forecasting is a difficult endeavor. And we live in a fairly free society with a divided Democrat Party and that makes the primary unpredictable. I think it is going to be Biden or Harris.

Conservative (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2019 (EDT)


It's too early to predict who the nominee will be. But I can predict that Warren will be the Next Big Thing. Biden and Sanders are fading. The RCP polling average shows Warren ahead of Harris. The mainstream media has an article fawning over Warren almost every day. If she can survive the blowback from pushing a bogus DNA test performed by an undisclosed lab, she can survive anything. The urban legend about cockroaches and nuclear war comes to mind.
Biden touts himself as Obama's successor. But I'm pretty sure that Obama doesn't see things that way. In 2016, Obama wanted Warren to get the nomination and asked Biden not to run.
Harris got a boost out of beating up Biden at the debate, but how hard is that? It was also quite a cynical performance. She started off by saying, "I don't think you are a racist." This I-don't-say-it,-but-I-just-said-it stuff is a very old and sleazy rhetorical tactic. The classic example is when Cicero told Catiline, The incest with thy sister, I not name. PeterKa (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2019 (EDT)

That's a "good" trick; thanks for sharing that insight.
The RCP polling average uses a rolling average: the worst is yet to come for Warren and surely for Biden after that devastating clash with Harris at that Democratic debate, easy as it might have been for Harris. Someone noted today that they suspect Harris has been scratched off Biden's list of VP picks, so one can imagine her attack coming with the knowledge that she was taking quite a risk, especially with somebody standing above a glass floor like Biden. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 23:21, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
Warren is worse than Hillary. Harris has sex appeal. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 02:10, 2 July 2019 (EDT)
Men look for strength in their leaders - not sex appeal. Most of the world's leaders are men.Conservative (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
Most liberal/SJW men are so effete that the former prosecutor Harris actually has more machismo than them!Conservative (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
Political attack dog styles: Biden = French poodle. Warren = Labrador Retriever. Harris = German Shepherd. Trump = Dire wolf.Conservative (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
Speaking as someone who formerly owned a toy poodle, I'd contest comparing Biden to a French poodle. My poodle if you met him while he was alive was actually very vicious towards strangers and protective of us, to the extent that we have to constantly tell him "friend" to make clear he shouldn't be agitated towards visitors. You'd actually mistake him for a Rottweiler if you had met him. You ought to try Welsh terrier, which barely even reacts to others and is passive. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2019 (EDT)

Poodles do have a reputation for biting people, but their bite strength is limited due to their small size/jaws. So while Biden is an ankle biter when it comes to Trump, he is a rather inconsequential one.Conservative (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2019 (EDT)

Please see the video Dog Attack Styles. Companies/military don't employ poodles as guard/attack dogs.Conservative (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
Trump's more like a crow pecking out the eyes and tongue of an enfeebled GOP. JohnZ (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
Crows are scavengers. Trump is producer minded. Look at the GNP growth. Look at historic employment levels. The USA also was rated the most competitive economy in the world. The Democrats with their tax/spend philosophy are the scavengers/consumers.Conservative (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
What we're looking at is the curious prospect of Harris and Warren being the final 2, a female/female head-to-head match up. Somewhat awkward and undesirable. Warren gets to play the radical leftist Bernie Sanders, and Harris plays the moderate centrist Hillary Clinton. Ultimately a Harris/Castro ticket, with an outside chance of Harris/Buttigieg.
An all female final two has its risks; the immediate question is can someone other than Warren, a male, play the role of far leftist in the Democrat party? Casting is open for this role, as it is needed to portray Harris as a level-headed centrist. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:34, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
The boost Harris got from the debates is already fading. Despite the fact that Biden was once again exposed as a doddering fool, his 30 percent of the vote is sticking with him. After all, where else are they going to go? The other candidates are ridiculously woke. (Michael Bennet of Colorado was only one who didn't raise his hand for open borders.) Warren now has the best net favorability. I expect Sanders' support to migrate to Warren leaving Biden and Warren as the final two. FiveThirtyEight has a statistical breakdown. PeterKa (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
The 30% are machine Democrats who would back Hitler, Mao, or Stalin if they were running. Donors, organizers, and staff are already defecting. Hickenlooper's manager and staff just quit, and they are not going to Biden.
Harris has Marc Elias, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, and John Podesta general counsel. Elias hired Christopher Steele to write the Steele dossier. Elias is behind the ballot stuffing measures that just won the House in the 2010 midterms. Get real. Read the writing on the wall. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:30, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
At this point, the Democrats have to nominate Harris, cause the black monolith within the Democrat party is about to shatter, RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:34, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
  • The prediction I made above is already vindicated. The two latest polls suggest that the nomination is now a two-way race between Biden and Warren.[1] I say it's time to uncork the fake Indian jokes. All hail Jokeahontas, the chief of the Wannabes! Wow wow wow for Powwow Chow! I hear Warren is on the warpath and she's not burying the hatchet anytime soon! What does warpaint and a bogus DNA test get you? The Democratic nomination! Check out this meme or this one. PeterKa (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
After my prediction of the worst being yet to come for Warren along with gloomy times ahead for her, she immediately raises her odds of winning and then continues to do so for another five straight weeks! And if I single out a candidate to acknowledge their pulling ahead, like Sen. Kamala Harris, it turns out to be the touch of death for them, and, for their opponents, unbridled success! I think I'll leave the predictions to Peter for a while. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 22:07, 13 August 2019 (EDT)
The latest YouGov poll shows 21 points for Biden, 20 for Warren, and 16 for Sanders.[2] NEW PREDICTION: Sanders and Warren are too friendly to be rival candidates. Sanders knows he is too old to be president. He will drop out sometime before Iowa and endorse Warren. PeterKa (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2019 (EDT)

We are at a pivotal moment for Black voters

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

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

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

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

O'Rourke, racism, and gun control

It looks like the presidential leadership and comforting skills that Beto O'Rourke displayed after the El Paso Walmart shooting to his constituents and the world at large cost him more than 1 out three voters of his 1.9% base. I'm sure MSM who promoted him have taken note, have learned nothing, and will ignore facts again. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:45, 12 August 2019 (EDT)


This ought to be fun. Many Democrat candidates will be carrying their message that the economy isn’t working for all American to Iowa for 4th of July events. Iowa has three of the top five lowest unemployment regions in the nation: (BLS DATA) Ames, IA, and Burlington-South Burlington, VT, had the lowest unemployment rates, 1.5 percent each, followed by Midland, TX, 1.7 percent; Iowa City, IA, 1.8 percent; and Dubuque, IA, 1.9 percent. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:52, 3 July 2019 (EDT)

That's fascinating data. I wonder if the candidates are doing their research on issues like this.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2019 (EDT)

2020 U. S. Federal Election template

Andy suggested a 2020 U. S. election template, but the idea got waylaid I think through a case of unintentionally hostile indentations near where it was added to the discussion. I will be working on that, but please don't let that stop you from coming up with your own ideas. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:54, 3 September 2019 (EDT)

National popular vote

The attack on the Electoral College is one of several fronts on which American liberals are on the offensive against constitutional government. The main proposal is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. So far, it has been approved by 15 states plus the District of Columbia. These states control 293 electoral votes. The pact goes into effect when states controlling 270 electoral votes approve. This compact is clearly unconstitutional: "No state shall, without Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another state." (Article I, Section 10). In 2016, we didn't even know who won the popular vote until weeks after the election was held. If a Republican wins the most votes nationally, can Democratic governors be counted on to appoint Republican electors? It's not like there is any way to enforce the compact in court. If no one gets a majority, the democratic solution is a runoff. Instead, the compact proposes a set of rules that would have allowed Hillary to win in 2016. It is all about her supporters being sore losers.[3] PeterKa (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2019 (EDT)

States never would have joined the Union if they knew the Electoral College would be abolished someday. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:14, 3 September 2019 (EDT)

Week of Sept, 2

So Bernie Sanders, Yang, Buttigieg and Biden are flat; Warren's growth has come at the expense of Harris' bubble and one-hit-wonder when she called Biden a racist. These numbers presumable would reflect Warren's growth among blacks, which I don't think is a valid analysis. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:33, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

Now, Harris' bubble after calling Biden a racist may have come from aged white babyboomer hippies and other assorted leftisits; what is interesting to note is that Biden has never really recovered from it (it caused people to look closer at him, where gaffes and health issues intervened). While the race baiters attacks hurt the target (the race baitee), the gains have not re-downed to the race baiter, rather to others. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:36, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

Comey's memos

It is certainly dissappointing that the inspector general has determined that Comey's most serious offense was....wait for it....refusing to turn over four memos worth of work product when he left the FBI. It's like finding out that Lee Harvey Oswald took home the office stapler. If these memos had been classified, Comey could have been accused of mishandling classified information. But a committee consisting of Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok determined that they weren't classified. There is apparently no one in a position to overrule this absurd decision.
The larger issue is why Comey created these memos and what he planned to do with them. It seems that he wrote them in order to force the appointment of a special counsel. At very least, that's usurping the authority of the attorney general. IMO, the entire process starting with the memos and going through to the Mueller report represents a planned conspiracy. That is to say, Comey provoked his own firing because he expected that this would result in the appointment of a special counsel team filled with investigators determined to get Trump. That would amount to an attempted coup. PeterKa (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2019 (EDT)

Rumor has it the FISA abuse report will be out tomorrow which will damn Comey and send him to hell, along with Brennan and Clapper, paving the way for Lindsey Graham to begin open hearings, netting more info for John Durham's grand jury and put the final nails in the coffin of the coup cabal, including McCabe, Strzok, Susan Rice, et al. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:18, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
It should be noted, there are many more than just 7 "Comey Memos". I've begun referring to them as the Comey Diaries. They are supposed to be out by October 12. They include the names of FBI spies, presumably Mifsud, Halper, etc. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:22, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
Remember in Final Days how Nixon kept a diary on a tape recorder, and Ziegler said the public would appreciate him more if he could find a way to communicate the ideas he came up with while recording them? VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 04:55, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
(Or the Morganthau Diaries; "the serious problem of unauthorized, uncontrolled and often dangerous power exercised by nonelected officials" ) The Comey Diaries are a collection of memos Comey wrote to himself that are said to include the names of spies or "lures" that the FBI had used against the Trump campaign in Europe beginning as early as December 2015. It is a contemporaneous narrative of the whole illegal operation ran against Donald Trump that can be used as a road map when laid against other FBI, CIA, State Department, GCQH and other sources.
In the case of CNN vs. DOJ (related to January 6, 2017 Comey Trump Tower meeting (Comey Memo 1) and Clapper leak to Jake Tapper, the judge has already ordered release of the full, unredacted Comey Diaries, which the DOJ is fighting. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:26, 3 September 2019 (EDT)

Wow, this is good

"Globalism writ large requires Big Government, central planning, and full control of systems by political elites. Socialism requires exactly the same structure. Through globalism you have multinational corporations, financial elites, making rules for the underclass. Socialism requires the exact same top-down distribution process.
A few high powered political institutions (think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) decide the wealth distribution and sharing processes used to support the masses. They retain power through control at all costs. Within this alignment you see financial elites, globalists in every sense of the word, accepting socialism as a tool to retain corrupt power and influence; and defend against the independent action of lower-class rubes.

I recommend the whole article. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:02, 4 September 2019 (EDT)

I would like the use this quote, but I can't find it in the linked article. Are you sure it's the right one? --1990'sguy (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
You're right. Here it is. And here's a follow up article on the same lines. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:53, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
The Free Beacon has an article on similar lines:
. Every week brings new examples of CEOs intervening in political, cultural, and social debate. In every instance, the prominent spokesmen for American business situate themselves comfortably on the left side of the political spectrum. Shareholder capitalism finds itself under attack. Not just from socialism but also from woke capitalism. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:33, 8 September 2019 (EDT)

British Parliament

Boris needs to calm down, his overwhelming emotion is anger and the left is taking full advantage. The prospect of a far left Prime Minister Corbyn who will surrender all sovereignty to The EU is appalling. Boris needs to get a grip or step aside as time is running out.--Chewy Suarez (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

So, are they gonna have an election or not? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:25, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
Flip a coin.--Chewy Suarez (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
Lemme see if I have this correct: an Election would work toward Brexit, and not having an election works toward Remain. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:35, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
Again, flip a coin. The Tories would be the biggest party but they would have to at least gain parity in seats in order to form a government and deliver Brexit. It is uncertain if that will happen.--Chewy Suarez (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
So the leftwing Labour party is the party of status quo, and the Tories are for change? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:46, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
Now that is a very good question. Yes, sort of, it depends. Both parties are in an eternal crisis at the moment. The moderate Tories are dismayed at the swing to the right and the moderate Labour people at the swing to left. The left want full integration with the EU and the right want no formal relationship whatsoever. The moderates want to leave but to still have strong political, cultural and economic relationships with it, the best of both worlds.--Chewy Suarez (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
Alexander Mercouris of The Duran explains the process from about 9:45; the above CTH link (The Conservative Treehouse) link says, "Johnson could intentionally just ignore the law (if passed), proceed toward a no-deal Brexit and force Parliament to vote him out of office; which would trigger the general election vote the Prime Minister is seeking." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:15, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
I have to disagree with Chewy. It is not a question of left and right. Many on the left want to leave, many on the right want to stay. However, it is true to say the liberal centre tends to be consistently in favour of remain and stronger links with EU. Surprisingly, many globalists are in favour of leaving so we can our country have a global outlook and a broader immigration policy. And that's the problem: leavers have never been able to agree what leave actually means.
Alexander Mercouris's opinion is interesting but ignores the basic constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignity. If he were to ignore the law, he risks being buried in an avalanche of judicial reviews and every subsequent move set aside as being ultra vires. Given that he has already been given his political teeth in a cup twice, and he is starting to look punch drunk, I doubt that's in Boris's top ten options.
Addressing RobS's point, an election might work towards Brexit and it might not. The most likely outcome is another hung parliament, even more confusion and even less leverage for the conservatives. The worst outcome is a socialist government. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood, does Boris Johnson feel lucky? Rafael (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
  • I don't think Boris has much to worry about.There is no other plausible candidate for prime minister. His net approval is at +6 percent compared to -45 percent for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The Conservatives lost thier parliamentary majority by expelling 21 pro-EU members. Now the party stands for something. PeterKa (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
That's not how the British system works. Boris's national net approval is irrelevant. Theresa May went in to the 2017 election with a bigger approval gap - and fell flat on her face in the election.
Each of the 650 parliamentary constituencies votes for an MP. The leader of the party which is most likely to be able to form a working government - usually the leader of the party with the most MPs - is appointed as Prime Minister and forms a government. If no party gets more than 325 MPs, two or more of the minority parties can agree a coalition with varying degrees of formality eg David Cameron's coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2010 and Theresa May's coalition with the Democratic Unionist Party in 2017. However, even with a coalition but without a significant parliamentary majority, the PM has his hands tied from day one - eg Theresa May.
Boris has got off to a terrible start: he set a new record in getting a Parliamentary beating; he has purged some of his most experienced parliamentarians, weakening the talent pool at the top of the party; he is seeing defections at every level; he is starting to lose the BoJo va-va-voom (pizzazz, I think you Americans say); his allies and supporters in the MSM are openly questioning his judgement; the opposition parties starting to coalesce into a "Rebel Alliance".
The main thing in his favour is the personal incompetence of Jeremy Corbyn (ironically the only party to be consistently personally committed to leaving the EU and arguably a major player in splitting the pro-EU faction from the inside). If an able and clear pro-EU MP - eg Kier Starmer - were to take over the Labour Party, we would have a socialist government by Christmas.
We are very, very vulnerable but anyone who has pointed this out over the last two years is treated like Cassandra in the Greek legend.Rafael (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
That's right. To thumbnail it for American readers: There is no direct election of Prime Minister; the party that forms a government sits as an American convention, caucus, or the Electoral College and elects a leader to head it. The only citizens who ever voted for any Prime Minister are those in his/her respective district. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:27, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
I am getting my British news from this article by Daniel Hannan. When Prime Minister Spencer Percieval was assasinated in 1812, nobody much noticed. But a modern PM has a major media profile by definition and thus has to care about his approval/disapproval numbers. PeterKa (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
The point is, it's a party system. You vote for a party and your own rep. That's it. The party then sorts out leaders among themselves without any input from the public. And these leaders need to work with and forge coalitions with other parties. It's not a winner-take-all system. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:15, 7 September 2019 (EDT)

Hong Kongians new demands

I met someone on Twitter passing out news about Hong Kong.

Carrie Lam has promised to propose withdrawing the extradition bill. But that is over a month away, and she could renege on the promise. The delay would serve to disperse focus from the promise, and if she reneges, consume the energy of the united Hong Kongians through the disorienting remobilization of the union that would be necessary.

The union has made four more demands to insure Lam remains in earnest and does not exploit the delay to cause attrition of the union's focus and the felt interest of the rest of the world who are watching:

Five Demands - Not One Less

  1. Completely withdraw extradition bill
  2. Retract the proclamation that the protests were riots
  3. Withdraw criminal charges against all protesters
  4. Thoroughly investigate abuse of powers by the police
  5. Immediately implement dual universal suffrage

VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 04:37, 6 September 2019 (EDT)

So many pundits think Xi Jinping is a master strategist, but IMO he has been stumbing badly lately. Hong Kongers just want to live under rule of law in their own city. Xi's response is to have subway passengers beaten with sticks on camera. If he just replaced Lam with someone more sympathic, he'd be halfway to resolving the crisis.
Xi retaliated against Trump's tariffs by refusing to buy American soybeans. This is a silly shoot-yourself-in-the-foot sort of vindictiveness. Without soybeans, Chinese pig farmers have been feeding their poor pigs contaminated slop. The resulting epidemics have killed a third of the pigs in China. The local price of pork has doubled. Pork is pretty important in China and lately news stations have been showing videos housewives fighting over it. PeterKa (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
Here's my prediction: the mainland will back down on extradition, and over the next few years will turn Hong Kong into a dumping ground for all kinds of socially undesirables and criminals until Hong Kongers demand an extradition bill requiring the mainland to take them back. Carrie Lam will be rewarded with a seat on the mainland Politburo.
This is generally how things have always worked out in leftist and socialist societies. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:52, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
The Hong Kong media is now literally under attack, with fire bombs thrown at the home of pro-democracy media mogul Jimmy Lai yesterday. Hong Kong represents only 3 percent of China's GDP nowadays. In 1983, it was 12 percent of the Chinese economy. But that didn't stop Deng Xiaoping from holding the Hong Kong economy hostage in the "currency crisis" and forcing British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to agree to a return on his terms. Hong Kong is currently experiencing the largest real estate bubble anywhere in history. A young couple that wants to buy a home of their own has to leave the city.
We see protests in China and we think about Tiananmen. But not every China protest story has a sad ending. In 2003, Hong Kong had enormous protests against "Article 23." Chinese leader Hu Jintao responded by firing Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa and by making other concessions. Chinese rule was modestly popular in Hong Kong for the next decade or so. PeterKa (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
That was at the time of MFA (Most Favored Nation status). China's economic growth exploded at the expense of U.S. wealth exfiltration to China. U.S. did not compete as one percent of GDP was allocated to the War on Terror. China adopted a "be nice" policy to win support among the population for the success of Communist party policy.
Now the CCP wants Shanghai to be a be a global and financial capital, and to transfer all that wealth from Hong Kong to Shanghai, as the globalist house of cards comes crashing down. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:08, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
The Chinese leadership has various factions which are not well understood. The protests in 2003 were provoked when hardliners headed by First Secretary Zeng Qinghong attempted to implement Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law. Over the course of the protests, President Hu Jintao's reformist faction gained the upper hand. Xi Jinping, China's top leader since 2012, is Zeng's handpicked successor as head of the hardline faction. PeterKa (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
Times have changed. Riding the gravy train to prosperity by access to the U.S. consumer market is history; no Democrat running for President, nor Congress itself, proposes undoing the direction Trump has set (as the Chosen One) in regards to U.S.-China trade policy. The CCP made Xi president for life in anticipation of this radical shift in the terrain. Xi will change with the times, as well. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:27, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
I been watching these protests outside the U.S. Consulate for hours. The crowd is singing London Bridge is Falling Down and chanting Yankee Come Home. It's heartbreaking. 13:10, 8 September 2019 (EDT)

Am I the only one who is tempted to agree with Beijing’s claim that the protests are an attempt at a Deep State-sponsored colour revolution?--Geopolitician (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

I read that at Moon over Alabama, too. They claim Tienanmen Square was color revolution, too, and that sanctions were put on afterward, which is totally false. Rather, Brent Scowcroft flew to Beijing and toasted the Butchers of Beijing the day afterward, assuring them the globalist plans would move forward (Board members of Walmart at the time, like Hillary Clinton, profited immensely from selling cheap Chinese manufactured junk and destroying American jobs).
No sanctions were ever imposed, no compliance with human rights pre-conditions were ever discussed or imposed, and China was granted Most Favored Nation trade status on schedule.
So you can't believe everything you read. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:52, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
And yet there are certain factions of the Deep State who want Xi gone because they want the US to be in charge of a New World Order, rather than China. If this is a colour revolution, it is probably those factions who are behind it. And yes, I do believe they are willing to go to war with China over this.--Geopolitician (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

Bolton out

This is about efforts to jump start Iranian nuclear talks. Come election day, the U.S. will be making nice with North Korea and Iran. Trump is the Peace candidate; his critics are nuclear warmongers. The details for a world of peace, love, and cooperation will have to wait til Trump's 2nd term ., RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

We should be making Iran an ally, at least for now. We’re supporting the wrong side in the Gulf crisis, and it’s time that we treat Saudi Arabia like the we currently do Iran. Hopefully, Netanyahu will accept this reversal of American foreign policy. I’d hate to see the US-Israel special relationship fall apart over this. --Geopolitician (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
That sounds like wishful thinking. Saudi Arabia, the third largest defense budget on the planet surpassing Russia, is a U.S. proxy and Pentagon front organization. There's no untangling that alliance anytime soon. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia are joined at the hip.
As long as the nation state of Saudi Arabia exists, it will remain a U.S. ally. When we speak of the U.S. defense budget being X times bigger than the rest of the world combined, you really have to add in the Saudi defense budget as well to get a clearer picture. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:27, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

Saudi Arabia

We are joined at the hip because the neocons want to keep the (unconstitutional) petrodollar scam going. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has been using that as leverage to hold our economy hostage. Either we do what they say, or they devalue the dollar and destroy the US economy. And if we really get them mad, they unleash their al-Qaeda and ISIS "bad cops" to bring us to our knees through sheer terror. We must not tolerate these acts of geopolitical blackmail. It's time for a (very nasty) break-up.--Geopolitician (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
Nah. You gotta look at the bigger picture. We didn't build up the third largest defense establishment to have it used against us. Only liberals and Democrats would make such a stupid argument. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:24, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
I am looking at the bigger picture. The petrodollar agreement was an illegal trade deal orchestrated by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger which replaced the gold standard with an oil standard controlled by the Saudi-dominated OPEC through oil price manipulation. Almost everything that has gone wrong with our foreign policy since then can be traced back to that deal. The deal is also partly to blame for our inbility to balance the budget, because it established the dollar as a global reserve currency, which means we have to keep printing money indefinitely in order to avoid a global recession. The petrodollar deal has brought us to our knees, and the Saudis know it. But unlike other countries, the Saudis aren’t willing to re-negotiate this deal. Any re-negotiation would destroy its quest for a global caliphate. No, they would rather sponsor assassinations, unleash terrorists on the whole world, and start major wars to keep the status quo. We have no reason to treat them as anything but a mortal enemy. They have the blood of thousands of Americans on their hands. --Geopolitician (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
Without doing a deep dive into specifics, I'd say you just put your finger on a big reason why we're joined at the hip (since fracking, the balance has shifted much more toward the U.S., who now can dictate to the Saudi's what the world oil price should be). However, you seem to follow the school of thought that the Saudi government and bureaucracy functions, or has power and control, analogous to Western nations. Saudi oligarchs, and others in the Gulf, have an amazing degree of freedom and independence to act on the world stage apart from the Saudi government and policy of the Saudi ruling regime. This comes from its base law - Shariah - which does not recognize man made regimes (same is true in virtually all Islamic Republics; only the most secular regimes are run by tyrants who follow Western models of a modern police or administrative state).
The Saudi ruling clan are basically the first among equals, whom the other tribal leaders defer to in the area of foreign policy since that is what brought them such prosperity. However, many of these other oligarchs and tribal chiefs still can have their own foreign policy, arm terrorists outside their borders, etc., which is really just an issue of Saudi domestic politics. If the ruling clan blanketly tried to restrain them, that would be a rejection of their own legitimacy under Shariah as guardians of the Holy Places.
When you speak of "sponsor assassinations, unleash terrorists", etc., yes, you are referring to what we in the West call "Saudi citizens" or "Saudi organizations" or "Saudi companies" etc. But they are not executing the policy of the Saudi ruling clan, i.e., the "Saudi government" ("There is one God but Allah, and Mohammad is his Prophet;" Islam does not teach government by men, so the Saudis walk a fine line holding any legitimacy over the territory of the Arabian Peninsula, or as Keepers of the Shrines in the Islamic world. And don't tell me, "Screw their Islamic traditions, we should create a power vacuum and impose a Western style secular or Christian regime over the Islamic Holy Places"). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:39, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
First off, you seem to believe that it's only certain tribes that support terrorism. That's not true. The central government itself has sponsored terrorism in the past, and it continues to do so today. And even if it didn't, the fact that it even allows other tribes to sponsor terrorism (with the help of princes acting on their own accord) without consequence is a sign of tacit approval. The US and the Saudi system of government in its current form cannot peacefully co-exist. If we want Wahhabi terrorism to stop, we must give the Saudis an ultimatum: Either break ties with the rogue tribes and shut down all terrorist-supporting institutions such as the Muslim World League, or we ally with Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and other anti-Saudi countries in the region and we jointly pursue a policy of containment against you.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
Again, look at the bigger picture. Why did the Pentagon clone itself in a country with a population smaller than California? And the Pentagon didn't do this on its own - it was the State Department and Congress. The Pentagon functions in the Middle East, dba Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia recruits and hires for its armed services and mercenary groups from all over he Arab and Islamic world (typically Egyptians, with vast manpower reserves attracted by high wages). The U/S/ and Saudi Arabia jointly do training. It's better than sending Americans to die in some stupid war.
Some ideological vetting occurs depending on the mission. Iran remains the bad guy until it gives up its anti-American, anti-Israeli, and anti-Saudi views. This is probably a long way off, since the older generation which is dying off now, was schooled in war from its earliest existence (1980-1988).
I agree wholeheartedly - the Iranian people and the U.S. are natural allies. But you can thank idiot Democrats in the Carter years for this mess they left as their legacy. And I see no indication, whatsoever, that idiot Democrats who speak on foreign policy today have learned a thing from their mistakes. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:14, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
You seem to be abiding by the premise that Iran is the bad guy. Iran is not the bad guy. It may be a bad guy, but it's not the bad guy. The Saudis are the bad guys. They are the ones who need to be contained, not Iran. At this point, I would be more than happy to ally with Iran, even if the current regime is in power and even if it's still anti-Israel (I'm starting to become anti-Israel myself because it's actively participating in a propaganda campaign falsely portraying Iran as the cause of all terrorism and smearing those who don't fall for it as being anti-Semitic). --Geopolitician (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
The Iranian government is the bad guy; the Saudi government is an American stooge regime that does nothing on its own. All it's actions are directed by the U.S. intelligence community. When it created ISIS, it was at the behest and direction of President Obama and John Brennan, the record has borne out. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:56, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
So in other words, you agree with me that the Saudis and the Deep State are tied at the hip. But you disagree with the premise that the Saudis are willing collaborators. When you start with the premise that they are puppets rather than willing collaborators, you're in a whole different world. If that premise is correct, then not only did the government know about 9/11 in advance (which I believe), but it (probably) also helped carry out or even ordered 9/11 (which I don't believe). Do you believe that?--Geopolitician (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
IMO, you're barking up the wrong tree again. I'm intimately familiar with all the events in Sudan, in Afghanistan, in Saudi Arabia, and in the White House leading up to 9/11, from about 1989 onwards. You're falling into the trap, again, of labeling Saudi oligarchs and Saudi citizens as "the Saudi government'. The Saudi government in fact cooperated extensively with CIA in the pre-9/11 period. The Saudi government itself attempted an assassination of bin Laden in Sudan (1996?) causing him to flee to Afghanistan (the CIA wanted to do it themselves, but the Saudi regime moreless talked them out of it and convinced the CIA of the wisdom of letting the Saudis do it).
Bin Laden signed onto the Iranian, anti-Saudi Muslim Unity Movement. There were other oligarchs in the Arabian Peninsula, which Western media repeatedly mislabels as "Saudis", but while they are (a) holders of Saudi passports, in fact (b) support the overthrow of the Saudi regime.
Iran is complicit with Al Qaeda, not the Saudi government. [4] As Iran was complicit in the Khobar Towers attack. Iran allowed the 9/11 hijackers to pass through Iran on forged passports.
The notion that the government of Saudi Arabia is complicit in 9/11 is liberal Democrat BS. Even such a seditious traitor as John Brennan (a man in the know - CIA Station Chief in Saudi Arabia in 1996) would never espouse such dangerous, bigoted and xenophobic crap. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:00, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
The 28 pages withheld from the 9/11 report detail what I alluded to above:
The Saudi ruling clan are basically the first among equals, whom the other tribal leaders defer to in the area of foreign policy since that is what brought them such prosperity. However, many of these other oligarchs and tribal chiefs still can have their own foreign policy, arm terrorists outside their borders, etc., which is really just an issue of Saudi domestic politics. If the ruling clan blanketly tried to restrain them, that would be a rejection of their own legitimacy..."
It is a difference of cultural idiom which Western and American (idiot) journalists are incapable of comprehending, and would only promote anti-Arab xenophobia. Until these basic misconceptions surrounding Saudi Arabia as a "nation state" akin to Western concepts of the nation state are corrected, those 28 pages will remain classified. Those pages do not point a finger at the Saudi government; they detail complicity of rich holders of "Saudi passports" and "Saudi citizenship" who, under Shariah law which grants the Saudi government legitimacy, the Saudi government is incapable of taking action against.
The name "Saudi Arabia' itself tells you as much; while a consensus existed in 1925 to give the new nation state the name "Saudi Arabia," a consensus lacked over its legitimacy to use the territory's proper name - Arabia or the Arabian Peninsula. It would be like renaming Arkansas, "Clinton Arkansas", or New York "Trump New York". RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:17, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
So in other words, what you are saying is that Saudi Arabia shouldn't be treated as a coherent entity. Okay, then. Then here's how Saudi Arabia can redeem itself. Become a coherent entity. Become a nation-state. Don't give a crap about what the other tribes think. If they want to rebel, crush them. Settle this nationalist vs. de facto autonomy conflict the way Lincoln did here in the US. Then the American people will finally take MbS' reforms seriously and get of Saudi Arabia's case. I'll admit MbS has taken steps in the right direction, but his lack of overall progress plus his jingoistic behavior towards other countries in the region make me greatly distrust him and have extremely strong doubts regarding his true intentions. Meanwhile, let's get out of the petrodollar system anyway. It's illegal to begin with. --Geopolitician (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
I think you need a better understanding of Islamic law and the extent of the Muslim world. Without Shariah, the Saudi ruling clan wouldn't exist. You're just calling for a power vacuum, chaos, and more needless bloodshed.
There have been proposals to create an international zone for Mecca and Medina. But even that has its own problems. Islam doesn't recognize, and is at war with, the concept of "global order" (unless, of coarse, it's under Allah and the Koran).
The Saudi king appoints the Grand Mufti of Medina, who is somewhat analogous to the Pope in Christiandom, albeit with less secular and more spiritual power (Warning: these are rough analogies I'm drawing here; a Muslim kid posted on Facebook his understanding that Donald Trump was the Pope of Christianity). Structurally, it's like the President appointing a Supreme Court Chief Justice. In fact, this system is controversial; in Iran the Supreme Council (akin to the Supreme Court) elects their supreme leader as Head of State - the Ayatollah. So you see there are two competing systems there. Sunnis, 90% of Muslims globally, tend to support the Saudi system, however there are violent dissenters from this system. While many oppose Shia Islam and Iran, some feel the Iranian system is closer to what the Prophet intended. Other violent dissenters don't.
Simply labeling people as bogeymen - the Saudis, MBS, the Ayatollah, bin Laden, etc etc etc - doesn't address any of these structural flaws that the successors of Mohammad have been grappling with for 1,500 years. Those types of criticisms are just liberal claptrap. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:31, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
Oh, I fully understand the role of Sunni-style Sharia in the existence of the Saudi "state." Although I do appreciate the level of detail in your reply. But regardless, if the House of Saud expects the status quo to remain forever, it's totally delusional. At this point, it has three choices: (A) Become a coherent nation state and actually start acting like a civilized government; (B) Dissolve the country USSR-style and be content with having less land to control while the other tribes wither away and kill each other; or (C) Take an extremely high-risk gamble and try to maintain the status quo indefinitely, a move that likely will eventually cause the entire rest of the region to rise up against it and tear the country to pieces in an imperialist scramble that may well start another world war. There's no escape from those options. That possibility ended years ago. --Geopolitician (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2019 (EDT)


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Who's in control?

Bolton lost his influence in the White House after Trump blamed him for Venezuela back in May.[5] Now it's all Trump and his instincts. Who advised Trump to meet with the Taliban at Camp David? That's the guy who should be fired. Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis recently came out with a great book bashing Obama's foreign policy. When Mattis and Tillerson were in the cabinet, I had the sense someone who knew what they were doing was in charge. PeterKa (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
"Mike Pompeo Is Bigger Than the Pentagon: In the nine months since Jim Mattis resigned as defense secretary, one man has become the public leader of President Trump’s national security policy: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo." Whren Trump took office, he relied heavily on Pentagon personal (Flynn, Mathis, Kelly, etc) and didn't trust the State Department and CIA who he was at war with and were actively engaged in a coup against him. Pompeo has brought both under control. The DOJ remains rogue, and the Pentagon itself has some internal problems. But its taken more than two years to gain control over the swamp, which is still far from being complete.
Pompeo is Trump's Dick Cheney now in foreign policy and national security. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:01, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Trump comments on Bolton

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

Valerie Plame

Lying scum Valerie Plame is back, this time running for congress in New Mexico. Her latest ad accuses Dick Cheney aide Scooter Libby of "outing" her, thus making her a victim of Trump, who pardoned Libby last year. This claim is ridiculous at so many levels. Libby was prosecuted by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed by James Comey. The Plame Affair was thus a precursor to the Mueller investigation. Plame's cover was supposedly blown in 2003 when columnist Michael Novak wrote, "[Joe] Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Novak didn't get any of this information from Libby. He learned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA from State Department official Richard Armitage. He found Plame's supposedly supersecret maiden name by looking it up in Who's Who in America.
The name issue was huge at the time because the publication of Plame's name supposedly violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Like the Logan Act used against Michael Flynn, this is a largely inoperative law that likely violates the First Amendment. The peculiar status of these two laws makes them common topics of discussion in law school. If you look at the text of IIPA, it is hard to see why it was triggered by Novak's column. It's a "Phillip Agee Act" that is tailored narrowly to the activities this rogue CIA agent. PeterKa (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2019 (EDT)

Richard Armitage outed Plame. And yes, the Plame Affair was a dress rehearsal for Mueller probe. It was initiated as an attack on "Bush's brain", Karl Rove. The first action was for Comey to get AG John Ashcroft to recuse himself, so Clinton crony Patrick Fitzgerald could be appointed Special Counsel. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:02, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
Just as the Mueller investigation was made possible by Trump's decision to leave Comey as director of the FBI, the Plame affair was a result of Bush leaving Clinton loyalist George Tenet at the helm of the CIA. Tenet knew that Muslims were training to fly jets on simulators in Minnesota and kept it to himself. Despite authorizing the torture of Al Qaeda terrorists, Tenet remains a hero to the liberal media for referring the Novak/Plame matter to the Department of Justice for an IIPA investigation. PeterKa (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
The pattern is all too familiar. James Comey and Patrick Fitzgerald are prominent in both. First, target a GOP president; second, get the GOP's AG to recuse; third, failing to get the target, inflict as much damage on GOP appointees as possible and create a disincentive for anybody to serve on a GOP campaign or in a GOP administration.
In both cases, G.W. Bush and Trump, the target failed to win the popular vote, which serves as justification for Comey's lawbreaking and the current attack on the electoral college. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:29, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
The popular vote was never an issue in 2000. For liberals, it was an election decided by an overreaching Supreme Court. The court had a liberal majority at this time, but that didn't stop the media from treating it as a right-wing bogeyman. If the court had followed federal law, they would have left the issue up to Jeb Bush as governor. In 2016, Hillary tried to get the Electoral College to overturn Trump's election. So the popular vote certainly wasn't an issue at the time. All the same, it's an issue now. Perhaps we should shift to California-style nonpartison primaries and runoffs before this time bomb explodes.
Liberals advance two incompatible arguments regarding the 2016 election. They think the Russians stole the election from Hillary and they are also think they were cheated by the Electoral College. But the Electoral College is not a sneaky trick the Russians played on Hillary. It's always been public information, available to anyone who can read the constitution. During the campaign, Hillary's people often boasted of the "blue wall." That is to say, they believed that the Electoral College was so obviously biased in their favor that Republicans were wasting everyone's time by contesting the election at all. PeterKa (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
The popular vote was never an issue in 2000? On what planet? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:02, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
Watched Plame in a candidate forum with six other candidates tonite. Knowing NM's 3rd district, I doubt Plame can win a primary. There are two or three other very good candidates. Most importantly, she's a non-native gringa. The Chicanos of the 3rd district have lived there for over 400 years - before the Pilgrams landed at Plymouth Rock. They've heard every line of BS from white folks imaginable. I think getting Trent Toulouse's sister to stuff the ballot box for Plame is too tall of an order. She's running in the Senate primary anyway and will be distracted; but she'll meet the same fate as a gringa against Benny Ray Luhan (#4 in the U.S House leadership right now). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:03, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Wizard of Oz

Kamala may not have known it, but "the little guy behind the curtain" was supposed to symbolize Franklin Roosevelt, who used the machinations of the presidency (like the alphabet agencies) to portray the government as involved in vigorous action to boost the economy for the sake of commanding the economy past the Great Depression, just like the guy behind the curtain used the wizard apparition as a trick to bolster the authoritativeness of the commands the little guy was issuing to try to save Oz.

Although once discovered, the wizard did his best to help his guests with the gifts he gave them, but a command economy doesn't work in the long run (The movie was 6 years into Roosevelt's presidency and still in the Great Depression).

Hence, he thanked the group for their appreciation, but pointedly admitted, "I just don't make a very good wizard". VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 01:20, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

(I thought it pre-dated FDR) I go for the throat -- If Kamala exposed the Wizard, what does that make her, Todo? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:10, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
The book the movie is based on was published in 1900. The movie is full of references to the election of 1896. "Follow the yellow brick road" is a reference to the gold standard as advocated by President William McKinley. "Oz" is an abbreviation for ounces, as in troy ounces of gold. Dorothy represents the naive American people, nearly led astray by the wizard, who represents William Jennings Bryan, McKinley's Democratic opponent. The Wizard rules an "Emerald City." This is a city based on the fraud of greenback notes that only appear to have value. PeterKa (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
And the fraud of Big Gubmint Progressivism; the government can't give you a brain, only a diploma; it can't give you heart, only a timepiece; it can't give you courage, only pin a medal on your chest; and it can't give you a home. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 06:04, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
1896 was when the modern U.S. party structure emerged. That is to say, it was the first election fought over liberal versus conservative economic principles. The Republicans adopted free market economics while the Dems came under the spell of socialist something-for-nothing "populism," as it was called at the time. This is history that today's liberals have some problems with since the populists were the original segregationists. PeterKa (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
I read 1976 Libertarian presidential candidate Roger McBride's book, A New Dawn for America: The Libertarian Challenge in 1976. The book is dedicated to Todo, with an explanatory introduction. Excellent book, but I voted for Ford anyway (that communist POS John Brennan voted for Gus Hall while all this was going on). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:46, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

Mass incarceration saved black America

You'd better appreciate this column, RobS; Coulter customized it for you.

September 11, 2019

The left has the luxury of having lost the argument on crime for the past few decades and, as a consequence, the electorate has no recollection of the living nightmare produced by Great Liberal Ideas About Crime.

Brooklyn hipsters blithely go about their business, completely unaware that their trendy neighborhoods were war zones in the 1970s, 1980s -- and well into the 1990s. Walking those streets meant you were taking your life into your hands.

Thanks to Republicans’ aggressive law-and-order policies, today, most U.S. cities are astonishingly safe. Crime is at its lowest level in decades. Life is possible again!

But Joe Biden, the leading Democratic candidate for president, is said to be hurt by the fact that, as The New York Times puts it, “he championed the 1994 crime bill that many experts now associate with mass incarceration.”

Point One: What’s the matter with “mass incarceration”?

Are we supposed to stop incarcerating people who commit crimes? Is that the argument? If there are hundreds of innocent people in prison, why do liberals keep giving us the fake sob stories -- the cases they lie about, forcing me to look up the facts, as illustrated in several of my recent columns?

Point Two: By “many experts,” the Times means “raving lunatics we keep on speed-dial for when we need a quote we agree with.”

In fact, the only theory by which Biden’s crime bill -- technically the “Clinton Crime Bill” -- attacked crime was by ushering in the first Republican Congress in 40 years, as a result of including the "assault weapons" ban in the bill.

In the very next election, just two months after the bill was signed, long-serving Democrats lost their seats, one after another after another.

Apart from that, the 1994 Crime Bill didn’t do much. There was “midnight basketball”; the “Violence Against Women Act” (feminist nonsense, later held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court); loads of pointless federal funding for local law enforcement; innumerable death penalties added for capital offenses committed on this or that federal property; and the aforementioned “assault weapons ban,” or “Gift From God to the GOP.”

But Biden and Clinton were at least savvy enough to know that Democrats had to try to steal the crime issue from Republicans, even if only with meaningless gestures.

Not today’s Democrats! Biden’s opponents seem to be competing for the title of “Candidate Most Likely to Return Murder and Mayhem to Our Streets”!

As with all the left’s insane ideas, they’re packaging this as an attack on “racism.” Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, for a reminder of who bears the brunt of cretinous liberal crime policies.

In the late 1980s, it was the Congressional Black Caucus that was demanding tougher policies in the war on drugs. At a three-day Congressional Black Caucus Legislative Weekend in September 1989, Rep. Charlie Rangel held hearing after hearing on the devastation crack cocaine was raining on the black community.

The CBC being Democrats, the gist of the hearing was to attack President George H.W. Bush ... for not fighting the war on drugs with sufficient ferocity. Thus, Rev. Jesse Jackson testified:

“(P)resident Bush's plan ... greatly underestimates the military arsenals and viciousness of the drug lords and pushers who not only have deadly firepower from AK-47s to Uzis, superior to the weapons of the police, they have a reckless attitude and no respect for human life. ...

“(Drug) pushers are terrorists. Those who consume drugs are engaged in treason against themselves, their families and their communities. ...

“We demand a right to volunteer in the army -- (audience applause) -- to fight a war on drugs.”

Throughout the 1980s, The New York Times was full of reports about the scourge of crack cocaine in neighborhoods “where Americans -- especially minorities -- do worst.”

There were stories of dealers preying on “poor blacks” who “coughed up enough $5 bills” for a vial of crack; an account of two little girls in the Bronx, children of crack-addicted mothers, “resorting to prostitution and falling prey to a (65-year-old) neighborhood man for $5 or $10”; and reports of dealers who “offered two-for-one deals and 'Mother's Day' specials timed to coincide with the arrival of welfare checks.”

A Washington Post-ABC News Poll, taken after President Bush gave a speech in 1989 announcing his “War on Drugs,” showed that 68% of black respondents approved of his plan -- or six times as many as voted for him. While only about half of white respondents characterized drugs as a “crisis” in their neighborhoods, two-thirds of African Americans did.

And then, in 1993, Rudy Giuliani became mayor of New York and saved the “ungovernable city." By the end of his two terms in office, murders in the city -- mostly blacks killing other blacks -- had been slashed from about 2,500 a year to 900. With subsequent mayors continuing his policies, whether with enthusiasm or out of fear of the voters, the murder rate has continued to fall.

Thousands of black people are alive today who otherwise would not be because of Giuliani’s tough-on-crime policies. As the Rev. Calvin Butts, pastor of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church, put it, without Giuliani, “we would have been overrun.”

If Jordan Peele wants a new idea for a conspiracy movie involving race, how about this one: Powerful liberals conspire to kill off black Americans and replace them with Mexicans by pushing lenient crime policies that put violent criminals into black neighborhoods, while simultaneously demanding open-borders immigration policies.

He can pick up some script ideas this Thursday, at the third Democratic presidential debate.


For fair educational use only, namely in response to an opinion professed on these talk pages to be valid that took the opposite view. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 02:01, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Ahhh., I can't believe she left out this gem. I recall fondly debates I had with communists Clintonistas Democrats about "100,000 New Cops on the Streets," which they thought was wonderful, but only paid salaries for two years (til Clinton was re-elected of coarse), then dumped the permanent payroll cost and benefits on local communities who couldn't afford it.
And the "Violence Against Women Act", another Biden scam. Who could possibly oppose violence against women (other than the Supreme Court)? Coulter only tells half the story; after it was struck down, Biden re-wrote it to where it doesn't resemble anything like original or even address "violence against women." But the names sounds nice to boast about on the campaign stump - that's all that matters. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:47, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Epstein appears to have used institute of technology media laboratory to launder ill-gotten gains from procuring means to sexual abuse offenses

Lol, what a geek. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 02:21, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

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

Like a shiny gun, Democrats say they've holstered that issue, but when people have gathered to listen to them, you suddenly notice that that supposedly forgotten weapon is being brandished about again by every liberal. Total troll. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 02:59, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

It's in the courts; Nadler needs an impeachment resolution to pursue certain subpoenas for his fishing expedition. The courts will decide the matter. But of coarse we won't get the issue resolved in the courts til after the election. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:30, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

I beg all of your pardons. I had assured myself that impeachment was extreme, but I didn't realize the magnitude of the situation:

"If we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." —Congressman Al Green, Texas (D).

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 02:41, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

Al Green is a communist. He's from a district that is 94% communist. He can say what he likes, as is wont and his habit. He's preaching to the liberal choir, with no consequences at the ballot box. Other Democrats envy him for that.
Al Green is typical of the type of Democrat who can't imagine that there are people in America who are not communists. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:48, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
"Impeachment until you don't have the votes". - Hypocrite Diaries.Conservative (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
Here's the situation, based on a Nixon era precedent; Congress goes on a fishing expedition looking for something, anything. They subpoena people and documents. The people say, "That's not related to the business of government." The congress then has to pass a full House Resolution for an impeachment inquiry, and refer it to committee. The Committee then is vested with extraordinary powers to go into court and say, "This is of vital importance to the business of government." The court then orders the person or agency to comply.
The Committee right now is on a fishing expedition with no more than it's oversight powers. The Committee itself has to draft a Resolution and bring it to the floor for vote to grant it extraordinary impeachment powers. They got 137 votes from safe blue districts. The purple districts are scared witless of even talking about impeachment.
It'll remain a non-issue no matter how much 137 deep blue district voters (about 45 million voters) and the commie/lib fake news media talk about it. Experience shows it will blow up in their faces. But we're dealing with idiots here, after all, so what can one expect? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:08, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
Here, look at Al Green's district: he's had 2 Republican challengers in the past 5 elections. In 2016 he won 100% with 32,000 votes; in 2018, he 80% with 136,000 votes. This man has no clue what America looks like outside his district or Washington. In this man's world, you get what you want by bullying and intimidation. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:26, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
Especially in Green's case, the less you study the liberal sludge involved with his office-holding the better (watch them try to skip the full vote to begin the impeachment inquiry). I was just admiring Green's creative way of carrying out his commitment to enforcing justice against President Trump. His legal grounds for the impeachment: "Article 1: If the President is not impeached, he is likely to be re-elected."
I don't think "possible re-election" meets the constitutional standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors", do you? VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:57, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
In lib-think "possible re-election" is a crime for which we all can be held accountable for.
I'll admit to a secret: I've always studied closely the rhetoric used by congresspeople of both parties who run unopposed and serve for decades; it's an insight into the heart and sole of both parties. Wishy-washy moderates change with the wind. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:45, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
I admire your courage, but it will take you just that long to get through the liberal kind. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 18:10, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

Magna Carta Day

When I lived in France, I took a ferry to Britain and drove around in a car with French plates. A gas station attendant looked at the plates and told me, "We are all one in the EU now." Maybe I don't look so American after all. With Britain (hopefully) leaving Europe and joining a U.S.-led trading block, it's time to create symbolism for a union of the English-speaking peoples, as Churchill would have put it. An obvious place to begin is "Magna Carta Day," June 15, 1215. By putting the monarchy under various laws, including habeas corpus, the Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Liberties) established the principle of rule of law. The charter was the English-speaking world's first constitution and created an independent English state (that is to say, an England independent of the Norman French). The holiday would make a great Johnson-Trump joint announcement. See "The Case for a British-American Trade Deal" by Daniel Hannan. PeterKa (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

What was remarkable was that the assemblage of lords somehow possessed this spark of political genius while they remained so uneducated. It's the worst-spelled document I know of. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 05:34, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

Third Democratic debate

The third Democratic debate was held in Houston on Thursday. This time, there were "only" ten candidates. Sadly, neither of the two most interesting candidates, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson, made the cut.
Former Vice President Joe Biden was the only debater who showed any awareness that the constitution limits the authority of a president. No one else objected to U.S. Senator Kamala Harris's proposed gun grabbing executive order, an idea that certainly got the crowd excited. Stock up on ammo, folks. The Dems are gung ho for a civil war. The people who think stop and frisk is racist draw the line at legal gun ownership.
For whatever reason, Biden decided it was high time to tell blacks how to improve their parenting: “Play the radio, make sure the television—excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the—make sure that kids hear words, a kid coming from a very poor school, a very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time we get there.” Hey, that's good old Electable Joe talking there. He was given a chance to explain, but wisely chose to ramble on about Venezuela instead. This article makes a stab at trying to figure out what he might have meant.
The media is convinced that "Running Joke" Warren won the debate. From a Republican point of view, it all sounds too good to be true. Jimmy Dore explains the problem in "Why Elizabeth Warren Would Lose To Trump." Aside from not actually being an American Indian, Warren's greatest weakest is her "Aren't we progressives are so smart?" shtick. It doesn't go over well with blacks or moderates, at least not if Warren's election results in Massachusetts are anything to go by. PeterKa (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2019 (EDT)

I like Joe Biden's policies better than the other Democrats, but Andrew Yang is the most likeable. Biden's age is going to be his achilles' heel. Trump (and his surrogates) would likely scuttle Biden just like they did with Jeb "low energy" Bush. If I was forced to decide at this point, it will be be Trump vs. Warren.Conservative (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
Trump v. Warren is basically a Trump v. Hillary rematch. Same demographics. Same organisations. Hillary already is Warren's chief advisor. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:25, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
Biden's awareness of limited government, while a disadvantage to his ability to promise federal government largesse last night, was offset by his announcement of a new, generous policy of leniency toward criminal offenders:
“Nobody should be in jail for a non-violent crime." - Joe Biden
VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 22:30, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
Yep. He wants to open the jail cells of all the car thieves and home burglars, so they can support their dope habits, for which they can's be jailed. Makes perfect sense, and earns Biden the label 'socialist'. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:08, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
I thought about it more. Joe Biden has been through 3 debates and he is still the leader. He is more likeable to most Democrats as a whole than all the other candidates. He is also more moderate. It will probably be a Trump vs. Biden race. And age is a very delicate issue. Julian Castro found out that the hard way. Trump gets away with bringing up Biden's age because he is older himself and his is known as a brawler/mud wrestler in his rhetoric. It is just Trump being Trump. Many people are amused by it.Conservative (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
I don't see his health holding up. At the appropriate moment, Biden and Sanders will step aside. This theoretically will unite both the Clinton and Sanders factions of 2016. Warren may not have offended minorities yet, to the extent Hillary did; but minorities see her as the fraud that she is. None are enthusiastic about her (her rhetoric is meaningless). She wants to bribe them with free stuff, which more and more young minority voters see as an insult. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:03, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
As I see it, the race will eventually narrow to a moderate (Biden) and a leftist (Warren). Since the party has more leftists than moderates, Warren will emerge as the nominee. She is a fake from head to toe, and not only with respect to ancestry. She was a conservative Republican until she was 47 years old. At that point, she flipped left for cynical career reasons. The best refutation of her current political philosophy can be found in her own book, The Two-Income Trap. PeterKa (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
In an election year, the saying is "People start paying attention after Labor Day". That's a full year off. Voters will have their say in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina. Polls, media hype, etc. are meaningless at this stage (especially national polls). It's all about money right now, the ability to fundraise, and put on a good showing in New Hampshire and after. Those whose donors dry up, drop out. Those who make it to the New Hampshire top three, move on. Debate performance and polls right now mean nothing.
Liz Warren is 69 years old. The idea that people will vote for Warren cause she's only 69, but Biden's 76 and Bernie is 78 is ludicrous. Look for voters, young and old voters alike to, jump on Gabbard or Buttigieg, maybe even Booker. At least one will emerge. Gabbard and Booker seem sane and likable, at least. Buttigieg's youth is all he's got going for him, the rest is too risky. Harris, like Buttigieg, is a weak candidate but has a powerful machine. it's all about holding onto the donors and increasing fundraising right now. The FEC reports mean more than polls. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:52, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
[Smacks head] Gabbard doesn't have any money, good odds and she wasn't even allowed to debate! And the Democratic voters are just now finally catching on that Booker is a phony! And I wouldn't even have bothered doing any statistics or analysis at all this summer had somebody told me there would be someone whose odds would grow every week! Does the tortoise and the hare ring a bell? That's a pretty hard strategy to miss! I think RobS wishes Elizabeth Warren weren't popular, but instead throws a contrarian curve ball just so he doesn't have to talk about her! VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:12, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
Iowa is on Febuary 3. That's less than five months away. If we go by the polls, there is a top tier of candidates that consists of Biden, Sanders, and Warren.[6]
Rob is taking the also rans too seriously. That schoolgirl giggling at Obama's "Yes, we can" slogan isn't going to help Harris break out. Gabbard is the best looking candidate, sharp as a tack, and certainly my favorite. But she is not factor in the race. Apparently, you have to be an abortion enthusiast to be taken seriously in the Democratic Party these days. PeterKa (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
Look at two factors: social media and minorities. (1) minorities are the moderates in the Democrat party. Warren is both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in one body. Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton were beloved by moderate Democrats, i.e minorities. Biden is afloat right now by moderates, i.e. minority voters. But that is tepid (more evidence minorities are still not enamored by Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders). Combining the Sanders/Warren vote together gives you a commanding 37-40%. These are aged hippies and activist college student votes. When Biden folds, the Democrat minority vote will melt away in three directions: (a) to the Warren/Sanders faction; (b) to Donald Trump; and (c) apathy.
(2) Social media and internet now is the principle medium voters use to gather information. While television media (CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc.) and their print media aligned polls (ABC/Washington Post, NBC/Wall Street Journal etc.) still try to manipulate the outcome, mistrust and disgust in both Big Media and polling organizations is at a universal, bi-partisan all time high. Social media dominates. And fundraising off of social media is the so-called "lower tier"'s only hope for a genuine grassroots movement. Revolution is afoot. Don't count Gabbard, Buttigieg, or Booker out when common, ordinary people finally have their say in February. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:24, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren begins to pivot a month before in January 2020 and has the experience as a Republican to appeal to those elusive moderates as a cynical centrist, and Hillary's internal polls will tell her whether to enter the race in December, like Gary Hart did in 1987. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 17:58, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

<-- Warren is the product of a coalition built in the 1970s by Reps. Ron Dellums and Patsy Schroeder of middle class suburban white women and the black civil rights movement. Many blacks then, and now, feel Dellums betrayed the civil rights movement by allowing it to be hijacked by white feminists (we see the same resentments today among blacks and feminists who believe the civil rights movement has been hijacked by gays). Others argue (the dominant faction now) that it's all about coalition building (identity politics). Warren, no political neophyte, is aware of these divisions and resentments. She is pursuing the time-worn remedy of offering free stuff, as Lyndon Johnson did, to buy votes and loyalty. However African Americans have come a long way since the 1960s; they themselves have mastered coalition building and coalition politics. 2008 was a sea change, in that they trust no coalition leaders unless they are in the drivers seat. They are not going back to the days of Johnson, Carter, Mondale, Bill Clinton or any other who makes promises, and relegates them to back of the bus upon election.

There is now an educated, professional, moderate, black middle class. Accepting 'free stuff' they regard as an insult, if not openly racist slap that blacks are too stupid to fend for themselves. Having come of age now, and seeing themselves in the drivers seat of the Democrat party, anything less than full control they view as a step backwards. Yes, there is a division among blacks which they hide well; but there also is an emerging consensus among blacks that promises of free stuff is racist, and you see it in the lack of black support for Sanders, Warren, Yang, or Harris. The only support for 'free stuff' comes from the liberal white privileged middle class.

Let's look at two: student debt forgiveness - rich whites will benefit disproportionately; internet access for rural red state America, targeting white Trump voters. Either way, if you promise blacks free stuff you insult them by saying they are lazy and incompetent, and when you promise white voters free stuff from the public treasury you discriminate against blacks. Blacks themselves see this and understand this.

A third: a $200 monthly pay increase, disproportionately for retired white seniors, whose cost burden will be imposed on minority youth.

All of Warren's promises and rhetoric is racially divisive. RobSDe Plorabus Unum

Missing in action

Has anyone noticed what has been missing from all of the Democrat debates so far?
There has not been a single American flag on stage for all three debates
Not in Detroit
Not in Miami
And not last night in Houston
What country are they trying to represent?
[chin holding, pondering emoji] —Charlie Kirk

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 08:58, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

The only people watching debates are college aged activists. All the hard left rhetoric is geared toward them. It is a competition for 18 -25 year old activist volunteers, not even a competition for moderate, middle of the road Democrat voters, let alone American voters. Professor Liz Warren, who speaks their language, has a natural advantage. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:56, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

Gregory Cheadle

The guy Trump called, "my African-American [friend]" is leaving the GOP! Does this mean anything, or is the MSM overhyping it? Also, what's with all the RINOs?!

Did you read it in the MSM? Probably BS not worth listening to or following up. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:31, 15 September 2019 (EDT)

Getting around Google algorithms

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

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

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

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

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

What does Trump want?

The know-it-alls with opinions and reputations of their own are gone: H.R. McMaster, Rex Tillerson, Jim Mattis, John Kelly, and now John Bolton. There was talk of policy differences between Trump and Bolton, but Robert O'Brien's views are not different from Bolton's in any obvious way. But as a fresh face, he's less likely to assert himself. That's apparently the way Trump likes it: "I make all the decisions. [The advisors] don’t have to work.” Will we bomb Iran? What will the gun control proposal contain? We are in a perpetual cliffhanger episode. Everyone is awaiting Trump's decision and no one has any idea what he might do next. After the hysterical level of coverage he received during the campaign and the Mueller investigation, you'd think Trump would want his life to settle down a bit. As he gets on in years, he's going have to learn to delegate. See "An unshackled Trump finally gets the presidency he always wanted."
When Obama was president, foreign policy was made by Ben Rhodes, an English major with no relevant qualifications. Cabinet positions were titles sold off to the highest bidder, who then monetized them. As for Obama himself, he spent his time watching ESPN and following celebrity gossip. The biggest difference is that Trump is a patriot. With Obama, you could never be sure whether he would side with the U.S. or Iran. PeterKa (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2019 (EDT)

What a pile garbage. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:44, 20 September 2019 (EDT)
After the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson wanted Napoleon, whose forces, at the time, occupied Spain, while France kept up the pretense that Spain was still independent, to sell him the Floridas as well. Napoleon played on Jefferson and his State Department by using the presumed-impending sale to advance the conception that he was unpredictable, and that Jefferson would do well to quickly take any offer made, if the terms of any offer were made at all, before it was indefinitely withdrawn for an unknown duration. The strategy had other benefits as well:
With this avowal, which Turreau understood as a sort of pledge that Jefferson would lean toward war with England rather than with France, the French minister was obliged to content himself; while he pressed on his Government the assurance that both the President and the secretary wished more than all else to obtain the Floridas. Such reports were little calculated to change the Emperor's course. Human ingenuity discovered but one way to break Napoleon's will, and this single method was that of showing power to break his plans.
In due time Armstrong received his instructions of May 2, and wrote June 10 to Champagny a note declining the proposed alliance, and expressing the satisfaction which his Government felt at hearing the Emperor's approval of "a cautionary occupation of the Floridas." Napoleon, who was still at Bayonne in the flush of his power, no sooner read this reply than he wrote to Champagny—
"Answer the American minister that you do not know what he means about the occupation of the Floridas; and that the Americans, being at peace with the Spaniards, cannot occupy the Floridas without the permission or the request of the King of Spain."
Armstrong, a few days afterward, was astonished by receiving from Champagny a note denying positively that any suggestion had ever been made to warrant an American occupation of the Floridas without an express request from the King of Spain: "The Emperor has neither the right nor the wish to authorize an infraction of international law, contrary to the interests of an independent Power, his ally and his friend." When Napoleon chose to deny a fact, argument was thrown away; yet Armstrong could not do otherwise than recall Champagny's own words, which he did in a formal note, and there left the matter at rest, writing to his Government that the change in tone had "no doubt grown out of the new relations which the Floridas bear to this government since the abdication of Charles IV."
For once Armstrong was too charitable. He might safely have assumed that Napoleon was also continuing the same coarse game he had played since April, 1803,—snatching away the lure he loved to dangle before Jefferson's eyes, punishing the Americans for refusing his offer of alliance, and making them feel the constant pressure of his will. —Henry Adams
VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 12:18, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
There is a lot to learn from this whole incident - including the fact that the purchase was paid in gold. Nowadays we'd just print more money to pay for Greenland, and no one would feel or burden the cost. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:45, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
Wait. The story was about the Floridas, not the Louisiana Purchase. Napoleon never got around to selling the Floridas, and a few months later the Spaniards revolted and re-acquired their country from Napoleon's brother, who had been running things, and deprived Napoleon of his military access to any of the Spanish colonies. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 00:06, 22 September 2019 (EDT)

Proportional representation and the Democratic nomination

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

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

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

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