Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(The subtext: Hosea 11:1)
(Confirmed: oops forgot link)
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1,039: Line 1,039:
 
:I recall Israel's 30th birthday, when Israel became a man (according to Jewish tradition). That was 40 years ago. If someone dared utter these sentences then in public, print, or broadcast, they would immediately be branded a Nazi. So, in part, it kinda depends on the ''Zeitgeist''.  Today for example scratching your butt without asking the gods of climate change to stave of the apocalypse makes one a Nazi. So I'm really confused and can't give any meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:42, 14 November 2019 (EST)
 
:I recall Israel's 30th birthday, when Israel became a man (according to Jewish tradition). That was 40 years ago. If someone dared utter these sentences then in public, print, or broadcast, they would immediately be branded a Nazi. So, in part, it kinda depends on the ''Zeitgeist''.  Today for example scratching your butt without asking the gods of climate change to stave of the apocalypse makes one a Nazi. So I'm really confused and can't give any meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:42, 14 November 2019 (EST)
 
::This is a reference to Hosea 11:1? "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." (ESV) [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:25, 14 November 2019 (EST)
 
::This is a reference to Hosea 11:1? "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." (ESV) [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:25, 14 November 2019 (EST)
 +
 +
==Confirmed==
 +
To understand the complete Russia collusion hoax and impeachment scheme, [https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/440730-how-the-obama-white-house-engaged-ukraine-to-give-russia-collusion read this John Solomon article from April 25] this year. Solomon states
 +
:''"The January 2016 gathering....brought some of Ukraine’s top corruption prosecutors and investigators face to face with '''members of former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ)....U.S. officials “kept talking about how important it was that all of our anti-corruption efforts be united,” said Andrii Telizhenko, then a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington tasked with organizing the meeting." '''
 +
 +
Eric Ciaramella signed Andrii Telizhenko (spelled Andrey) into the White House on January 19, 2016, ''per'' White House visitor logs obtained by Judicial Watch. ("telizhenko,andriy,g,U67540,100561,VA,1/19/16 10:57,D1101,1/19/16 12:53,,01/19/2016 12:00:00 AM,1/19/16 11:00,1/19/16 23:59,,1,KH,WIN,1/19/16 10:51,KH,Ciaramella,Eric,OEOB,230A,HARTWELL,KYLE,,,04/29/2016 07:00:00 AM +0000",,,," [https://archive.org/download/WHvisitorlogs_2010-16_surname/White-House-visitor-logs6_Sorr-Zyz.csv] [https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-white-house-visitor-logs-detail-meetings-of-eric-ciaramella/ Judicial Watch: White House Visitor Logs Detail Meetings of Eric Ciaramella.])
 +
 +
Solomon writes in April of this year:
 +
:''Americans’ objectives included two politically hot investigations: one that touched Vice President Joe Biden’s family and one that involved a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump.''
 +
Shut down the Biden case and frame Manafort. It's all right there. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 03:41, 14 November 2019 (EST)

Revision as of 02:53, 14 November 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
ND
.
SO
RT
Home
state
End of
month
June
26
8:57
pm
EDT
End of
month
Mon-
day,
Jul.
29,
2019
End of
month
Mon-
day,
Aug.
26,
2019
End of
month
Tues-
day,
Oct.
1,
2019
Mon-
day
Oct.
7,
2019
Mon-
day
Oct.
14,
2019
Sat-
urday
Oct.
19,
2019
Mon-
day
Oct.
28,
2019
Mon-
day
Nov.
4,
2019
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE 28.5% 20.2% 23.6% 20.6% 17.2% 18.0% 16.4% 19.2% 19.6%
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 1.6% 2.0% 1.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6%
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 11.1% 8.3% 6.1% 5.1% 5.9% 6.7% 8.3% 9.8% 14.3%
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 2.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.5% 1.3% 1.2%
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 12.5% 27.4% 10.8% 4.3% 4.3% 2.6% 3.1% 1.8% 1.3%
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 11.2% 7.5% 13.4% 7.8% 5.6% 4.2% 7.0% 7.5% 12.1%
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 15.9% 21.5% 31.5% 46.7% 50.6% 51.8% 48.5% 43.7% 33.1%
Sec'y Hillary Clinton Cli NY 1.7% 1.5% 2.0% 5.7% 5.0% 5.8% 5.1% 6.1% 5.4%
Andrew Yang Yan NY 5.5% 3.3% 4.0% 4.4% 4.7% 3.9% 3.5% 3.0% 3.4%
Amy Klobuchar Klo MN 1.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.9% 1.3% 1.0% 1.5%
Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee Who will win?
Twitter followers
Candidate CA
ND
.
SO
RT
Home
state
Accts
as of
June
29
New
accts
July
30
New
accts
Aug
26
New
accts
Sep
13
New
accts
Sep
16
New
accts
Oct
1
New
accts
Oct
16
New
accts
Nov
1
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE   03.6M:1 +19,000 +64,000 +29,000 +8,000 +45,000 +98,000 +48,000
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 04.4M:2 +28,000 +39,000 +9,000 +3,000 +9,000 +12,000 +16,000
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 01.2M:2 +72,000 +101,000 +32,000 +48,000 +26,000 +30,000 +34,000
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 00.6M:2 +34,000 +118,000 +20,000 +5,000 +27,000 +27,000 +141,000
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 03.6M:2 +245,000 +119,000 +45,000 +11,000 +48,000 +61,000 +48,000
Rep. Beto O'Rourke O'R TX 01.4M:1 +4,000 +116,000 +30,000 +14,000 +24,000 +22,000 +13,000
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 17.8M:2 +134,000 +264,000 +114,000 +22,000 +93,000 +140,000 +146,000
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 07.8M:2 +225,000 +273,000 +110,000 +27,000 +137,000 +182,000 +107,000
Sec'y Hillary Clinton Cli NY 24.7M:1 +316,000 +115,000 +22,000 +123,000 +152,000 +171,000
Andrew Yang Yan NY 00.5M:1 +97,000 +22,000 +48,000 +51,000 +39,000

Trump's legitimate quid pro quo

It's already been shown by Trump's transcript, or rather, actually reading the transcript, that there was no quid pro quo offered for information about Joe Biden's family, but it wasn't always clear whether there was one offered for information about collusion on the part of business and government entities from the Ukraine that was applied weeks after Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president. It was already established that President Obama, the DNC and some Democratic Senators asked the Ukraine to investigate Trump.

Kimberly Strassel pointed out, however, that Trump's actual requests to the Ukrainian president together with whomever had part in delaying aid, is questionable only when seen in the context of "moving the goalposts". Digging up dirt on an opponent is one thing, but Ukrainian entities colluding with members of the U.S. government is a legitimate concern having to do with national security [about which] the U.S. president has a right to know, and the request for which is legitimately susceptible to the application of quid pro quo leverage.

This week the liberal press has been trying to blur the lines between the two requests, not to mention never mentioning the similar requests of high-ranking Democrats. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 17:15, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

"It was a perfect phone call. Everybody knows it." - Donald Trump.[2]
"If that perfect phone call with the President of Ukraine Isn’t considered appropriate, then no future President can EVER again speak to another foreign leader!" - Donald Trump.[3]Wikignome72 (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Perfect. I hope this clarifies things.Wikignome72 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
The purpose of the impeachment inquiry, begun with a anonymous source who now Schiff will not call to testify, is to discredit the Barr/Durham investigation. This is the same pattern the same deep staters and the same media sockpuppets used with the Steele dossier. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:22, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Yes, it's all of a piece. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 22:20, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

Warren's 3½ month climb comes to an end

Some people have said that Elizabeth Warren's campaign has been perfect. Okay, in reality, nobody did. But it looks like this week she will fall from grace with a 3% decrease!

Never trust the Democrats—they always lose one way or another and leave you holding the bag. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 21:54, 19 October 2019 (EDT)

Dick Morris says if Hillary has a pulse, she's running for president. A month ago news reports were Hillary was the mastermind behind then Warren's rise; then Hillary was advising both Biden and Warren, which explains Biden's downfall. Warren is too stupid to severe all ties with Clinton, which will be her downfall. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:46, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
The parallels between Humphrey and McGovern, Hillary and Warren, 1972 and 2020 are too powerful to ignore. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:50, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

Warren's odds plummet 10½%

Don't say RobS didn't warn you, folks. He didn't even mention Kamala Harris, but she's similar to Hillary too, and the DNC and the donors had been grooming her for the Presidential role. Notwithstanding, she was a precursor to Warren's precipitous plummet, a front-runner having dropped to 2%. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 23:14, 4 November 2019 (EST)

Yep. As Harris herself says, those racist and sexist Democrats aren't ready for black woman president.
Things are setting up pretty good for a wildcard, a dark horse, maybe even a third party candidate. Otherwise we're looking a Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg is hard to get excited about. OTOH, Biden hasn't suffered much, he's holding steady with his black base. It's hard to imagine blacks jumping from Biden to Buttigieg, Warren, or Sanders. Polls show Trump has a 42% approval among black males. If that holds, it won't matter who the Democrats nominate. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:34, 4 November 2019 (EST)
It's bizarre to see Biden leading the pack again.[4] This is a man with no discernible principles or talent beyond raking in all that dirty money from Ukraine, China, Romania, etc. etc. This video of Biden forgetting Obama's name has to be seen to be believed: "He's saying that it was President [long pause with blank expression] my boss." PeterKa (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2019 (EST)
Blacks are sticking with a moderate they know. It demonstrates that blacks are not particularly excited or happy about the radical left turn the rest of the party has taken. Remember blacks are pro-God, pro-family, pro-entrepreneurial capitalism, pro-gun rights for self defense (after their experience with the KKK and Democrats), anti-crime, anti-bad schools, anti-illegal immigration, and anti-stupidity.
Blacks who don't support Biden support Trump. [5] We're seeing the long awaited break up of the Democratic behemoth. Blacks know instinctively if they don't stop voting Democrat, it will be another 150 years before a black man is ever elected President after the experience of Obama. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:09, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Popular government

The United States may not be a democracy, but James Madison called it a popular government. He also said:

[I]n a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representives and agents...
[M]ost of the popular governments of antiquity were of the democratic species; and even in modern Europe, to which we owe the great principle of representation, no example is seen of a government wholly popular, and founded, at the same time, wholly on that principle. If Europe has the merit of discovering this great mechanical power in government, by the simple agency of which the will of the largest political body may be concentrated, and its force directed to any object which the public good requires, America can claim the merit of making the discovery the basis of unmixed and extensive republics. (Federalist Papers, no. 14, 1787)

VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 02:01, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

The word that has crept into the American political vocabulary via Hillary Clinton no less is stakeholder. It's still common now in State Department press releases, usually about negotiations with foreign "stakeholders" while ignoring popular sentiment in various countries. Mexico, Egypt, and Turkey are all considered "democratic" in American parlance, while really being governed by "stakeholders", similar to the British House of Lords prior to the 1990s reforms. Brexit and Trumpism are struggles between populism and established "stakeholders", i.e. multinational corporate globalists. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:02, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

Response to unimportant remarks

Some self-proclaimed watchdogs of truth here are in reality Big Babies for their liberal cause. What is this uproar among the nations? Why are the pagans devising a vain thing? The Lord and His anointed scoff at them. Then he speaks to them with anger: "I have established thee a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

Strangely, SamHB wasn't convinced by my clear statement that there is a movement, especially among non-denominational church-goers, of not calling their relationship with Jesus Christ a religion. He also seems completely unaware that it has been that way for over thirty years.

Nor did he notice the different strains of arguments along those same lines, clearly committed to memory after passages of time, that only could have been independently developed, among Christian Conservapedians, nor did he stop to think that the basis for rejecting the reports of the Gallup poll results presupposed that custom, rather than it being suggested as a matter for dispute, nor did he look to see it was actually shown to be the case after JohnZ repeated the poll question.

Nor did he search the internet to look for other examples to see if he could confirm or deny the doubt he expressed, nor was he paying attention when I repeated one of the same arguments to User:Conservative three years ago when he queried his fellow editors about a poll from Baylor University, and of course Sam's lazy skeptic behavior is just the personality type people like the most.

I only dealt with one crybaby in this section, so why did I omit others? Maybe I'll get to them later. It's not as if disputing these slack-handed objections are pressing or significant. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 23:35, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

Golden Fleece Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2016 dinner guests

John Brennan
Susan Rice
Eric Ciaramella knew John Brennan, Susan Rice, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, was 1st whistle-blower
Joe Biden
Nancy Pelosi
John Kerry
Loretta Lynch
John Podesta
Tony Podesta
Valerie Jarrett
Samantha Power
Leonardo DiCaprio
James Clapper
James Comey
Matteo Renzi helped Brennan, Comey spy on Trump, possible target of Bill Barr and John Durham
Charles Kupchan, Eric Ciaramella's boss. Worked at NSC

The White House
Washington D.C.
1:00 pm
Formal attire
RSVP

Menu
[it writes itself] Roast Trump


Diane Feinstein liked China together with Joe Biden
Sean Misko Second whistle-blower, recruited by Adam Schiff, August 2019
Abigail Grace Schiff employee, recruited February 2019

VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 01:56, 21 October 2019 (EDT)

O’Sullivan’s First Law

Pew polls Democrat divergence 1994-2017.jpg

It's not your imagination.

Wow, those graphs really illustrate the point.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2019 (EDT)

Y'all

...should probably read Bill Taylor's opening statement. Your boy just got deep-sixed. Best to start the grieving process now so you're all ready to rally round the flag for Pence 2020. JohnZ (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2019 (EDT)

*Yawn* A State Department official (one of the most liberal of the various government agencies, which says a lot) said something bad about Trump. This is old news and has been for the past three years. It's happened countless times. I recommend you read/watch this: [6] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2019 (EDT)
That's the spirit. Denial's the first stage. Get it all out. JohnZ (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2019 (EDT)
Exactly -- this is probably the 20th time you've posted something on this talk page essentially saying: "look at this--Trump's going down big time and you're all going to weep." Well, we're still waiting. He won't be removed from office, he won't resign, and there's a good chance he'll win re-election next year. The media's been making predictions of Trump resigning since 2017. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2019 (EDT)
Did the media ever object to any investigation of Trump? The Obama FBI thoroughly investigated him when he was a candidate -- and came up with nothing. At least that's what the NYT reported at the time. Hunter Biden got $83,000 a month from Burisma and never even went to Ukraine. It was probably all because of his unique skill set and had nothing at all to do with the fact that his dad was Obama's "point man" on Ukraine. All the same, I don't see any harm in asking the Ukrainian government to check it out. PeterKa (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Bill Taylor is a Russian asset. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:10, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

Trump is not only resilient, he is anti-fragile. What do I mean by that? I mean not only are these illegitimate attacks and threats of impeachment not harming Trump, but they are making him stronger. When the Democrates shout impeachment, Trump's reelection team sounds out campaign donation requests and the money is flooding in. Please see: Trump's record-breaking cash haul reportedly rattling Dems.Wikignome72 (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

Antifragile?! Trump is going to pieces so fast, most of his people have abandoned their posts to avoid the smouldering orange shrapnel. There's no way we would've seen the Syria or Doral disasters if he still had a functioning WH/legal team (or competent Congressional allies) determined to see him through to 2020.
This is the ugly twisting in the wind stage while McConnell tries to figure out how to pull the trigger and still save the Senate. Expect Bolton and Romney to play prominent roles, with Pence as the clean-hands conservative for the base to rally round afterwards. JohnZ (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
I think we should dig up all your past predictions of Trump's imminent doom. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
You mean the Syrian cease-fire???? (This is my impression of SamHB's unnecessary punctuation manoeuvre, where he tries to stun readers into abandoning rational thought. Only this time, the question is based on something relevant. And yes, I know I'm replying to JohnZ—SamHB does it too.) VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 17:16, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Knock yourself out, man. It's almost certainly of greater historical utility than chronicling Trump's "achievements". JohnZ (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Yet, you won't comment on the cease-fire. Coward. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 17:41, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
The withdrawal / "cease-fire" looks like a rotten deal for the Kurds. It's also hard to see how it advances US interests in the region. See if the Israelis are happy about it. JohnZ (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Jake Sullivan to Hillary Clinton, Feb. 12, 2012, "Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria." The Guardian reported on July 30, 2012, “[Al-Qaida’s] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state.” [1]
Yah. Real leadership. First you arm al Qaeda. When al Qaeda morphs into ISIS and starts beheading people, then you arm the Kurds to fight the monster you created. The Kurds take the arms you give them and commit terrorist attacks against a NATO ally.
Why don't you go die for Obamunism and Clintonism if its such a glorious cause. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:15, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Man, I love it when you try and do history. You'll never have the stones to admit it, but you were cheering bin Laden, the mujahideen and the CIA every inch of the way when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.
And as far as the current situation in Syria goes, there's a whole bunch of GOP senators who've just witnessed Trump get pantsed by Erdogan and Putin. Bear that in mind when you're running the odds on his Senate trial. JohnZ (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
No, we did not cheer on or, heck, have any involvement in bin Laden or al Qaeda's actions in Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan war. He got his own form of training and supplies. The 9/11 Commission Report made that VERY clear. Now, the mujahideen was in fact backed by us, but on the other hand, the mujahideen also attempted to aid us in taking out Osama bin Laden during the Clinton years (just watch Path to 9/11, or more specifically the deleted footage). As far as GOP senators, give names (besides Mitch McConnell, I mean). Pokeria1 (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Eh? Who's this "we" you're talking about? You weren't even born when the Soviets withdrew. And if you think bin Laden wasn't elbow deep in the wider mujahideen effort - and coordinating extensively with other US-backed proxies - then you've got yourself some serious lernin' to do.
As for GOP senators, there's currently a grand total of seven who've come out explicitly against impeachment. JohnZ (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
46 Republican Senators are on the record condemning the unconstitutional Pelosi/Schiff impeachment process: 1.Graham 2.McConnell 3.Grassley 4.Thune 5.Blunt 6.Shelby 7.Inhofe 8.Roberts 9.Crapo 10.Cornyn 11.Burr 12.Barrasso 13.Wicker 14.Risch 15.Boozman 16.Moran 17.Toomey 18.Rubio 19.Paul 20.Hoeven 21.Lee 22.Johnson 23.Scott (SC) 24.Fischer 25.Cruz 26.Capito 27.Cassidy 28.Lankford 29.Cotton 30.Daines 31.Perdue 32.Ernst 33.Tillis 34.Rounds 35.Sasse 36.Young 37.Kennedy 38.Hyde-Smith 39.Blackburn 40.Cramer 41.McSally 42.Braun 43.Hawley 44.Scott (FL) 45.Portman and 46.Sullivan. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:30, 24 October 2019 (EDT)

<--- Well, it's much more measured in tone than the Cipollone letter, but it's just as constitutionally illiterate. Trump will get all the rich creamy justice and due process he can handle in his Senate trial. In the meantime, the House gets to set the rules and there's no requirement to hold a vote on starting an impeachment inquiry. Graham and McConnell know this, of course, but they're hoping the rubes and loons in the base will swallow it as a sincere and suitably forceful act of protest.

Don Jr. and allies have already condemned it as weak sauce process / precedent bluster (which it obviously is), and apparently want Graham to start holding parallel hearings in the Senate. Lindsey's none too enthusiastic about that, though... JohnZ (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2019 (EDT)

This is a tempest in a teapot. Barr/Durham will start raining down the artillery of prosecution on some of the Democrats. The Senate will vote not to impeach Trump. And the exceedingly weak Democratic candidate to Trump in the presidential election will be steamrolled by the 2020 Trumpslide. It will be a brutal campaign, but Trump will once again be the triumphant winner. Because that is what winners do. They win!Wikignome72 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
I think our friend JohnZ doesn't understand the American justice system. Even a homeless bum on the street who's arrested for panhandling understands that he is entitled to due process, which Democrats have ignored and bulldozed under a mountain of garbage. If they want to proceed with this railroad job of burning the Constitution in plain sight of all, it will cost them dearly for generations to come - generations that survive their abortion holocaust and generations of immigrants. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:54, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
Wut? Trump is currently in a far better position than any ordinary poor schmo under criminal investigation. There are 47 GOP members of the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees entitled to sit in on the depositions and ask questions, so he's got friendly representation in what is essentially a grand jury process.
And when that 47 includes partisan cranks-on-wheels like Devin Nunes, Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan, no sane person believes that a) witnesses aren't being subjected to hostile questioning, or that b) Trump isn't getting a blow-by-blow account of proceedings. JohnZ (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
It's not even worth debating if you are going to pretend to be that ignorant of justice, due process, and the Constitution. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:58, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
You keeping banging on about the Constitution. It's so silent on the matter, Pelosi could write "abuse of power" on the back of a napkin and put it forward as an article of impeachment for the House to vote on. JohnZ (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
You are correct. The House could even vote on and pass it. And it's still a violation of an American citizens due process rights. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:33, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
Nope. In our hypothetical, a fair trial in the Senate would give Trump his full complement of due process rights. He'd also have his Fifth Amendment grand jury protection prior to this, as Nancy's napkin would have to convince a majority of the House to vote to impeach.
If you want to argue otherwise, you'll need to show how being impeached by the House deprives Trump of life, liberty, or property. Best of luck with that. JohnZ (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
Wrong. Your hypothetical, an impeachment based on bad faith as you chose to put it, written "on a napkin" deprives the American people the due process rights of an election! Trump is our agent! And we will not stand for you to deny them, even in the form of insulting hypotheticals! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 21:42, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Great stuff. Go shake your fist at the Constitution, not me. JohnZ (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Your hypothetical contradicts itself, not the constitution! A denial of the rights of the American people through a bad faith impeachment could not [allow Trump to be provided] with procedural due process [by extension] to his grand jury [despite] the fifth amendment rights you assume they would protect [them], because [the results of the denial] would be fruit from a poisonous tree! If I were you, I'd choose my next words very carefully, as you've already chosen words beneath what the dignity of the American people should be obliged to bear! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 23:13, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Go home, Vargas. You're drunk. JohnZ (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Well, that is a fairly unintelligible response. Let us hope this non-responsive utterance marks a return to an emphasis on learning and a departure from gratuitously insulting Trump—he undeserving of such, as demonstrated by the record of his achievements and accomplishments so comprehensively curated by User:1990'sguy in the Conservapedia article Donald Trump achievements and its sub-articles. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:39, 29 October 2019 (EDT)

Obama bin Biden's jihadis

"We" as in America, obviously. And while it is true that I wasn't born when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, I can tell you that the 9/11 commission report specifically states on page 56 that, and I quote, "But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States." And the footnote near that even expands upon that by saying, and I quote, "In his memoir,Ayman al Zawahiri contemptuously rejects the claim that the Arab mujahideen were financed (even “one penny”) or trained by the United States. See Zawahiri,“Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner,” Al Sharq al Awsat,Dec.2,2001.CIA officials involved in aiding the Afghan resistance regard Bin Ladin and his “Arab Afghans” as having been militarily insignificant in the war and recall having little to do with him. Gary Schroen interview (Mar.3,2003)."
And I meant "give names" regarding which GOP senators witnessed Trump being "pantsed". And besides, there are 100 senators in the senate, so I'm pretty sure the Republican Party is the majority party, with 53 Republicans in the Senate. Even if 7 went up against impeachment, you still haven't listed the number of how many explicitly voted for impeachment, either. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ, It's a moot point you're arguing about bin laden in the 1980s. Yes, bin Laden single-handedly took down the godless Soviet Union. Then, full of himself, he was going to take down the House of Saud and the United States, as well. And finally, create the Islamic State. You're peeing in the wind, again. Arming bin Laden was Zbigniew Brzezinski's idea after his brilliant "human rights" policy brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power. What's your point? Other than to prove what an ignorant idiot you are? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:51, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
Wut? My point - though you'll never admit it - is you were 100% cheering on Reagan, the CIA, the mujahideen (and by extension, bin Laden) when they were fighting the filthy commies in Afghanistan. So it's pretty funny watching you now play the committed isolationist and parroting Putin's talking points on US interventionism. JohnZ (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
First of all, while Reagan and the CIA were backing the mujahideen, they did NOT back bin Laden, or al Qaeda. In fact, Ayman al Zawahiri specifically stated that al Qaeda didn't get any backing from the United States, not even one penny, and specifically stated it in his tract Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, which BTW was also sourced in the 9/11 Commission Report. And another thing, who said we're denying our backing Reagan and the CIA? Pokeria1 (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
"Arming bin Laden was Zbigniew Brzezinski's idea after his brilliant "human rights" policy brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power." Ah, don't you mean "arming the mujahideen" was Brzezinski's idea? Both Gary Schroen and Ayman al Zawahiri specifically denied that the United States supplied much, if any training and financing to al Qaeda, or for that matter to bin Laden, who headed al Qaeda back then as well. There's plenty to blame Brzezinski for, including the disastrous "human rights" policy that resulted in Iran becoming a terror state and the closest thing to a Caliphate, but I'm not sure al Qaeda/bin Laden is one of the tings to blame him for (and believe me, if he did in fact arm them, I most certainly would make sure he's blamed for it). Pokeria1 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
Go do some more reading. If, after that, you can't see the historical significance of establishing an Islamist international brigade, then I really can't help you.
Not sure what to make of your last paragraph (previous post). They all witnessed Trump get pantsed. There's no way to spin it as good for US interests / allies in the region, and this will likely have a bearing on how many of them vote in the Senate trial.
None of them have (or will) vote for impeachment. That's the House's job. Are you talking about who I think would vote to convict? JohnZ (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
I gave you the 9/11 Commission Report, and more than that, I even gave you sources cited within that document, in particular Knights Under the Prophet's Banner written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, and even an interview with Gary Schroen dated March 3, 2003 specifically stating that al Qaeda had minimal, if any funding or backing by the US during the Soviet-Afghan war. Not to mention a deleted scene for Path to 9/11 specifically had Mujahideen attempting to aid CIA agents in taking out Bin Laden (and only didn't do so because Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton evidently got cold feet, with the Mujahideen evidently having nothing to do with their failure, and if anything the Mujahideen were very adamant in wanting to kill Bin Laden, which can be gleaned from what bits of Path to 9/11 they DIDN'T cut due to Clinton interference.). And you shouldn't have mentioned GOP senators earlier regarding the whole Trump getting "pantsed" thing. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
And what is YOUR JOB here on this website, JohnZ? So far all I've been seeing is a shoveling of your leftist ideology that's at odds with this site and the people in it. Karajou (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
Bin Laden was rich. He didn't need CIA money. he was part of a coalition of the CIA and Saudi Arabia. He spent his own money ferrying jihadis from Saudi Arabia and the Middle East to Pakistan and Afghanistan. He spent most of his time in Pakistan as a cheerleader and motivational speaker for jihadis ("community organizer" in Marxist terms). He was one of the few leaders who survived the war (1988-89), and returned to Saudi Arabia as a hero and hometown kid who did good. His falling out with the Saudi ruling klan came in 1991, when his offer to use his Afghan veteran jihadis to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was rejected, and King Fahd invited American military personal into the Islamic Holy Land for the express purpose of killing Muslims.
Bin Laden's crime was being anti-globalist and anti-politically correct (he didn't like the U.S. military which included women, Jews, and Christians who carried the bible and wore the cross). Contemporary communists try to make something out of his anti-communist alliance with the CIA in the 1980s as something hypocritical. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:00, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
IOWs, bin Laden spent his own money to fly jihadis into Pakistan/Afghanistan and remained on the ground as a coach. Once they were there, the CIA armed them. So yes, there is no material assistance provided to bin Laden.
Bin Laden was a supporter of the Saudi monarchy throughout this period.
By 1991, bin Laden and his followers viewed themselves as responsible for the destruction of the Soviet Superpower. Puffed up in their pride, they thought they could take on the U.S., the Saudi ruling klan, and Israel next and establish a Sunni Islamic State, along the lines of the Shia Islamic state established by Brzezinski and the Carter administration in Iran in 1979. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:22, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
It should further be noted, traditional jihadis and Islamists thought bin Laden was nuts, and still do. Since 1948 and the creation of Israel, the saying was that "the road to Jerusalem is through Cairo", meaning a revolution to retake Jerusalem would begin in Cairo (as in 1948, 1967, 1973, etc.). Bin Laden held a minority view that the way to retake Jerusalem, and ultimately Mecca to establish an Islamic State, was through New York and the World Trade Center. Traditional jihadis in Egypt and elsewhere viewed this dangerous and crazy, which would call down the wrath of the United States on the jihadis all over the globe. They viewed bin Laden's crusade as a personal vendetta between him and the Saudi ruling klan. He remains a controversial figure; while he's appreciated for uniting and inspiring jihadis worldwide, most jihadi strategic thinkers view his strategy as flawed, dangerous, and insane. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:39, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
So, wait, hold up. How could the CIA have been involved in Bin Laden and al Qaeda during the 1980s when Ayman al-Zawahiri made it very explicit that they never received any funding or training in his memoirs? Or for that matter Gary Schroen in that interview specifically saying that the CIA had very minimal, if any actual backing of Osama bin Laden. I find it hard to believe that Bin Laden's #2 man in al Qaeda would specifically deny and even scoff at the idea of the CIA or America backing al Qaeda, or Osama bin Laden for that matter, if they actually did. Being his #2 guy, he'd know about al Qaeda's history and inner workings, not to mention alliances made between the organization and others, directly or otherwise. That's kind of the entire point of being the #2 guy, to be entrusted with this information and man the inner workings of the group. Even if we were to argue the whole thing about Gary Schroen was CIA misinformation, I fail to see why al-Zawahiri would lie about something like that, especially when by that point, he and al Qaeda were very obviously not part of the CIA and if anything open enemies. Pokeria1 (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
First off, let's clear up some basic facts: (1) al qaeda was not formed until the 1990s, after bin Laden's expulsion from Saudi Arabia and after his expulsion from the Sudan; (2) Ayman Zawahiri was sitting in an Egyptian jail throughout half the 1980s for his involvement in the assassination of Anwar Sadat; (3) Zawahiri and bi Laden did not formally link up until after both their expulsions from Sudan in the 1990s.
During the Soviet-Afghan War, the CIA and Saudi regime worked together. The Saudis provided manpower from all all over the Mid East, and bin Laden's personal financial contribution was to provide airfare. He didn't provide material assistance to jihadis once they were flown there - that came from the CIA. And bin Laden was not content to sit home in Saudi Arabia and be just a financial backer - he lived in Pakistan and functioned as (one of several) preachers of jihad, giving moral and spiritual guidance to young jihadis (although he was never trained as an Islamic scholar). When the war ended, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam was assassinated under mysterious circumstances. Azzam was considered the spiritual leader the jihad, but bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia claiming the title.
As cited, traditional jihadis of the Sayyid Qtab and Hassan al Banna stripe, always considered jihad against secular leaders as their main objective, such as Sadat, Mubarak, Assad, Saddam, the Shah, or King Hussein of Jordan. This was the big difference between Ayman al-Zarqawi (founder of AQI and ISIL) and bin Laden. Ayman al-Zawahiri took the Egyptian Islamic Jihad in a different direction, which was and remains controversial. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (or Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) was always focused overtrhowing first Nassar, then Sadat, then Mubarak, now Sisi. Zawahiri got in bed with bin Laden and brought the wrath of the United States down upon the Egyptian Islamic Jihad for his role in the Embassy bombings. Zawahiri remains on the outs of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad homies for making the jihad global and inviting the U.S. to pursue them. Obama sympathized with them by helping overthrow Mubarak, and widened the split between al Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
IOWs, al Qaeda mostly always was and is a detached branch of Egyptian jihadis in exile at odds with the homies remaining in Egypt. Bin Laden supplied the money. Zawahiri supplied the manpower. I suspect Zawahiri's denials about CIA funding in the 1980s is simply to protect what they consider the first of their great achievements - that a ragtag bunch of jihadis destroyed a Superpower, the Soviet Union. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:07, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
A word on the material assistance provided by the U.S.: The only American hardware provided (eventually, after any years), were TOW missiles or MANPADS to shoot down helicopters, which proved decisive. Prior to that, it was all Soviet equipment (trucks, guns, etc) the U.S. acquired from Egypt as a result of the 1979 Camp David Accords when Egypt became a U.S. client state and kicked the Soviets out. Perhaps because Zawahiri saw no American equipment, only Soviet, he denied any U.S. contribution. And bin Laden certainly did not have the resources to ship the volume of equipment from Egypt to Pakistan.
The reason for using exclusively Soviet equipment in the war zone is the issue of spare parts; for example, if a truck needs a generator, it can be cannibalized off a captured Soviet truck or one partially destroyed in combat. These are lessons learned from the Germans during WWII, at Kursk and North Africa where spare parts became a big issue. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:33, 25 October 2019 (EDT)

JohnZ's "Kurdish" communist professional victims

Crybaby JohnZ's charity case, the "Kurds", have their counterpart to Insana bin Laden (follow the money):
The Kurds' Democratic Union Party (PYD), the Kurds JohnZ are referring to, has a military wing, the People’s Protection Units (YPG) the "international" office of Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the Marxist group at war with Turkey since 1984, causing tens of thousands of deaths and is listed by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization.
The Obama Administration counseled YPG leadership to camouflage the group’s roots in the PKK after getting them to fight ISIS--they were rebranded the Syrian Democratic Forces, being promised U.S. weapons and money, which brought in other Arabs.
The whole goal right now is to bring the activities of Obama's "foreign legions" to a close, not tally up more to Kurdish communists' killcounts. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 16:05, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
And you have to study the activities of the Kurdish Ansar al-Islam, which merged with Ayman al-Zarqawi]]'s group in 2004 and founded the Islamic State in 2014. RobSDe Plorabus Unum
Aye. You've convinced me. What have the Kurds ever done for us, eh? JohnZ (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
Well, explain to me why Kurdish nationalism is suddenly sacred and holy to anti-nationalist globalists right now, other than pure opportunism? I think we've made the case that "The Kurds" are a wide, diverse group. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:16, 26 October 2019 (EDT)

<---The Iraqi Kurds got their spoils of war for fighting alongside the US against Saddam, and later ISIS. It hardly seems unreasonable for the Syrian Kurds to get theirs as well. If Erdogan wants to secure the border to stop traffic between the Turkish and Syrian Kurds, then let him do it on his side of the fence. JohnZ (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2019 (EDT)

I love it. "Syrian", "traffic". VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:38, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
JohnZ, you still don't get it. Abu Musab Zarqawi, founder of the Islamic State, set up a chemical weapons plant in Iraqi Kurdistan, under U.S. protection of the No Fly Zone. Zarqawi merged his organization with the Kurdish Ansar al-Islam. "The Iraqi Kurds" were co-founders of the Islamic State, if you wanna play stupid with words.
Saddam didn't have a chemical weapons factory -- the Kurds did, under U.S. protection, along with Zarqawi.
The Adana Agreement of 1998 between Turkey and Syria allows the Turks to enter Syria for distance of up to 5 kilometers to beat back the Kurds. It's a legal treaty between the two. The two have asked the Russians to be there to police the situation.
I've met brainwashed people by the mainstream media before, but you take the cake. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:39, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
"Saddam didn't have a chemical weapons factory -- the Kurds did, under U.S. protection, along with Zarqawi". Actually, it's more accurate to say both the Kurds and Saddam had chemical weapons factories, since several sources, including one of Saddam's top generals and even one of the pilots responsible for transferring the chemical weapons materials, verified that Saddam did in fact have chemical weapons factories, and that they had been relocating since 1991. Said general, George Sada, even attempted to alert the British news media to Saddam's creation of chemical weapons and supplied proof, but they buried the story, deciding instead to just falsely tarnish Bush and Blair as liars. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
(@RobS, for the avoidance of doubt): It's times like this when it's hard to tell whether you're just really bad at basic research, or completely at Trumpian ease with arguing in bad faith to avoid retreating from something stupid you've said previously.
Yes, Ansar al-Islam carved out a bit of territory in Iraqi Kurdistan. No, that was not with the blessing of the Kurdish authorities, nor did the Kurds have the military muscle to dislodge them from the mountains until they received the backing of US special forces and air support in Operation Viking Hammer, March 28–30, 2003.
And I've no idea what point you're trying to make about the Adana Agreement. It appears neither Erdogan or Assad have any intention of honouring it at the moment. JohnZ (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
"Kurdish authorities" HAHAHAHA! Careful. You're revealing you're totalitarian mindset.
I have a simple question: When are "the Kurds" not "the Kurds"? When they are Shia Kurds armed by Iran? When they are Salafi Kurds under U.S. protection from Saddam in a No-Fly Zone? When they are Syrian Kurds taking U.S. assistance to stage terror attacks on a NATO ally? When they are Salafi Kurds and co-partners of the U.S.-armed Islamic State? When they are Qawqaz Kurds at war with Russia? When they are feminist Kurds fighting ISIS? When they are victims of a U.S. Army live fire exercise in Kentucky broadcast on ABC News? When?
And why all this globalist promotion of Kurdish nationalism? I thought nationalism was the enemy of globalism?
And as best as I can determine, to the extent that "Kurdish democratic" forces exist anywhere (Iraq, Syria, Turkey, the Caucasus), they don't want a landlocked independent Kurdish state, knowing that without a NAFTA-style free trade agreement with their neighbors, they couldn't export their oil wealth. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:13, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
You say "and why all this globalist promotion of Kurdish nationalism?" I'll give you an answer. It's because some globalists, particularly those of the neocon variant, see the creation of a Kurdish state as necessary to achieve their goals. Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria are all opposed to the Saudi-centric regional status quo. That automatically makes them enemies of the petrodollar, and therefore, in the eyes of the neocons, worthy of regime change and/or destabilization. In that case, Kurdish nationalism would be a great tool for the neocons to use. For this reason, at this time, not only do I not support the creation of a Kurdish state, I actively oppose it.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
Actually, let me walk that back just a little bit. At this time, I do support Kurdish nationalism, but only in Turkey, and only because Erdogan's regime is still in power and there's very little moral equivalence between that regime and its Saudi counterpart.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
Personally speaking, the only regime change I'd even remotely endorse is if it's changing the Middle East from Muslim-dominated to Christian dominated, whether it be Roman Catholic dominated or, heck, even Coptic Christian dominated. Don't bother switching Sunni for Shia, or Shia to Sunni, or either for Kurd or Kurd for either for that matter. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
There actually was an opportunity for a Kurdish state 10 years ago in Iraq. The Kurds themselves didn't want it. Largely due to two factors: (1) their diversity and/or lack of unity; and most importantly (2) a Kurdish state would be held hostage to tariffs when it tried to ship its oil down the Tigris to Persian Gulf ports for export to the rest of the world. The Kurds of Irbil figured it would serve their best interests to remain within an Iraqi system and Iraqi parliament where they have continuous engagement, rather than having no influence over the Baghdad regime and being at the constant mercy of outside forces. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:34, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
Well, then. Those Kurds are cool with me. They're definitely a lot smarter than their Syrian counterparts. --Geopolitician (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
We get little reporting on Kurds in former Soviet republics - Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and elsewhere, as well as Iran. Here again you have secular (on the side of Russia) vs religious (on the side of ISIS) Kurds fighting each other. Then you have Shia Kurds fighting Sunni Kurds (ISIS). These same divisions exist among Kurds in Germany and the U.S.
For these reasons I'm very skeptical when I hear anyone discussing "the Kurds" (like Bernie Sanders statement here). I'll go a step further - Media, being fed by the intelligence community, is playing on the deliberate ignorance of the American people, if not even a racial stereotype. The journalists who use the phrase, "the Kurds" are just ignorant partisans themselves. And this sort of Deep State/media collusion, appealing to what they assume are irrational bigoted stereotypes in the soul of the American people, is how the U.S. has blundered into numerous wars beyond my lifetime. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:20, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
User Masaman on youtube is one of the best at handling issues like this. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:34, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Allow me to say this, plain and simple. The Kurds are not our allies. In fact, they border on being our enemies. --Geopolitician (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2019 (EDT)

Let me clarify. They border on being our enemies in Iran, Iraq, and Syria.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
How do you cross out text? I want to cross out "Iraq."--Geopolitician (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
use < s > for strike with a close </ s> like this. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:22, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Thanks. I wish Wiki would allow you to do that with a single highlight-and-quick, but then again we are living in the "learn to code" era.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
@RobS: I'll content myself with noting that, having been called on talking rubbish about Ansar al-Islam being allied with Iraqi Kurdish forces, your response was to try and start a game of Well, what's a Kurd anyway? Spineless. JohnZ (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
If he's so wrong why do you have to exaggerate to prove it? I started the topic, he just sustained it. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 20:47, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
I was called what on huh? Facts:
  1. Ansar al-Salam, a Kurdish group, harbored Abu Musab al-Zarkawi after his flight from Afghanistan in 2002 when the Americans chased him out;
  2. Ansar al-Salam and Zarqawi were protected under the American No-Fly Zone in 2002 and 2003;
  3. Zarqawi and Ansar al-Salem operated a WMD camp in Iraqi Kurdistan under the protection of the American No-Fly Zone.
  4. Zarqawi's Organization of Monotheism and Jihad merged with Ansar al-Salm to form AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq);
  5. AQI became the Islamic State in 2014.
Where am I in error? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:01, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Your error is a product of your usual bad faith in discussion. You appear unable to admit that Ansar al-Islam was engaged in a terrorist campaign against the regular Iraqi Kurdish forces, and that those same forces drove them out of the territory they'd seized as soon as they received the necessary US military support. JohnZ (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Right. Where'd you get that spin? Don Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? Ansar al-Salam merged into Al Qaeda in Iraq, conducted the insurgency, and established the Islamic State.
Ok, you got me. Ansar al-Salam changed its name to Ansar al-Sunna, and merged with Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Group of Monotheism and JIhad, Zaqrawi's group).
Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad was started by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, other foreigners, and local, mostly Kurdish Islamist sympathizers. ,,,Following the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, it is believed that Zarqawi moved westward into Iraq, where he may have received medical treatment in Baghdad for an injured leg. It is believed that he developed extensive ties in Iraq with Ansar al-Islam ("Partisans of Islam"), a Kurdish Islamist militant group that was based in the extreme northeast of the country. Ansar had alleged ties to Iraqi Intelligence; Saddam Hussein's motivation would have been to use Ansar as a surrogate force to repress the secular Kurds who wanted a "free Kurdistan". [7] RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:55, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Some light reading on Operation Viking Hammer. JohnZ (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Ok, that's progress. At least we're back to distinguishing "the Kurds" as between pershmerga and AQI. That link covers 2005, from Cheney & Rumsfeld's perspective. Now let's pick up the story from their own history, translated by Aymenn al-Tamini:
the position of general security official in the Dawla [Islamic State] currently [December 2015] and the man is considered the most important after Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
In 2006, a deal was struck in the American prisons for the release of some of the leaders...
In 2007, the leadership of Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna took a decision to change the name of the group and revert it to the old name of Jamaat Ansar al-Islam....
When the armed revolution of al-Sham [Syria] began against the Assad regime, Jamaat Ansar al-Islam entered al-Sham and began operating under the name "Jamaat Ansar al-Islam in BIlad al-Sham."
On the third day of the Mosul events, the Majlis Shura of Jamaat Ansar al-Islam decided to come down and aid the Dawla [ISIS], and this meant the group came down on the left side of the city [east Mosul]
Indeed most of Jamaat Ansar al-Islam gave allegiance, but a simple and small presence for the group remained in Iraq and the most important of those who gave allegiance feature in the photographed allegiance ceremony. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:47, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
You'll have to help me with the relevance of this. Were there ethnic Kurds in Ansar al-Islam and its successor outfits? Sure. Does their presence have any significant bearing on the development and legitimacy of a reasonably autonomous and functional Iraqi Kurdistan? Absolutely not. JohnZ (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
These guys ("the Kurds" if you will), took part in the capture of Mosul, the resurrection of the Caliph, and were rewarded with the VP spot and head of internal security. They weren't bit players in the Islamic State. These guys killed their fellow Kurds, Pershmerga, Shia Kurds, and anyone who wouldn't submit to the Caliphate. So when we hear talk about "the Kurds", "abandoning the Kurds", and globalists pushing Kurdish nationalism, it is not unreasonable to ask just what exactly are you talking about.
Pardon my thoughtlessnes, I forgot; there are good guy Kurds and bad guy Kurds; the bad guy Kurds are the guys who do beheadings; the good guy Kurds are the guys who take U.S. taxpayer money and kill U.S. NATO allies. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:27, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
Right now, I consider all of the Syrian Kurdish factions associated with the SDF to be bad guys, even the non-Communist ones.--Geopolitician (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

<--- It's kind of fun watching you twist yourself like a pretzel over this, just so you can ultimately argue abandoning the Turkey/Syria border region wasn't an unmitigated disaster. Ansar al-Islam numbered in the hundreds (including Arab and other foreign fighters) when they were driven out in March 2003. Shortly afterwards, tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds fought alongside US forces in the invasion of Iraq.

Seriously: What. Is. Your. Point? JohnZ (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2019 (EDT)

He's right, Rob: Kurdistan was just about to exist for the 30 million Kurds scattered about near Asia—and then Trump came in and caused it not to happen, because all the Kurds had really been planning it the whole time and were really about to get together and make the nation happen. Really. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 23:39, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
Well I thought nationalism was fascism. Now globalist are pushing Kurdxit, MKGA, and the Yellow Turbin movement.
JohnZ, you certainly don't understand anything about jihadism. Your frame of reference comes from your Western Eurocentric colonial imperialist and racist outlook. Jihadi groups appear, disappear, reappear, merge, change their names, and form alliances routinely. Leadership and experience are vital. 40 year old veteran fighters are more valuable than a 20 year old punk who doesn't know anything. 300 veterans of Ansar al Salam make up the drill sergeants and the equivalent of an officer corps for radicalized punks coming from the EU and elsewhere. They trace their war against Western influences and Shi'ism back several decades at this point. An Arab figurehead was put at the helm - Baghdadi - but the Kurds were in charge of internal security - who gets let into the organization and who may be a risk and needs to be disposed of. None of this is rocket science. Sure, these experienced fighters had sons and kid brothers who came with them, but the organization traces its origins back to the end of Iran-Iraq war in 1988. They were the most experienced fighters in Iraq. From their perspective, their war against secularism, Western influences, and Shi'ism, was finally joined by outside fighters coming to their aid.
In the meantime, the Hong Kongers can all get squashed by tanks and shipped off to the gulag cause we don't want to upset our Chinese communist trading partners.
And do you have any clue how ridiculous it sounds to say we should defend the Syrian border but not the Rio Grande? Especially since our Mexican allies, whom we depend on so much for help, just got their butts kicked by the Sinoloa cartel who took over a town of 800,000. tRobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:50, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Once again: What does the presence of a small number of ethnic Kurds in various jihadi outfits have to do with the development and legitimacy of a reasonably autonomous and functional Iraqi Kurdistan? I've seen estimates of 400-1500 Brits who went to fight for ISIS. We've had our share of eejits who stayed home to maim and kill in the name of their twisted version of Islam. None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy or viability of the British state, or its institutions, or its armed forces.
It's not like the US is flush with regional success stories for all the blood and treasure it's spent over the past 30-odd years. You've got the liberation of Kuwait, and then you've got Iraqi Kurdistan as far and away the most successful bit of Iraq to date. Not much after that. You'd think a good conservative patriot like yourself would be proud of the US having brought a bit more freedom and self-determination into the world, but hilariously, you can't because that would beg the obvious question re. cutting and running in Syria.
If memory serves, Rand Paul clapped like a seal, whilst the rest of the GOP senate was aghast. They can't all be neo-con RINOs. JohnZ (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Just as an FYI, there's actually some evidence that Trump deliberately gave that Syrian withdrawal order specifically to bait a key leader of ISIS to into revealing himself and getting himself at the very least captured, if not killed, and that operation was such a success that you leftists were caught with your pants down due to not even your installed leakers finding out about the op (and we had the bonus of his second in command being taken out as well). To put it another way, Trump played ISIS like Palpatine played the Rebels at Endor in Return of the Jedi. I'll admit I was very unsure about leaving the Kurds behind, mostly because I feared we'd have the same thing as Vietnamization after the end of the Vietnam War where the Democrats exploiting Watergate sold out the South Vietnamese to the Communists. Since we just shattered the vertebrae of ISIS, I don't see any reason to be concerned about our forces staying in Syria right now. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
There's much more evidence which says Trump's withdrawal announcement caught the Pentagon completely off guard, and they had to scramble to launch the operation for fear of losing effective force projection should the withdrawal be fully realised.
I'm glad to hear you had qualms about ditching an ally, though. That's the proper response. JohnZ (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Here's an immediate problem that hasn't been addressed now for two or three decades: the U.S. provided air defense and a No-Fly Zone for a group that set up a WMD lab. When it was discovered, the Deep State deceived the American people when Colin Powell went to the UN and blamed Saddam for it, when in fact the people we were protecting uder our No Fly Zone had created it. And this idiocy of the Deep State they blamed on Saddam as an excuse to go into Iraq in 2003. People are tired of these lies, and ain't falling for arguments about "the Kurds" and Kurdish nationalism again as an excuse to send troops into a war zone that Congress itself, under two presidents, has refused to pass an authorization for. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:49, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Wait, didn't General Sada as well as one of the guys who flew the chemical weapons stocks to Syria confirm that Saddam WAS in fact making WMDs, and had been doing so since before the Gulf War or something? Pokeria1 (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
I'm not arguing whether or not Saddam had WMD, I'm pointing out the historical truth that our friends, "the Kurds" had WMD and Colin Powell lied about it, which was the No.1 fact pushing Obama's candidacy in 2008. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:50, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
You'd think the answer would be easier to know—they spend a billion dollars to find out. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 18:05, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
I've never heard of the Kurds having WMDs. Can you provide a link?--Geopolitician (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
"Ditching"? The PKK succeeded beyond its wildest dreams: It got a quasi-state in Syria from which to attack Turkey, and is now positioned to receive the "creamy" (your word) concessions from the peace process Erdogan initiated.
You have no standing in the matter: as a New Zealander (or globalist), you're not encumbered with the difficulty of possibly rewarding a disloyal president, the evidence of which demonstrated by the information that is coming out through Justice Department reports daily, though you probably love that we are because you share his politics.
You probably suspect RobS, Pokeria and I may have trouble articulating this sense and hoped your high-tensioned rhetoric would provoke us into being strung along by your series of objections and qualifications, however lengthy[, to Donald Trump's military movements]. If so, you suspected wrongly. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 01:06, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
@Vargas: Who you calling a Kiwi?
@RobS: How on earth did we get back to conflating Ansar al-Islam and their weapons plant with the Iraqi Kurds in general? For extra "protected under a no-fly zone" lulz, the link you shared earlier clearly states the US was aware of the plant from at least June 2002 onwards. Even better, they rejected an airstrike several times, because "...we were so concerned that the chemical cloud from there could devastate the region that we chose to take them by land rather than by smart weapons.”
That's according to Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, at least. Much of the rest of your link suggests it was either simple dithering by the Bush administration, or due to worries about appearing too eager for war in the eyes of potential coalition allies.
And while we're at it, an honourable mention for this quote: "...Ansar al-Islam militant group ... controls a very small region of Kurdish Iraq near the Iranian border". (emphasis mine)
What you reckon, then? One more crack, or have you finally tired of beating this particular dead horse? JohnZ (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

4 resources which show America has a religious future in the 21st century

I was recently asked about the future of American Christianity. Below are 4 resources which show America has a religious future in the 21st century.

Read this material:

1. United States, irreligion vs. religion and demographics

2. Secularism, Fundamentalism or Catholicism? The Religious Composition of the United States to 2043, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 49, no. 2 (June) 2010, Eric Kaufmann, Vegard Skirbekk and Anne Goujon

3. New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger, 2018

4. "Among Protestants, Gallup has found weekly churchgoing to be consistent. In 2017, 45 percent attended at least once a week. In 1955, it was 42 percent."[8] Wikignome72 (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

No. 3 quotes (then debunks): “Meanwhile, a widespread decline in churchgoing and religious affiliation had contributed to a growing anxiety among conservative believers.” The Atlantic, January 2018. This is what passes for journalist leadership these days (The Atlantic). It's not a description, it's an instruction for their hostile liberal-reader-wannabe-journalists.
And now they have Gallup polls lending a hand, who we're supposed to believe don't know about non-denominational Christians. They don't even pretend they have something positive to put forward, which makes me even less concerned about conservative believers, who can put their anxieties on the Lord, even if they believe the lies, than sinners of whatever variety camouflaging their sins by diverting attention toward non-existent problems, instead of stopping their behavior. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 15:16, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Ace (the New Zealand atheist), is either a liar, not very bright or stubborn (or a combination of 2 or more of these attributes). It not that hard to understand. The nominal Catholics and liberal Protestants die out while the more committed Christians with higher birth rates grow. Eventually, there are fewer and fewer nominal Catholics and liberal Protestants to die out. And among the nones, most are theists (at least in the USA). By 2043 for the USA (or sooner) and by 2050 in Europe (or as early as 2021), the secular population plateaus followed by a period of decline. In short, atheism has a bleak future. It's not rocket science. If Ace still doesn't understand this matter, it is a matter of willful ignorance.
I think the reason why Ace has a bee in his bonnet and is obsessed with me is because all of my predictions concerning atheists have come true. If Ace wants to deny the atheist movement is dead, he is free to do so, but unfortunately for him, he will lose what little credibility he may have (see: Decline of the atheist movement).Wikignome72 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Ace, by the way, I have never said that "atheism is a second rate belief system". It is far below second rate and we both know this. There is no proof and evidence for atheism. In addition, you have atheists like PZ Myers and Peter Singer indicating that bestiality is morally acceptable under certain conditions (see: Atheism and bestiality). And while the Mormons certainly have their faults and I disagree with their theology, at least they weren't responsible for about 100 million deaths in the 20th century and at least they don't run an oppressive regime like the Chinese, communist atheists (and most atheists are East Asians with a very large portion of them being Chinese. See: Asian atheism and China and atheism. But the good news is that in China, Christianity is seeing explosive growth. See: Growth of Christianity in China).
Ace, I hope this further clarifies matters for you.Wikignome72 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

Canadian election

In the recent Canadian election, the Conservative Party got 34 percent of the popular vote while the Liberals got only 33 percent. Yet Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau will continue as prime minister all the same. I hope that puts some perspective on the Electoral College issue. Trump got 46 percent of the popular vote. Not many British or Canadian prime ministers can claim anything like that level of popular support. See "All time low share of popular vote is enough for Liberals to win power." PeterKa (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

Yes, this is normal in Canadian/British politics -- parties can win well under 40% of the vote and win a solid parliamentary majority. Look at the UK Labour Party's election results in the 1990s, as an extreme example. The Electoral College still has a good purpose -- to preserve the federal aspect of the U.S. government, one that preserves the importance of state government. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

Our system is more democratic. No head of state is directly elected in a parliamentary system. Trudeau is elected party boss by Members of Parliament, who in this case sit a Electors. The voters of Canada do not have an opportunity to vote for or against Trudeau. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:32, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

IMO, the problem with the Canadian system is that power is concentrated in the hands of the prime minister, who can use said power to implement social engineering schemes aimed at pleasing himself. The one that comes to mind is bilingualism, the pet project of the elder Trudeau. It is quite obviously unsuccessful in the sense that no significant number of Canadians are learning a language because of it. Yet it has created a bilingual elite and disadvantages the monolingual majority. PeterKa (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2019 (EDT)

Atheists are badly losing. Conservative Christians are victorious!

The big picture of the view of the world which certainly is important given sub-replacement level of fertility in the developed world, the sub-replacement level of births of the irreligious (see: Atheism and fertility rates) and the fact that religious people often immigrate (see: Religion and migration):

"By comparison, there were 138 million atheists around the world in mid-2019 – slightly more than the 137 million in 2000 but less than the 165 million in 1970. Atheism’s annual growth (.04 percent) is less than that of the population, and the number of atheists worldwide is projected to decline to 132 million in 2025...

Among Christian traditions, evangelicalism (2.19 percent) and Pentecostalism/charismatic Christianity (2.26 percent) are growing faster than Protestantism (1.61 percent) and Roman Catholicism (1.02 percent)."[9]

And of course, while atheism lacks proof and evidence that is true, Christianity has an abundance of proof and evidence that it is true (see: Evidence for Christianity).

Onward, Christian Soldiers, marching as to war...Wikignome72 (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2019 (EDT)

Wikignome72, I hope you don't mind my wikilinking that song to its lyrics here; I'm thinking it would encourage the troops! VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 17:32, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
I don't mind.Wikignome72 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
Say hello to New Zealand's newest asylum seeker], seeking refuge from John Durham. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:41, 27 October 2019 (EDT)

"A favorite lie" resurfaces—in Ann Coulter column.

Conservative political phenomenon Ann Coulter ran one of her satirical columns Wednesday, where she poses hypothetical follow-up questions to the Democratic candidates.

The "favorite lie" I mentioned a few weeks back that appeared in an Elizabeth Warren debate answer, this time appeared in Julián Castro's Twitter feed, a lie which exploited the sad fact of transsexual domestic disharmony or participation in prostitution, together with other non-bias homicides, by falsely portraying it as an epidemic of bigots targeting sexual dysphorics to the magnitude of a Presidential-level crisis, while the actual statistics reduced it to ten people total in comparable statistics in 2018, their cataloguer even noting "Trans homocides are underrepresented compared to non-trans groups."

Ann Coulter's satire of the political exploitation (because you don't know whether to laugh or cry about it), revealed a distinguishing characteristic of the offender of one of the remaining actual hate-crime homicides (which could very well apply to the others), pointing to how it would have been preventable by sane federal policies:

Question for Julián Castro (D-Texas):
You recently criticized your successor as Housing and Urban Development secretary, Ben Carson, for his remark that “big, hairy men" were trying to gain admittance to women's shelters. You tweeted: “19 Black trans women have been killed this year because comments like Ben Carson's normalize violence against them.”
Just a few weeks ago, a black transgender woman, Daniela Calderon, was shot six times in the abdomen, hip and chest in Dallas by a man yelling homophobic and transphobic slurs. The accused shooter is an illegal alien from Mexico, who had been deported in 2010 and was committing a felony by re-entering this country. He was released on bond and has now disappeared.
Question: Which would you say contributed more to the transphobic attack on Daniela Calderon — Ben Carson’s “comments” or our policy of refusing to control our borders?

VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 00:42, 24 October 2019 (EDT)

Castro is near death and his days are numbered. Look at this chart under Democrat reports. You can learn a lot about the American presidential election process.
In analyzing this chart, you can see the most marginal candidates have a staff of three who are paid between $1000-$2000 per week, and spend about $10,000 per week which includes flying around the country.
Right now, most of the disbursements go for paid staff. Later, media adverting will dwarf those disbursements. So you have three tiers: those sitting at home doing nothing and trying to rake in donors; those with paid full time staff in Iowa or New Hampshire; and those with paid full time staff in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The size of those staffs vary from 2-3 to a dozen or more, hence the variation in disbursements (ranging from $250,000 to $2.5 million per quarter - which includes media advertising).
These paid full time staffers work the campuses, trying to get idiot, unpaid volunteers (that's usually how Democrats work). Hence, much of the media advertising (and debate schedule as well) is targeted at college-age students. The media advertising directed at students is intended to convince students that the candidate has big momentum and to get them to volunteer to be part of something. Steyer is probably the worst offender, and Castro a big failure, demonstrating once again white privilege and the institutional racism of the Democratic party, and that the 18-25 year old group ain't buying Castro's extremism, which is very telling when you examine his rhetoric on the issues on a point-by-point basis.
Bottom line, "Money talks and BS walks." What I can't figure it is what did John Delaney spend $26 million on (putting him in the same league as Biden, Warren, Buttigieg and Harris, and above O'Rourke, Booker and Klobuchar) and have nothing to show for it - other than the fact that 18-25 year old Democrats are bigots who judge a white man by how much hair he has on his head. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 05:32, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
Ahem. Do you still maintain that the large donors will surround one of the back-bencher Democratic candidates and provide them fuel to blast to the front of the contenders, that is, if they don't crater on the way there like Kamala Harris? Skeptical political amateur, Rodney Bigot (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
Hard to say what will happen. Maybe Hillary, Bloomberg, or Kerry will get into the race. Maybe Steyer will rise to the top. It's gonna be a bloodbath when voters have their say. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:16, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
To illustrate the point, Beto has money coming out of his ears (see chart link above), but can't get any traction for volunteers on campus. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:14, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
So, what does this mean, the failure of Beto to gain any traction on campus? It means Hope. It means young Progressives understand the meaning of, and the need for, the 2nd Amendment. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 08:25, 26 October 2019 (EDT)

Hillary 2020! Let's get ready to rumble!

Clinton Advisor Philippe Reines: Hillary Has Not Closed The Door On 2020.[10]

I thought she might run given Biden's weakness as a candidate.Wikignome72 (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2019 (EDT)

I think she needs to stop wearing pantsuits though and perhaps given the upcoming rematch, wear something similar to what Apollo Creed wore in Rocky II.Wikignome72 (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
That is not funny. Let me explain why: Hillary was a Senator and a Secretary of State and is a very serious candidate. If you don't support her in her quest, it proves you don't like women. And if you think women would be in bad shape if she were really the best woman candidate, you're obviously someone who has terrible taste for not agreeing with liberals in general, who are experts on the latest new ideas that always work out.
You also didn't italicize the movie title "Rocky II" in your essay. More evidence of bad taste!! VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 18:49, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
Please tell me you're joking... There are plenty of women politicians, some of whom did a much better job than Hillary. Like, I don't know, Karen Handel. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
"There has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill, nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America." - Barack Obama.[11]
In addition, it's her turn.[12]
If it weren't for: the Russians, the terrible shape the DNC was in when she ran, sexism, submissive women voting the way their husband's voted, the mainstream media no longer being able to control the narrative and the electoral college system, she would have won. It wasn't her fault! She needs to be given a second chance!
The logic is inescapable - Hillary 2020!Wikignome72 (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2019 (EDT)

New York Times floodwall breached

No one spied on Trump--it's good they spied on Trump! There's no such thing as the Deep State--the Deep State is a good thing!

Corollary: Then--How dare you attack our law enforcement community? Now--Justice Department is Trump's lap dog!

VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 15:12, 25 October 2019 (EDT)

Remember a few years ago when the study came out that goldfish have a bigger attention span than humans? NYT editors predicate everything on that scientific fact. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:29, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
This is pertaining to what? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 20:38, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Ok, ok. You got me. It only took me a few days to figure it out. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:25, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Chuck Grassley caught sending code to RobS

This is obviously some kind of "fist-bump" compromising both of their appearance of withholding skepticism at suspicious government acts!

All of the delays and excuses why the Horowitz IG FISA report isn’t public yet after several months of anticipation of its issues leads me to the suspicion it’s going to be “deep six” by the deep state (Chuck Grassley, October 21, 2019, 5:59 pm)

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 18:18, 26 October 2019 (EDT)

It's probably in excess of 800 pages and won't be out til after Thanksgiving.
More recent developments are:
  1. McCabe turned down a plea deal, which means it goes before a grand jury now (Comey and McCabe are already at odds over whether Comey approved the leaks that got McCabe fired);
  2. Brennan swore under oath the Steele dossier had nothing to do with his January 3, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian meddling; Comey has an email telling staff that Brennan insisted they include it.
  3. Comey's "I hope you can see your way to let this go" memo alleging Trump was trying to obstruct justice by interfering in the Flynn investigation is BS cause the DOJ cleared Flynn of allegations two weeks earlier.
  4. Flynn will walk.
  5. Mueller prosecutors may be reprimanded.
  6. Clapper's gonads are in a vice over two leaks now, one to Jake Tapper over the news hook to report the pee-pee memo, and secondly okaying the kill shot on Flynn. Clapper already gave the Nuremberg Defense on CNN, "I was just following Der Fuhrer Obama's orders."
  7. Mifsud and Halper have been trying to frame Flynn since 2014, probably on Brennan, Clapper, and Der Fuhrer's orders, cause Flynn knew about Obama's order to Brennan to arm ISIS.
  8. FISA abuse had been occurring since June 2012, when Obama was running for re-election, and after they got caught using the IRS to target political opponents.
  9. The same names of American citizens (i.e. Republicans and the Trump campaign) were illegally entered over and over and over again in the FISA database to provide real time monitoring between November 2015 (when Mifsud and Halper first started working on Papadopoulos) and May 2016 (when Adm. Rogers shut it down and Hillary, Obama, and the DNC hired FusionGPS).
All in all, the break-in at the Watergate Hotel, where the burglars got caught before they planted a wire, looks like a church picnic compared to Obama/DNC spying on the opposition and corruption. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:27, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
The views on this page are going nuts...on a Saturday night. Imagine that. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:23, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
The "wiretapping" not ending until May 2016 was thus during the entire Republican nomination process. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:54, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
That's why Fusion GPS took over, cause Adm. Rogers of the NSA cut them off from access to the database. FusionGPS' job was to develop supposed information so they could go to the FISA court and get legal authority to wiretap. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:14, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
Lol. Creeps. I had guessed from the incomplete timeline I put together in my head the administration came up with the snooping idea at some point in the campaign, having been startled at some point. Not this continuous series of spying abuses, start to finish. I guess Obama took the idea he talked about wanting to be Spiderman (being able to use all those hi-tech gadgets Peter Parker came up with) too much to heart (to the point of massive illegality)! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 08:37, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Or: Obama got away with Benghazi, so, he thought, dig deeply enough to stand under Trump and give a big enough push, and any of Trump's center of gravity beyond legality will carry him over the fence into criminality. Except Trump was clean. This calls for some crowing, but I'm not going to give Obama's corrupt buddies any more of my clever idea-pictures to rally against! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 08:56, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
I think the "Oconus lures" episode (December 2015) shows the Obama administration was prepared to frame a "Russia collusion hoax" against whoever the GOP nominee would be (Rubio, Cruz, etc.). They were hoping it would be Trump, cause in everyone's estimation at the time Trump would be the easiest for Hillary to beat. You will recall, it was reported in March 2016 (before primaries ended) that Trump had received $2 billion in free publicity, as he was being heavily promoted by CNN at that time. This implies collusion at a deeper level.
Much of that collusion followed Nixon's model in 1972; Nixon's "ratf*****s" job was to sabotage the campaigns of Nixon's more serious rivals, such as Ed Muskie, and promote a radical fringe candidate - George McGovern. As this fact became known in 1973, deliberate meddling in the opposition parties internal primary process, became more of a public outrage than the actual Watergate breakin, which was actually a failure cause they got busted before a wire could be planted. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:42, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Why right-wing populism will triumph

It seems like the media elites are starting to come out of their denialism and are beginning to recognize that right-wing populism is not a temporary blip on the radar.Wikignome72 (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Shouldn't I get a virtual private network before I click these? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 20:28, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
Which "right-wing populism" do you speak of? The America-centric version that Trump promotes? The National Globalist version that Putin promotes? Or the version that followers of Ron Paul promote? Those are very different -- and incompatible -- versions. --Geopolitician (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
"right wing populism" is a pejorative term coined by leftists to mean "proto-fascist". RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:09, 29 October 2019 (EDT)

Site metrics

Hello Andy, what page hit metrics do you have lately on a per-page basis?
What single page over the last 15 days has gained the most; what dropped the most?
What single page over the last 90 days has gained the most; what dropped the most?
What single page over the last 180 days has gained the most; what dropped the most?
If you don't have metrics, how hard is it to install/upgrade?Progressingamerica (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Upgrading to newest version of Wikimedia would mean losing the view counters on the bottom of pages. So Andy does not want to do it. Many editors like to see the view counters.Wikignome72 (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
So the only way to get single page metrics is a newer version of Wikimedia? Progressingamerica (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
For the record, I also like the view counters since they're very useful, so I would want any new Wikimedia version to keep that feature. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
I am not a Wikimedia expert. I just know the last version of the Wikimedia software that had view counters is the version we have. We upgraded to the version we have because it is mobile friendly in terms of site visitors.Wikignome72 (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
I also think the view counters is useful in total, it just doesn't help in any other way. Sure that page has 120,000 page views but 119,000 of them were before you even made edits to the page. I guess the three questions I have are these:
1) What other way is there to get metrics besides the Wikimedia software. I hadn't assumed that upgrading the entire site was the answer at the outset. Sounds like a whole lot of work and headache if a simple modular snap-in isn't available.
2) Where does the assumption come from that the total view counters go away? Total views is in itself a metric, and anything that didn't have that number would be equally just as useless. You just now have a much more comprehensive tool for metrics, including total views.
3) Nobody sees the value in internal trends? Progressingamerica (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
All that information is available at Popular Pages. A page needs 75,000 views to be ranked in the top 500. If it hasn't done it in the first year, it may take 10 years. Popular pages gives you more information to analyze - what pages a particular article or subject is competing with. For example, right now Dinosaur ranks just ahead of Jesus Christ; Hillary Clinton has been closing in Joe Biden since Biden announced his candidacy; George Soros has passed up old staples like Joe McCarthy and Alger Hiss, etc.
You find opportunities, as well. For example, Revolution is ranked No. 42 w/418K views. The article stinks. It's just as pale and thin as Wikipedia's Revolution. So obviously there is much interest among readers in this subject which is not being served by either Wikipedia or Conservapedia.
The top 100 (of 45,000 articles) shows where viewer interest is at. There are pages moving up fast (Soros, Obama administration, Clinton body count, etc. Donald Trump is about to overtake Kangaroo, which was a big hit in the early days. Some are stagnant; Al Gore has sat at #69 for a full year now. Others are fading from view (FDR, New Deal, etc. no longer rank in the top 100). These indicators give a sense of reader interest and trends. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:56, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Hello Rob, how are you? That helps, but its not quite what I mean. For example, Main Page‏‎ (41,928,459 views) may increase by 3000 or 300,000 over the next week or month. So the number may change to 42,228,459, but it won't tell you that it increased by a difference of 300,000. That would require taking out a calculator and having the old frame of reference. Maybe a screenshot or something. You would have to actually know that the old number was 41,928,459 to begin with otherwise the month's metric of 300,000 is lost. Well, not that I see anyways. If I missed it, let me know. Progressingamerica (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Oh yes, you have a good point. Does Wikimedia have something that does that? I'm a regular reader of the Popular Pages page, but the only way to discover the rate at which a page is advancing is by copypasting the data somewhere (usually on the articles Talk page ) with a time stamp. That's quite cumbersome. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:16, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Yes, this is what they have. It is super easy to use and see that the total page hits for "Cat" is a little over 12 million. In the menu over on the left click the Dates/calendar, then click "all time". Done. That simple. And two pages can also be compared. [13]

Another good example is Ocasio-Cortez has 29,000 views and was started in July 2018; Elizabeth Warren has 22,000 views and was started in 2010. This type of information is invaluable for the amount of time and attention an editor should give to a page. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:16, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

If we had site metrics, we could target higher traffic pages and bring them even higher to the surface. As to the two pages you mentioned and in particular Elizabeth Warren, that's less than 3000 per year. What this suggests(and we can't prove without metrics) is that nobody reads this page without first coming to the Conservapedia home page and browsing around. That page isn't "accidentally" being seen from outside on the interwebs. Progressingamerica (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
Consider this scenario. The page "Conservative Bible Project" caps the bottom of the most viewed pages. But what if (for example) prior to one of these final debates the page for Jay Inslee starts surging over a few week period because some phrase in it is catching some search terms. If that page never eclipses 1.6+ million(which is easily a reality), it will never become known to us. The surge ends sometime shortly after the debate, it doesn't see new activity here by our contributors, so the end result is that the page never has the opportunity to move out of obscurity in the wider internet when it is surging. We lose opportunities on a regular basis around here because of this blindness. The opposite is also true about pages that drop off, considering some of the one-off editors that make their way through here. Progressingamerica (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
Maybe we all need a tutorial: What it is, How does it work, and How do we get it? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:39, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
Six years ago I wrote a computer program to enable me to take a snapshot of activity to see which entries were being visited most, without relying on intrusive Google software. In response to the above I just updated and ran it. Here are the top 20 entries visited this afternoon on Conservapedia:
  1. Main_Page
  2. Atheism
  3. Clinton_body_count
  4. Obamagate_timeline
  5. Donald_Trump
  6. Alger_Hiss
  7. Katie_Hill
  8. Bernie_Sanders
  9. Barack_Hussein_Obama
  10. Donald_Trump_achievements
  11. Eddie_Rispone
  12. United_States_presidential_election,_2020
  13. Homosexuality
  14. Russiagate_timeline_2017
  15. Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies
  16. Liberal
  17. George_Soros
  18. Muellergate_timeline_2019
  19. Democratic_Party
  20. Liberal_hypocrisy

--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2019 (EDT)

It appears as if the Conservapedia atheism article is the second most popular page on the website. Please see: Viral article deals major blow to atheism by PNN News and Ministry Network.Wikignome72 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2019 (EDT)

Site metrics, continued

I would like to see this discussion continued. Andy indicated that he has some ability to put together scripts which can facilitate some of what is needed. I would like to know how far we can go. Progressingamerica (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

I like your idea on Conservative media, as well (I think that discussion is now archived). Perhaps we can meld these two projects together. I have quite a bit of free time at the moment (awaiting the FISA abuse report which may take me away for sometime afterwards). But let's get both these projects started. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:49, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Nada

I have to admit I'm been fascinated by emotional dismissals. But mostly for the humorous (or as the Commonwealth puts it, humourous) component. Like maybe you blame a poor delivery of a joke you wrote for someone else the audience didn't understand for giving you "nothing" to work with—whether it really happened or not. This hasn't actually happened to me, but it might have to you. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 06:20, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

Happens all the time. That's why the search for a universal language (interesting, how the Spanish menu on my TV uses the word 'idioma' for 'language' rather than 'lingua' or 'tongue').
Trump knows this better than anyone cause his twitter jokes seem to go over the commie media's heads (you'd think they would understand the idioms, having grown up in the Saturday Night Live school of satire for decades). The guy is enormously hilarious; their constant taking offense is either deliberate ignorance and hypocrisy or symptoms of being plain brain dead. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:54, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

Who is the whistleblower?

Washington's greatest secret revealed: "How 'Whistleblower' May Be Outed: Ties to Biden, Brennan, Schiff's Staff, Etc.." His name is Eric Ciaramella (char-a-MEL-ah). He graduated from Yale and worked with Biden on Ukraine in 2015-2016. He was an NSC staffer in 2016-2017 and thus worked closely with Susan Rice, the unmasker in chief. There was a huge problem with leaks early in the Trump administration and Ciaramella was a suspect. So of course he was transferred to the CIA in mid-2017. They don't have any secrets worth keeping over there, apparently. PeterKa (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2019 (EDT)

Don't forget the other big story - Republicans were blocked from asking Vindman yesterday, Did you have any contact with Ciaramella after the July 25 phone call? Did you have any contact with Schiff's staff?
Other question could have been, Did you leak Trump's early 2017 phone calls to the Mexican and Australian presidents?, which are felonious national security leaks.
Oh, and Susan Rice dumped all the blame on Samantha Power, who unmasked over 300 names beginning in late 2015. John Bolton unmasked 2 while he was UN Ambassador. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:37, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Hey Peter, this "secret" was already revealed in #Golden Fleece Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2016 dinner guests. It turns out they all had a fancy dinner together before the election.
And hey, why didn't we get a report of your role as a military attaché in Hong Hong on Talk:Main Page? That is much more interesting than Schiff's two goons. What are we, chopped liver? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 00:35, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
And RobS, lol! VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 01:20, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
We're linking Ciaramella to Alexandra Chalupa right now (in real time), which is gonna blow thiexs thing wide open. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:32, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Although the conservative media is full of Ciaramella buzz at this point, no one in the mainstream media has even reported on the story. If it wasn't true, somebody would have debunked it by now. It seems that liberal journalists don't believe in reporting the news anymore, at least not news they don't like. I hope Barr makes an example out of this guy and sends him to prison for a good long time. PeterKa (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
If and when the minority in Congress ever win any participatory rights, and if the Democrats ever again respect constitutional due process and the rights of the accused, Matt Gaetz is gonna call Adam Schiff as his first witness: Did you collude with Eric Ciaramella? Did you collude with Vindman? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 08:55, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
In fairness to me, Peter Ka is like the Elvis Presley of declassification, only matched by Donald Trump, whose declassification of the picture of the dog who apprehended Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi netted 568K likes. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 09:55, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Conservapedia Talk:Main Page recent wild success

3.6% of the total visits to Talk:Main Page have occured in the last 29 days.

Okay, that's it, I don't have any more information! VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 01:43, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

So in CP's 144 month existence, that's about 500% above the average; I think the Deep State is spying on us to see what our priorities (and the style of rhetoric used) in preparation for the 2020 presidential election. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:15, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Spying? Perhaps a better description would be "reading the pages that we put on our public web site". The priorities and rhetorical style of the various contributors to this site are out there for all to see. Including all the "atheism and apricots" stuff. I doubt that any of this will influence the 2020 election. SamHB (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
What are you talking about, we delivered the one-two knock out punch to Katie Hill (Equality Act & White Supremacy). We made her the poser child for both. I've seen at least a dozen articles today of her supporters trying to pick up the pieces. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:48, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
@Rob: "So in CP's 144 month existence, that's about 500% above the average" I'm not so sure: The counter is reset whenever the page is destroyed and recreated - the current version was created on June 5, 2014 by User:Conservative. --AugustO (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
Don't spoil his fun, man. He's righteously LARPing for Trump, Jesus, and the American way. JohnZ (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

Hong Kong elections

On VargasMilan's advice above, I will update the report on Hong Kong that I wrote a couple of weeks ago. The election of the city's 18 district councils is not usually anything to get excited about. But my informants tell me that everyone plans to go to the polls in the next election, scheduled for November 24. In 2015, 55 percent of the vote went to pro-government parties while 40 percent went to the pro-democracy parties. How does that happen? In a low key election, a significant percentage of the vote consists of people who go to the polls simply because their bosses told them to go vote. Public opinion was evenly divided last time around. Since then opinion has shifted dramatically to the pro-democracy side. It's all rigged in the sense that the election judges can disqualify as many candidates as it takes to make sure the pro-government parties get a majority. Those judges are already hard at work, according to today's South China Morning Post: "By blocking Joshua Wong from standing for election, Hong Kong is just driving protesters back to the streets."
The government has made several concessions to the protestors recently. For example, it was reported that Carrie Lam, the city's hated chief executive, will step down by March. Lam's "local government" is just window dressing and power rests with the Communist Party, or "Liaison Office" as it is called in Hong Kong. PeterKa (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

As an administrative head, she's already a member of the Central Committee, I think. The next step up is the Politburo Standing Committee, as understand it. She can't fail, she can only be promoted out of a job. Time to bring in some fresh blood into a tough job. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:08, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Here is a list of current Central Committee members. Lam is not on it. But notice that Wang Zhimin, head of the Liaison Office, is a full member of the Central Committee. Wang reports to Zhang Xiaoming, head of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office. Zhang is also a Central Committee member. None of these people are on the Politburo or the Secretariat, so they may not be all that high ranking in terms of the national party. PeterKa (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Then she must be up for a job on the Central Committee. Either way, she gets promoted. If there is violence and bloodshed, she gets promoted to some mainland position; if peace and order is maintained, she gets promoted. Their system is not unlike the US civil service system. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:56, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Lam's background is in the Hong Kong civil service, not the Communist Party. The Hong Kong Communist Party is an "underground" organization and its membership is secret. So there is no way of knowing if she is a member. But the party doesn't trust anyone who hasn't been trained from college as a party man. After Tung Chee-hwa was ousted as chief executive in 2005, he was appointed vice chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. This is an advisory body whose chairman is on the Politburo Standing Committee. It is a place to park nonmembers of the party, the "fellow travelers" as Trotsky would put it. The conference has 25 vice chairmen, so there is even less to this honor than meets the eye.
If you want to compare the Chinese system to the U.S. federal bureaucracy, you should know that a very high number of people are being purged in China all the time, including quite high-ranking people. This is true both in the army and in the party. The reason usually given is corruption. Since Xi Jinping himself is hugely corrupt, at least according to the Panama Papers, there is obviously more to the story than that. PeterKa (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
That's the Discipline Inspection Commission. i started some work on that many years ago either here or in Wikipedia but didn't get far. Didn't Carrie Lam attend some high level Summer camp meeting with mainland CCP bosses just a few months ago? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:02, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
  • What do you know? Only Joshua Wong was disqualified as a district council candidate. So the election could end up being more or less democratic this time around. To review thousands of applications and disqualify only Wong suggests spite was a factor.[14]
    Vetting for candidates was introduced in 2016. It was imposed retroactively in order to disqualify six sitting lawmakers, just enough to give the pro-government parties a majority in the legislature. These legislators fell afoul of a rule against advocating "self-determination." "Self-determination of peoples" is enshrined in Article 1 of the United Nations Charter. (President Woodrow Wilson made it part of international law. He was a big fan of the Confederacy.) PeterKa (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
Did you see any protestors take measures to avoid facial recognition? If so, what were they? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 03:14, 3 November 2019 (EST)
Well, they wear masks. Masks have been a symbol of the protests ever since they were banned. It's usually just a piece of cloth. The Guy Fawkes mask is popular as well. They had a masquerade in the Lan Kwai Fong nightclub district for Halloween and the police used tear gas.[15] PeterKa (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2019 (EST)

Side comments

Organization of the CCP is an important and fascinating topic, for two reasons (1) The immediate necessity of Americans to understand the Chinese system, and (2) to clarify and rectify many misunderstandings Americans have about historic totalitarian regimes, i.e. the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

In both the Soviet and Nazi single party systems, neither the Communist party nor the Nazi party fully controlled the military. The armed military in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were the only potential internal threat the existence of single party control. It was for this reason that both the KGB and SS were created, to strong arm the military and protect the party.

By contrast, in the Chinese system, (and its progeny, such as Vietnam and Cuba), the party's center of power was formed around the military, and that is the one institution the party continues to dominate and control, and uses to intimate the traditional civil service. All this has yet to play out to its tragic finish as it did in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. In the USSR and the Third Reich, there were elements in the Red Army and Wehrmacht that sympathized with the plight of common people living under a totalitarian system; in the Chinese system, its unclear how any kind of armed dissent could arise within the military - which is the same as the communist party in full totalitarian control. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:25, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Unfortunately, we don't understand the party's internal structure very well. I have a book called The Party by Richard McGregor. So sources do exist. In Deng Xiaoping's time, the "Eight Elders" would meet each summer at Beidaihe and work out upcoming policy announcements for the Central Committee, Politburo, State Council, and so forth. Was this group a power center or just a collection of Deng's buddies? When the Elders started dying off, Deng lost his authority. So it is possible that they were the power behind the throne all along.
Because the party boss was top dog in the Soviet system, many people assume the general secretary runs China like a dictator. In the 1950s, Deng was general secretary, but he was definitely not the top leader. According to the party's constitution, the Politburo sets party policy while the Secretariat implements it. PeterKa (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
I don't want to give the impression I'm speaking with knowledge or authority, but rather just personal impressions' It's almost like there is a dual system: (1) A Politburo and a Politburo Standing Committee, then (2) a Party Congress and the Central Committee. The Politburo and Party Congress seem to be formalities and annual events where party policy is adopted, then the standing committees are year-round administrators. There is some minor or modest overlap in personal. The big question is, Where does the real power reside? Theoretically, the standing committees just implement and administer the policies of the Congress and Politburo, but it could also be the annual formal meetings are just honorary positions that rubber stamp policy decisions and directions adopted by the bureaucrats in the course of the previous year. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:03, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
I read the Congressional Research Service's Understanding China’s Political System, (45 pages) which is what Members of Congress and people in the USG use. It's revised from time to time, but hasn't been revised in 6 years now. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:20, 1 November 2019 (EDT)

Israel vs. Ukraine

It's useful to note that while Democrats are complaining about "quid pro quo" with Trump and Ukraine, they openly support the same policy with regard to Israel: [16] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Subtitle in your article: "Bernie Sanders says Israel would have to ‘fundamentally change’ its relationship to Gaza to receive aid if he is elected".
A socialist who had a heart attack recently talking about what is going to happen to US/Israel policy if he is elected to be president of the United States. I think Bernie Sanders needs to create greater self-awareness within himself. "A man has got to know his limitations" - Dirty Harry, Magnum Force[17]Wikignome72 (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Point of fact: there was only ever a potential quid pro quo between the Ukraine and the Trump Administration. And the phony (Congressional) "House Inquiry" testimony indeed bore out the Ukrainians never originated a new policy with regard to investigating government or business entities Trump called the president of Ukraine about or even the Bidens, who came later in the conversation. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 10:16, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Revival of pictures of New York City gaslights

I forgot how pretty these looked! I like all the funny names of the different brands. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 11:05, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

float right

Shame it just shows the frequency relative to the peak so you can't compare each word. It would be interesting if there was a similar graphic showing what percentage of articles contained that word at that time so you could get a better overall picture as well as some more non-woke words. Still fascinating though. FredericBernard (talk)
Let me remark, I found this upload fascinating. I wish we could find a mainspace to put it. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:19, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Idea for Main Page Right

Today is Reformation Day, the 502nd anniversary of Martin Luther's theses on the church door at Wittenberg. The rest is, to use a cliché, history. We had a very interesting discussion about it today at our interfaith group!

It goes without saying that the mass media won't mention it. Rafael (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

Christine Blasey Ford had nothing to gain by testifying

...except non-stop acclamations, awards and receptiveness to her political leadership from multitudes of spiteful liberals (that is, nearly all of them) from that point forward.[1]

We should subpoena her tax returns and find out how profitable lying, fraud, and subversion is. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:21, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Reference

  1. Prestigiacomo, Amanda (November 1, 2019). "Christine Blasey Ford wins another award, gives acceptance speech". Dailywire.com

Shaking my head

Fox News reported a Finnish politician is under a 'hate crime investigation' for sharing a Bible verse on Facebook.

What a bigot. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 05:53, 7 November 2019 (EST)

Is Warren taking a dive?

After briefly acheiving frontrunner status, Warren's poll numbers dropped dramatically when she proved unable to explain how she will pay for her signature "Medicare for All" proposal. She has also adopted a curious strategy of not responding to criticism. See "Elizabeth Warren blows up the 'war room'." Obama's people wanted Warren to run against Hillary in 2016. Obama aide Valerie Jarrett leaked the story of Hillary's "homebrew" email server to give her a helping hand. (This is a bit of history the mainstream media has been doing its best to erase lately.)
Warren was apparently afraid of challenging Hillary in 2016. When you think about what happened to Brett Kavanaugh, Don Imus, or others who've crossed the Clintons, she was probably playing it safe. Who thought you could still red bait a Democratic congresswoman like Tulsi Gabbard? It's so old school. Warren can position herself so she can pick up the pieces when Hillary finally realizes that her campaigning days are over.
Or at least that's the way I hope things work out. America has been on the Clintons' enemies list since the 2000 election. Hillary will be in quite a vindictive mood by the time inaugeration rolls around. PeterKa (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2019 (EST)

Michelle Obama is the only one who could reassemble Democratic voters - minus non-aligned and crossovers. Warren can't get blacks onboard, and looks increasingly like she never will if she can't do it right now in the next 3 months. Warren's other problem is Wall Street, which pledged $70 million to fund the DNC convention but now has second thoughts. Hillary wants to run so bad, but she can't win a two-way contest (her 2 Senate wins were virtually unopposed in the general election), never mind a wide field. Dick Morris, no amateur, lays out a scenario where Warren becomes inevitable. And it's like watching a slow train wreck. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:42, 10 November 2019 (EST)
I hope Bloomberg is testing the waters just out of vanity. Blacks hate him for being pro-police while progressives hate him for being fiscally responsible. That leaves him competing with Gabbard for the white moderate vote. PeterKa (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2019 (EST)
He's picking up the anti-gun torch from Beto. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:10, 10 November 2019 (EST)

Ciaramella vs. Plame

Throughout the Valerie Plame episode, we were free to say the woman’s name all we liked. It was never established whether she was an undercover agent or not. But her status at the CIA, whatever it was, was treated as blown as soon as Robert Novak’s article was published.
Not so with Eric Ciaramella, or “whistleblower,” as the media lovingly refers to him. Although his name is all over the conservative media, it’s out of bounds as far as our mainstream gatekeepers are concerned. See “Facebook scrubbing 'any and all mentions' of alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella.” If there is any precedent for keeping a “secret” this way, I am not aware of it.
The logic for keeping a whistleblower’s name secret is to prevent retaliation at his place of employment. But Ciaramella’s various supervisors presumably know all about him. Are we supposed to imagine that after talking to Adam Schiff on Capital Hill, Ciaramella goes back to Langley, puts in a day’s work as an analyst, and his coworkers are none the wiser?
So why can’t the media tell us anything about the man at the center of the hottest controversy in American politics? Well, if we knew who he was, we could examine his track record and determine if he is a credible source. The smart money says this is another production by the Steele dossier crew. PeterKa (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2019 (EST)

See Lawfare group -- the same guys who wrote Ciaramella complaint are prosecuting the case. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:12, 10 November 2019 (EST)
To the extent that the media has tried to justify not disclosing the alleged whistleblower's name, they point to death threats. The way they present the issue of threats is thoroughly dishonest. You don't have to be terribly famous to get death threats. I speak from personal experience here. Furthermore, the media is interested in them only to the extent that they serve an agenda. Anomynity for whistleblowers was not created in order to prevent death threats. If potential threats are the standard, you could justify anomynity for almost anyone. What about people listed in Trump's tax returns? There have been boycotts of businesses just for having links to Trump. PeterKa (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2019 (EST)
It makes no sense. How can he get death threats if he's not been named? Today I found this (published a month ago, October 11, 2019) scroll down to see the context:
"Adam Schiff claimed the whistleblower had received ‘death threats’ without saying when the alleged threats were received. Perhaps he forgot the whistleblower was anonymous; if so, how could they have been threatened?" RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:51, 10 November 2019 (EST)
I didn't realize that Fox News was also protecting this guy: "Fox News Contributor Causes Scene When She Names Alleged Whistleblower on Air." Hey, don't say "Ciaramella" or your mother will faint, and your father will fall in a bucket of paint. We need a blimp to go around the country with the message, "Eric Ciaramella is a fraud." Wasn't there a character in Harry Potter whose name you couldn't mention? PeterKa (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2019 (EST)
Watch a few minutes of this Tim Pool report. Facebook suspended him for mentioning Ciaramella. It's his first suspension ever anywhere. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:05, 11 November 2019 (EST)
What about Sean Misko, the second whistle-blower? We need to run a test on him, especially since he's an embarrassing wrinkle whom Adam Schiff wants to prevent from testifying altogether! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 04:53, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Misko is a Schiff staffers, isn't he? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:34, 11 November 2019 (EST)
I think he knew two of Schiff's staff members and was recruited by Schiff in August 2019.
Lol, just found out that Ciaramella's name was already mentioned in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence October 22, 2019 transcripts, published on November 6! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 10:07, 11 November 2019 (EST)

FLASHBACK October 10, 2019

Whistle-blower's attorney worked previously as probable soft coup ringleader James Clapper's attorney
Not only that, but s/he worked for an unnamed 2020 U.S presidential candidate's campaign.
Not only that, but Intelligence Committee member, allegedly intelligent, Adam Schiff remarked that s/he was receiving death threats. But how is that possible if s/he is anonymous? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 01:45, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
We'll have the answer to that in 2 or 3 years when nobody cares and she's forgotten. This is how Washington works.RobS De Plorabus Unum 06:43, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
My take: Hiding the (phony) whistle-blower's name is the (phony) media's way of helping the Democrats have more flexibility in staging or choreographing the impeachment drama, to compensate for the fact that there is no actual drama to the substance of what is left to disclose, in this case releasing the (phony) whistle-blower's name and face in a dramatic "reveal", even though, of course, the transcript was released weeks ago, and his testimony is completely unnecessary. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 16:05, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Coupled with the ongoing Facebook and Youtube censorship, you see how this is also a trial run for how Facebook and Google will handle the Democrats 2020 October Surprise. This impeachment coup has already been three years in the planning phase. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:49, 11 November 2019 (EST)
I don't think they planned it this way. When his existance was first announced, Schiff thought Ciaramella would be a great witness. Then something happened that made them think better of that idea. The obvious move for Republicans in the Senate is to call Ciaramella as a witness. I assume he will refuse to testify. I hope the Senate issues a subpoena and puts him in jail. PeterKa (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Theconsewrvativetreehouse back in December 2018 (before the new Congress was sworn in) outlined House Rules changes, as well as personnel, that were all geared toward impeachment. Among these changes was stripping the minority of any rights in hearings and depositions; striping the minority of the right to be notified that person was being summoned for a deposition; the sharing of information between committee chairs gathered by different committee subpoenas and hearings; the appointment of various Lawfare group attorneys in certain committees, etc. Here's a September 2019 recap of the earlier article. The two week timetable here was delayed, but even McConnell told Senators a few weeks ago to be prepared for a Senate trial before Thanksgiving. The public not catching on and lack of bipartisan support is basically the cause of the delay (so the MSM will continue hammering). The timetable is still before primary season begins (voting on February 3, 2020) cause at least four Senators will be on the road campaigning then.
The December 2018 articles I could retrieve, but that would take time. Usually Sundance of theconservativetreehouse (who sounds an awfully lot like the team of diGenova and Toensing) will link back to an earlier article or cut an paste into an expanded update. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:45, 11 November 2019 (EST)
Speaker Nancy Pelosi Outlines New Rules for 116th Congressional Session – Includes Schedule for Process of Trump Impeachment… - Posted on January 2, 2019 by sundance

Daily Beast article

If you read the article, you'll see the Daily Beast exposes nothing. It reports what is coming up in a TV show.

The Anthony Blunt story was explained in great detail back in the 1980s by Chapman Pincher and others. He was protected by the British Secret Service from the early 60s to avoid any further damage to US-UK relations which had already been strained by the Philby affair.

If you don't know about the Cambridge Spy Ring, this might seem like a revelation. However, it was extensively covered by the MSM back then and it's in a TV show produced by the MSM now....so why is it on MPR? Come on guys, you can do better. Rafael (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2019 (EST)

Great example! Initially, it was the "The Cambridge 2". Then a hunt for "The Third Man". Then eventually "The Cambridge 3", which lasted for about 2 decades. By the 1970s the hunt was on for "The Fourth Man", and people were tired of it. They now have settled on "Cambridge 5" (Wikipedia's title). Great example of confusing historigraphy. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:09, 10 November 2019 (EST)
Despite the fact that real life British intelligence was thoroughly infiltrated like this, the James Bond movies allowed the phrase "British intelligence" to retain quite a cachet. To reiterate what others have already posted, the Cambridge spy ring is a very old story at this point. You could cover the show as news, but what would that headline look like: "Netflix has produced a show about an old British spy scandal." PeterKa (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2019 (EST)
In reply to Rafael above, what the Daily Beast reports appears to be missing from the Wikipedia entry about the Cambridge Five. Why am I not surprised?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2019 (EST)
The fifth man, John Cairncross, was exposed in the 1980s. Like the other four, his duplicity and trwason was known decades earlier. Again, there's nothing here that is either a) recent news or b) hasn't been extensively covered by the MSM in the past. I simply fail to see how a web article about a TV show produced by the MSM about something that has already been extensively covered merits MPR status. The British elections are far more interesting! Rafael (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2019 (EST)
So Lord Rothschild was the 6th Man? [18] RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:35, 11 November 2019 (EST)

MPL Update: 750,000,000 page views

Need an update. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:57, 11 November 2019 (EST)

Falsifiability

Is sexism worse than it was before? Is racism? Do the misdeeds and weaknesses we are encouraged to avoid in the Bible through obedience to our faith misrepresent what is right and wrong?

Unless affirmations of these beliefs, and those like them, include conditions under which they can be falsified, it's impossible for them to have any independent validity. Because then they could be the product of merely emotional leaps (in this case, as often, perhaps to be used as fig leaves or vehicles for revenge) without connection to reality, having gone unexamined.

These, otherwise, political pseudo-principles do harm, and are in a sense violence, in that when they are promoted, they distort the thinking of free citizens in their pursuit of what is the best interests of themselves and their country. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 05:35, 12 November 2019 (EST)

Sexism is social construct. I witnessed it happen. It happened when white privileged feminists hijacked the civil rights movement. White privileged feminists do not want equality with blacks. They want power. That's what the "glass ceiling" is all about. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:36, 12 November 2019 (EST)
I thought American liberals gave up Marxism after Solzhenitsyn's book as their project and made it women's liberation. At least one administrator here(!) bore the brunt of opposing what really became a liberation to abuse and be abused by divorce and devaluation of family life.
Is it wrong for me to suggest that black immigrants reached the point of hijacking the civil rights movement too as they have reached parity with American descendants of slaves in affirmative action programs?
Women's liberation kept the "sexist" label in reserve, then their successors later used it wherever they could, then instead of just applying it to events and people, they to this day apply the allegation to abstract structures of American life, where suddenly a hidden vein of sexism will have been discovered to have escaped (at best, aided by the research of an agency helped by further allegations of their having a non-political or neutral nature) coincidentally during phases of political processes where there is no leisure to study the evidence. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 09:46, 13 November 2019 (EST)
No no no, Solzhenitsyn is an anti-semitic bigot for criticizing communism, haven't you heard? (that's why the Nobel Committee gives awards for climate hoaxers, trying to rehab their reputation with leftists). Women's lib originated as a CIA plot 1957 when the CIA put Gloria Steinem on the payroll. The theory was that the Cambridge 5 got recruited in college so young people needed an alternative to Marxism to be recruited into, dedicate their lives to, and change the world (since Jesus and the church obviously were failing).
NYT reported the other day 40% of all Ivy League freshmen are immigrants or second generation immigrants; it's probably just a plan to push wepawations and encourage immigrants to get professional positions to keep ADOS on the Democratic plantation.
In the late 1960s and early 70s, honestly, when women started tossing around the word "sexism", as blacks benefited from affirmative action, housing discrimination laws, and handouts, most people just laughed when they heard or where accused of it. Which of course only became evidence that it was true and existed, as Hollywood, legislators and immigrant foreign rock stars picked up the torch (Woman Is The Nigger Of The World). As blacks achieved civil rights, the Vietnam war wound down, and Nixon was driven from office, the liberal left needed new causes to keep violent mobs in the street motivated and bound together. Feminism and environmentalism became the issues. Now that women have achieved "progress" (a few dozen Congressional seats, a majority of college degrees, and zero-population growth) environmentalism or climate change comes to the forefront (oh, the gay rights movement hijacked the civil rights movement from blacks and feminists in the 1990s; the trannies' time has now come but with zero population growth and immigration, nobody really cares cause it doesn't really matter in the long run). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:28, 13 November 2019 (EST)

The plan...

The plan is to dump Trump by February, install Nikki Haley as Pence's running mate (that's what her pro-MAGA book tour is all about) and Hillary jump back into the race. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:36, 12 November 2019 (EST)

Hillary jumping in is just her plan, I assume. If other top tier Democrats thought it was a good idea, she would have done it by now. Doesn't Pence get to pick his running mate? I don't think Hillary and Pence have joined up, at least not yet. Blacks despise Buttigieg and Bloomberg as pro-police. They don't respond to Warren. So I am looking at Sanders at this point. Hillary has a plan to stop Sanders, I'm sure. He went to Moscow for his honeymoon and would presumably be easier to red bait than Gabbard. PeterKa (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2019 (EST)
I thought filing deadlines were coming soon for Iowa and New Hampshire? Or was this a joke? VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 09:48, 13 November 2019 (EST)
This go-round (2020) will be a real test of Iowa and New Hampshire; Biden's strength is South Carolina (where blacks are 60% of Democrats) If Biden runs 4th or 5th in Iowa or New Hampshire, the MSM may use it to dispose of him before South Carolina (that's why Deval Patrick is being pushed now). One theory since the election of Obama is that blacks are more important than Iowa or New Hampshire, and that identity politics is more important than geographic or regional factors. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:56, 13 November 2019 (EST)

Hearings

What a farce. (A) The sanctity of NATO: Ukraine is not a member of NATO; Turkey, a member of NATO, just purchased a Russian missile defense system (presumably to defend against NATO missiles). NATO is dead. (B) Biden is not the Democratic nominee. Biden is not Trump's political opponent in a campaign. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:51, 13 November 2019 (EST)

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk awarded the Ukraine to Germany in 1917; Hitler invaded Russia with the idea to make the Crimea the "German Riviera". Now, after two world wars and 100 years, do you think Putin and the Russians will sit still for EU and Democrats to make the dream of Hitler and the Kaiser come true? Turn Sevastopol into a NATO naval base? Absolutely ludicrous. And We Americans will cede our Constitution, our Constitutional rights, and impeach a president to do so? Absolute insanity these Democrats, globalist/socialist and Trump haters have been overcome with. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:44, 13 November 2019 (EST)
Cool story, Rob. While I'm here, what you want for Christmas? The Putin 2020 calendar or the Putin on a bear action figure? JohnZ (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2019 (EST)
After all the tear-jerker stories about how vital Ukraine is to U.S. national security, no one asked the Dems' "experts" How many Americans they think will be willing to die for Ukraine? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:41, 13 November 2019 (EST)

The subtext

Mike Cernovich: Evangelical support for Israel is so high (72% or more) that people who claim to be American nationalists and populists while obsessing over Israel don’t want to win elections.

Some of you don’t want to give Israel foreign aid. We get it. And this is such a losing issue.

@CityBureaucrat: It's not about $. It's about the double standard of the U.S. supporting a nation that controls its borders, protects its citizens w/tariffs & socio-economic entitlements, & guarantees a particular identity & way of life against the market, while denying this to U.S. citizens.

The Dem & Repub parties want to demonize and even criminalize advocacy of these policies in the U.S. while effusively supporting Israel and its policies. Using our tax dollars to fund them is an additional slap in the face. I'm sure evangelicals would agree.

VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 00:13, 14 November 2019 (EST)

These are good observations. I'm speechless.
I recall Israel's 30th birthday, when Israel became a man (according to Jewish tradition). That was 40 years ago. If someone dared utter these sentences then in public, print, or broadcast, they would immediately be branded a Nazi. So, in part, it kinda depends on the Zeitgeist. Today for example scratching your butt without asking the gods of climate change to stave of the apocalypse makes one a Nazi. So I'm really confused and can't give any meaningful response. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:42, 14 November 2019 (EST)
This is a reference to Hosea 11:1? "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." (ESV) PeterKa (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2019 (EST)

Confirmed

To understand the complete Russia collusion hoax and impeachment scheme, read this John Solomon article from April 25 this year. Solomon states

"The January 2016 gathering....brought some of Ukraine’s top corruption prosecutors and investigators face to face with members of former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ)....U.S. officials “kept talking about how important it was that all of our anti-corruption efforts be united,” said Andrii Telizhenko, then a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington tasked with organizing the meeting."

Eric Ciaramella signed Andrii Telizhenko (spelled Andrey) into the White House on January 19, 2016, per White House visitor logs obtained by Judicial Watch. ("telizhenko,andriy,g,U67540,100561,VA,1/19/16 10:57,D1101,1/19/16 12:53,,01/19/2016 12:00:00 AM,1/19/16 11:00,1/19/16 23:59,,1,KH,WIN,1/19/16 10:51,KH,Ciaramella,Eric,OEOB,230A,HARTWELL,KYLE,,,04/29/2016 07:00:00 AM +0000",,,," [19] Judicial Watch: White House Visitor Logs Detail Meetings of Eric Ciaramella.)

Solomon writes in April of this year:

Americans’ objectives included two politically hot investigations: one that touched Vice President Joe Biden’s family and one that involved a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump.

Shut down the Biden case and frame Manafort. It's all right there. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:41, 14 November 2019 (EST)