Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Another article relating to the speed of light changing)
(Y'all...)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
[[Talk:Main Page/Archive index|Archive Index]]
 
[[Talk:Main Page/Archive index|Archive Index]]
 +
==Who will win the Democrat presidential primary? ==
 +
:''See also [[2020 presidential election]]
 +
{| class="wikitable sortable"  style="font-size:98%; margin:left;"
 +
|+Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee
 +
|+Who will win?
 +
|+
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="3" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 5px; background: #efefef;" |
 +
! colspan="8" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 5px; background: #efefef;" | Chance of becoming<br>Democratic nominee
 +
|-
 +
!class=unsortable|Candidate
 +
!<font size="-2">CA<br>ND<br>.<br>SO<br>RT
 +
!class=unsortable|Home<br>state
 +
!style="border-right:1px solid gray"|End of<br>month<br>June<br>26<br>8:57<br>pm<br>EDT
 +
!style="border-right:1px solid gray"|End of<br>month<br>Mon-<br>day,<br>Jul.<br>29,<br>2019
 +
!style="border-right:1px solid gray"|End of<br>month<br>Mon-<br>day,<br>Aug.<br>26,<br>2019
 +
!Mon-<br>day,<br>Sep.<br>16,<br>2019
 +
!Mon-<br>day,<br>Sep.<br>23,<br>2019
 +
!Tues-<br>day,<br>Oct.<br>1,<br>2019
 +
!Wed-<br>nes-<br>Oct.<br>9,<br>2019
 +
!Mon-<br>day<br>Oct.<br>14,<br>2019
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|V. Pres [[Joe Biden]]
 +
|{{invi|Bid}}
 +
|align="center"|DE
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|28.5%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|20.2%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|23.6%
 +
|align="right"|22.7%
 +
|align="right"|23.0%
 +
|align="right"|20.6%
 +
|align="right"|17.5%
 +
|align="right"|18.0%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Cory Booker]]
 +
|{{invi|Boo}}
 +
|align="center"|NJ
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|1.6%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|2.0%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|1.8%
 +
|align="right"|2.3%
 +
|align="right"|0.5%
 +
|align="right"|0.8%
 +
|align="right"|0.9%
 +
|align="right"|0.9%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Mayor [[Pete Buttigieg]]
 +
|{{invi|But}}
 +
|align="center"|IN
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|11.1%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|8.3%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|6.1%
 +
|align="right"|4.4%
 +
|align="right"|4.6%
 +
|align="right"|5.1%
 +
|align="right"|6.2%
 +
|align="right"|6.7%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Rep. [[Tulsi Gabbard]]
 +
|{{invi|Gab}}
 +
|align="center"|HI
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|2.5%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|1.4%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|1.4%
 +
|align="right"|1.0%
 +
|align="right"|1.1%
 +
|align="right"|1.4%
 +
|align="right"|1.2%
 +
|align="right"|1.2%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Kamala Harris]]
 +
|{{invi|Har}}
 +
|align="center"|CA
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|12.5%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|27.4%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|10.8%
 +
|align="right"|7.4%
 +
|align="right"|5.0%
 +
|align="right"|4.3%
 +
|align="right"|3.9%
 +
|align="right"|2.6%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Rep. [[Beto O'Rourke]]
 +
|{{invi|O'R}}
 +
|align="center"|TX
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|4.0%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|1.3%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|0.5%
 +
|align="right"|0.9%
 +
|align="right"|0.9%
 +
|align="right"|1.0%
 +
|align="right"|0.7%
 +
|align="right"|0.5%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Bernie Sanders]]
 +
|{{invi|San}}
 +
|align="center"|VT
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|11.2%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|7.5%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|13.4%
 +
|align="right"|12.5%
 +
|align="right"|9.3%
 +
|align="right"|7.8%
 +
|align="right"|5.0%
 +
|align="right"|4.2%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Elizabeth Warren]]
 +
|{{invi|War}}
 +
|align="center"|MA
 +
|align="right" sty2le="border-right:1px solid gray"|15.9%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|21.5%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|31.5%
 +
|align="right"|36.6%
 +
|align="right"|40.8%
 +
|align="right"|46.7%
 +
|align="right"|50.1%
 +
|align="right"|51.8%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sec'y [[Hillary Clinton]]
 +
|{{invi|Cli}}
 +
|align="center"|NY
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|1.7%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|1.5%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|2.0%
 +
|align="right"|3.4%
 +
|align="right"|4.6%
 +
|align="right"|5.7%
 +
|align="right"|7.5%
 +
|align="right"|5.8%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Andrew Yang]]
 +
|{{invi|Yan}}
 +
|align="center"|NY
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|5.5%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|3.3%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|4.0%
 +
|align="right"|5.2%
 +
|align="right"|4.8%
 +
|align="right"|4.4%
 +
|align="right"|4.4%
 +
|align="right"|3.9%
 +
|}
  
 +
{| class="wikitable sortable"  style="font-size:98%; margin:left;"
 +
|+Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee
 +
|+Who will win?
 +
|+
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="3" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 5px; background: #efefef;" |
 +
! colspan="7" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 5px; background: #efefef;" | Twitter followers
 +
|-
 +
!class=unsortable|Candidate
 +
!<font size="-2">CA<br>ND<br>.<br>SO<br>RT
 +
!class=unsortable|Home<br>state
 +
!style="border-right:1px solid gray"|Accts<br>as of<br>June<br>29
 +
!style="border-right:1px solid gray"|New<br>accts<br>end of<br>July(30)
 +
!style="border-right:1px solid gray"|New<br>accts<br>Aug<br>26
 +
!New<br>accts<br>Sep<br>13
 +
!New<br>accts<br>Sep<br>16
 +
!style="border-right:1px solid gray"|New<br>accts<br>Oct<br>1
 +
!New<br>accts<br>Oct<br>16
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|V. Pres [[Joe Biden]]
 +
|{{invi|Bid}}
 +
|align="center"|DE
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|&nbsp;&nbsp;03.6M:1
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+19,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+64,000
 +
|align="right"|+29,000
 +
|align="right"|+8,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+45,000
 +
|align="right"|+98,000
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Cory Booker]]
 +
|{{invi|Boo}}
 +
|align="center"|NJ
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|04.4M:2
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+28,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+39,000
 +
|align="right"|+9,000
 +
|align="right"|+3,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+9,000
 +
|align="right"|+12,000
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Mayor [[Pete Buttigieg]]
 +
|{{invi|But}}
 +
|align="center"|IN
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|01.2M:2
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+72,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+101,000
 +
|align="right"|+32,000
 +
|align="right"|+48,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+26,000
 +
|align="right"|+30,000
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Rep. [[Tulsi Gabbard]]
 +
|{{invi|Gab}}
 +
|align="center"|HI
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|00.6M:2
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+34,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+118,000
 +
|align="right"|+20,000
 +
|align="right"|+5,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+27,000
 +
|align="right"|+27,000
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Kamala Harris]]
 +
|{{invi|Har}}
 +
|align="center"|CA
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|03.6M:2
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+245,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+119,000
 +
|align="right"|+45,000
 +
|align="right"|+11,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+48,000
 +
|align="right"|+61,000
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Rep. [[Beto O'Rourke]]
 +
|{{invi|O'R}}
 +
|align="center"|TX
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|01.4M:1
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+4,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+116,000
 +
|align="right"|+30,000
 +
|align="right"|+14,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+24,000
 +
|align="right"|+22,000
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Bernie Sanders]]
 +
|{{invi|San}}
 +
|align="center"|VT
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|17.8M:2
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+134,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+264,000
 +
|align="right"|+114,000
 +
|align="right"|+22,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+93,000
 +
|align="right"|+140,000
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Elizabeth Warren]]
 +
|{{invi|War}}
 +
|align="center"|MA
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|07.8M:2
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+225,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+273,000
 +
|align="right"|+110,000
 +
|align="right"|+27,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+137,000
 +
|align="right"|+182,000
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sec'y [[Hillary Clinton]]
 +
|{{invi|Cli}}
 +
|align="center"|NY
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+316,000
 +
|align="right"|+115,000
 +
|align="right"|+22,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+123,000
 +
|align="right"|+152,000
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Andrew Yang
 +
|{{invi|Yan}}
 +
|align="center"|NY
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|00.5M:1
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|
 +
|align="right"|+97,000
 +
|align="right"|+22,000
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+48,000
 +
|align="right"|+51,000
 +
|}
  
==[[Horror of a unique position|The horror of a non-unique position]]==
+
===We are at a pivotal moment for Black voters===
  
"Man in critical condition after hearing slightly differing viewpoint" (April 11, 2019). ''Babylon Bee'' (h/t Mike S. Adams)[https://babylonbee.com/news/man-in-critical-condition-after-hearing-slightly-differing-viewpoint]
+
Everyone agrees Democrats cannot win the presidency without Black voters. This almost guarantees Harris' nomination. Blacks at this moment are waking up to the fact that everything they have ben told about Biden by white Democrats, trusted Black Democrats, the media, and the schools, during Obama's presidency and for the previous 50 years, is a bald face lie. Their trust in the party is contingent on them being in control now, since the election of Obama, even though many are not particularly enamored to Obama, ''especially'' since Biden's racism is now exposed. Another consequence is a rethinking of all the lies Democrats, schools, and media have told about Republicans for a little more than 50 years.  
  
GLENDALE, CA—A man was rushed to the hospital yesterday after encountering a slightly different viewpoint than his own Wednesday.
+
This is largely a discussion going on among Blacks themselves now. No longer will the automatic reaction to a Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Candace Owens or Kanye West be, "Oh, that's just another Uncle Tom;" They will look at white liberals with a jaundiced eye (the way they look at Sanders, Hillary, or Warren) even more suspiciously than they have in the past. There will be a legitimate debate among Blacks whether slave reparations is just tossing them another bone to ride the back of the buss by house negroes such as Cory Booker, who's not doing so well. Harris's nomination is almost guaranteed right now - just as matter of keeping the Democrat party together - complete with the "Republicans are racists" mantra up to election day November 2020. But truth is, more and more Blacks daily are waking to the fact that this is a lie, and the only hope Black Democrats and their white liberal cracker allies, who they increasingly are disgusted with, have to win.
+
Shortly before 12:30 p.m., Glendale PD officers responded to a 911 call at the Java Lounge Coffee House in the 900 block of North Emerson Road. They found a person who had collapsed in shock and went to the station for help. Witnesses say the man was having a casual conversation about politics with another patron when the minutely opposing viewpoint was expressed.  
+
  
"They were both Democrats, Bernie supporters," said Janice Hughson, a barista at the Java Lounge. "Then the guy he was talking to said he had some issues with abortion and thinks there should at least be a few limitations put on the practice. That's when the man seized up and began foaming at the mouth. It was terrible."
+
Even if Harris were to win, don't be fooled by the alleged pride Blacks have in her. Many, many of them have little trust in her and don't feel Harris represents their interests or concerns anymore than Bathroom Barry did. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 20:18, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
  
Four other bystanders were also emotionally injured by the moderately divergent opinion but were not hospitalized.
+
Blacks are realizing even Obama lied to them. And Obama's failure to speak out now in defense of Biden - condemning Harris for an opportunistic, unjust attack - is proof of this. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 20:24, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
  
The man is being kept stable on ideology support at St. Francis medical center, surrounded by friends and family who agree with him 100% on every single issue.
+
:A recent ''Wall Street Journal'' poll says the far left (whites) are 50% of the Democrat base, while moderates (minorities) are 40%. With Biden mortally wounded by the [[Biden-Ukraine scandal]] (the only way to take Trump down by impeachment is to take Biden down, as well, which the dominant far left seems intent on doing), the question remains is ''Who will blacks gravitate to?'' Gabbard, a moderate woman of color, seems most likely. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:51, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Warren is now at the crossroads. The Blacksphere's reaction puts it thusly:
 +
:::''Warren announced that she would look at failed gubernatorial candidate and scandal-laden Andrew Gillum as a potential VP. I consider this (1) pandering, and (2) the remake of Mandingo.
 +
:::''I get it. A black man can be Warren’s #2, even with all his “angry black man toxic masculinity”. Let’s see how the #MeToo movement sees this. As for black men, understand Warren’s message: you will serve your white master’s woman.
 +
::Blacks are very adept at coalition building and coalition politics, much more so than their racist, radical, white liberal allies who have done nothing but betray and burn them in the past.
 +
::So let's see how Blacks react to Warren bringing in more illegal immigrants that Blacks get pay for their healthcare, versus Trump who created job opportunities for them by tightening the screws on immigration. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:39, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
  
The man who suggested the slightly differing opinion fled the scene. Anyone with information is asked to alert the authorities.
+
=== Proportional representation and the Democratic nomination ===
 +
I had assumed that Sanders would drop out and endorse Warren at some point, but [https://theweek.com/articles/865176/either-warren-sanders-need-drop-defeat-biden-not-fast this article] argues that the proportional representation system used by the Democratic Party makes that less likely. Under the current rules, a candidate keeps earning delegates as long as he is getting at least 15 percent of the vote. In other words, Biden, Sanders, and Warren can all go to the convention and horse trade once they get there. Despite the 2016 reforms, the superdelegates would loom larger than ever. After so many rounds of voting reform, the Dems may find themselves with a 19th-century-style brokered convention. Many Warren and Sanders supporters give Biden as their second choice. So if either of them were to drop out during the primaries, Biden's chances would improve. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 17:54, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:It's all about money right now. Let's look at three candidates:
 +
:*Kamala Harris has enough reserve funds to make it through the opening primaries, with staff organizations in those states. However, Kamala's big money donors are bailing. She's seen as another Beto O'Rourke, well funded but basically incapable of jumpstarting her campaign. Her decision now is, ''Do I stay in the race and continue getting embarrassed, or drop out and convert the funds over to my next Senate campaign committee?'' She's running for VP anyway.
 +
:*Pete Buttigieg, enjoys the exact opposite of Kamala. He's well funded and the donations are increasing. So all the money gets poured into building campaign organizations in early primary states.
 +
:*Tulsi Gabbard: Has enough money to make it to New Hampshire (February 2, 2020?). All her money is going into New Hampshire, where she is doing well in polls. If she does well there on primary day, say into the top three, the money can pour in real fast. Millions can pour in overnight.
 +
Sanders doesn't expect to be the nominee. He's running to shape the agenda and narrative, and make sure whoever it will be isn't another so-called centrist.
  
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 03:08, 22 April 2019 (EDT)
+
So you have Biden (the supposed centrist) and Warren (Hillary in Sanders clothing), and a third younger contender whom Millenials are expected to gravitate to come the early primaries, likely Buttigieg or Gabbard. Sanders knows Warren is a fraud, so he's not ready to back out. Buttigieg more resembles the Sanders platform. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:23, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
:I hope they had conservative anti-venom at the hospital. :)
+
  
:I forgot how much I love the Babylon Bee.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:01, 22 April 2019 (EDT)
+
Andrew Yang should be counted in this group with appeal to Millenials, Gabbard, Buttigieg and Yang. One or two of these could make the Place and Show positions behind Warren (Biden, Sanders, Harris, and Booker all may done as of today). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 03:26, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
::I was listening to a high performance coach and he said the reason why there are so many [[SJW]]s/snowflakes is because they lack confidence. Their ideology is one that weak excuse makers adopt.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:12, 25 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:After the recent allegations against Kavanaugh, I find myself adopting a conspiratorial mindset. For the Dems as a party, dragging out the Kavanaugh affair makes no sense. Kavanaugh was the principle author of the Starr report and my pet theory is that the Clintons are determined to get back at him. Think of Jay Leno, Norm McDonald, or Don Imus. They were all huge in their day, but none of them had what it took to fend off a Clinton takedown. In other words, Bernie, you're next. Isn't it odd that only three Democrats ran for president in 2016, even though there was a vacancy that year? The Clinton smear machine is headed by Neera Tanden. The media is always running stories about Warren moving up and overtaking Bernie or someone else even though the RCP average swings back and forth. From a Republican point of view, the Indian wannabe is certainly the Dem who looks the easiest to beat. The liberal media is oddly unconcerned about Warren's general election chances. Instead, they say we should vote for her because of her numerous "programs." It's such an insincere and unconvincing line that it sounds a bit like they've been taken hostage. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 08:14, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
:::I don't call them SJWs anymore but SPFs: Slacker Party Freaks. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 17:16, 25 April 2019 (EDT)
+
::Peter, are you counting Bernie?  To this day on his Twitter page he brags about being an "independent". [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 11:08, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
::::I like [[class warrior]]s. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 17:33, 25 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Dragging out the Kavanaugh allegation is easy: it's based on the Democrat theory that voters are stupid and believe any line of crap CNN feeds them. The DNC & CNN's ability to bring out mobs into the street feeds into this echo chamber.
 +
:::The parallel here is when the "Hard hats" started beating up on anti-war protesters in 1972 (Hard hats = the not-so Silent Majority). Some people reckon the Proud Boys to the Hard Hats, but it's a bit of stretch; the Hard Hats were construction workers who beat up hippies on their lunch break, whereas the Proud Boys are moreless seen as vigilante troublemakers. In many ways, the situation seems more volatile today than in 1972, which was the most violent period of Americans fighting Americans since the Civil War. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:36, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::I conceive Antifa to be in the business of casting "hecklers' vetos". "Sorry, the situation's gotten too volatile.  We're going to have to cancel the event." [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 16:48, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::The Brits don't have access to RobS's knowledge, but they reckon the odds of Warren becoming the nominee to be almost as large as Harris's, Sanders' and Biden's ''combined''. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 11:30, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::You should read this: ''[https://saraacarter.com/britons-still-betting-on-hillary-clinton-to-win-the-democratic-nomination/ Britons Still Betting On Hillary Clinton to Win the Democratic Nomination]''; it shows the wide gulf in understanding between US & UK politics. Hillary;s goose is cooked. even if she wanted to run, it would only divide the party. Brits evidently do not understand the role of money in US politics; it costs over $1 billion to run for president; there's only 400 days remaining. Sh'e have to average $2,500,000 a day in fundraising now to make it, and she's not even trying.
 +
::::When the [[FEC]] filings come out for the Third Quarter ending September 30, you'll see Buttigieg ''increasing'' his average, Booker and Harris ''decreasing'', which is the death knell.
 +
::::The [[Sarah Palin]] boom was based on her fundraising ability. Trump rallies are fundraising affairs. The minute the cost of renting a venue to make an appearance exceeds the funds raised, the public appearances cease.
 +
::::Americans make the same mistake, they confuse media hype and popularity with electability. Most of the money comes from "big money" donors who bet on a winner, but have been burned three times now in the past three years - Hillary, Beto, and Kamala.  This is what sets Trump apart - he is not owned by "big money" donors, and threatens to expose and upset the whole corrupt system. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:56, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
  
:::::The hospital had better be careful.  Chances are, the victim will tell his friends and family what upset him.  If they are in 100% agreement as this story says, the hospital is likely to have a whole room chock full of melting snowflakes. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 21:55, 27 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::It's Warren's to loose right now. The New Hampshire primary will be the first test of the Millenial Generation - the majority age group now - political strength, or will the Brezhnev, Andropov's, and [[Chernenko]]'s remain in control of the Democrat [[Politburo]].
::::::[https://babylonbee.com/news/to-show-respect-for-sri-lanka-victims-top-dems-vow-not-to-mention-their-religion-at-all This one's good], and it's right in line with what Denis Prager [https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/04/23/why-obama-and-clinton-tweeted-about-easter-worshippers-not-christians/ wrote about here]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 22:08, 27 April 2019 (EDT)
+
  
==Scientist claims speed of light (''c'') changing==
+
:::It may be a bit early to invoke [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1MOOIjs_HE Keith Olbermann's immortal words]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:22, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Did you mean ''plurality'' age-group? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 17:19, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Yes, that's right. [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/ Here's a Pew Report] (can't find the updated one that confirms this).  It took a long time for boomers to wrest control from the World War II generation (Papa Bush '92, Dole '96), but there is a more pronounced age resentment every day, or "generation gap" as we used to call it. Climate change vs. nuclear proliferation being the dividing line between voter priorities based on age. So what's the response to this? [[Medicare for All]]. Millennials feel no obligation to their seniors, whom they regard as having destroyed the planet, and seniors shouldn't get any special privileges like Medicare.
  
She will test the theory, but, if it's true, how can the equation E=m''c''<sup>2</sup> be true?
+
:::::This is the weakness of the Medicare for All argument: Seniors, with an 85% voter participation rate, understand Medicare for All cuts into their benefits (i.e. healthcare rationing). it's not fair they paid for it all their working lives, only to have younger people get a free ride at their expense when seniors no longer have the ability to work. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGO41ZiU-kc Kamala Harris got body slammed by an 80 year old lady in a wheelchair] on this question. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:23, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Most of those born between 1946 to 1952 or so are ''already getting'' Medicare by virtue of the fact that they've already retired.  If there's a ''privilege'' to be gotten, it would be by Boomers who simply haven't retired yet.  Who's going to pass a law to take away Medicare from the older group so as to treat all Boomers equally as far as fairly distributing the punishment  of the crimes for which they're blamed? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 00:50, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Look, here's the facts of life: There is no way you will convince any sizable percentage of voters 62+, with a participation rate of 85%, consisting of 68 million people (68 x .85 = 57.8 million voters), that Medicare for All  '''''will not''''' reduce the quality of the healthcare coverage they paid for, for 40 years, to qualify for. Not happening. The Kamala Harris BS answer, "We're gonna pay for it", won't fly. That crap works with stupid whippersnapper communist Democrat voting punks, but not for a person who's lived their whole life witnessing that kind of communist junk.
  
::You are repeating what you saw in the '''Daily Star'''???  Seriously?  She's going to test her new theory that the speed of light is changing?  And no one in the "legitimate" scientific community has picked up on this?  And she's going to "put an atomic clock in the International Space Station to 'verify' her theory"?  Are you aware that all experiments on spacecraft are well documented and well thought out?  Have you found the description of this experiment on the NASA web site? 
+
:::::Compare 58.7 million to Hillary's 65 million vote tally and Trump's 62 million. And remember, this is the generation that voted for [[Social Security]] reform for 40 years, and was always shot down by "the third rail" of politics. It's an insult to Seniors' intelligence to try and even discuss this communist punk nonsense with them. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:52, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
::And she is using data from '''fossils''' as her source of wisdom?  And she thinks her discovery might lead to Star-Trek-style "warp speed"?  Have you checked her quantitative data on the observed change in the speed of light?  And seen where it fits into the graphs in the [[C decay]] article?  (Disclaimer: mostly written by "expert/shill" SamHB.)
+
::Have you checked her "proof" that a changing speed of light means that E=m''c''<sup>2</sup> can't be true?  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:45, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::I stand corrected, and I apologize.  The ACES ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Clock_Ensemble_in_Space Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space]) project is a real thing, planned for launch in 2020.  But I seriously doubt the claims of the ''Daily Star'' article, about fossils, and time travel, and the possibility of overthrowing E=m''c''<sup>2</sup>.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:38, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::The title of this section is the first ''bona fide'' troll I've ever placed on Conservapedia, and minutes ago I revisited the section to guiltily remove it.  The scientist in question didn't "admit" the speed of light is changing, she just said that she believes it to be true. There is a non-standard sense of "admit" that means "allow as plausible" but it's contrary to common usage.  But the way your response captured you in perfect snobbishness makes me want to try to repeat it somehow now, in spite of myself. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 03:46, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::OK, I've changed it.  The usage struck me as odd when I first saw it.  The word "admit" has two common meanings:  confess to some kind of personal shortcoming (anything from having overstated one's case in a casual conversation to having committed murder), or "allow for the possibility of".  The second meaning is less common, but is clearly what you wanted.  To avoid misleading the reader, I've changed it to "claim".
+
  
If not, "expert/shill" SamHB is proven wrong, and "Best of the Public" Andy Schlafly is right!  It's too bad SamHB has always seemed to be a sycophant/toady to relativity scientists.  Because he may be about to slip on his own banana peels that he placed on the floor that would impress them.  That is to say, by making it harder for those who believe in the Genesis creation story to spread the gospel after seeing his poor soul desperately try to extract a contradiction where none exists.  And likewise assuming he has a sincere objection rather than him conveniently setting up an obstacle course where bible thinkers would waste time and upon which they would be at risk to slip on the nearby peels and fall down. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 17:37, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
===Week of Sept. 23===
:[https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/775350/Time-travel-proof-NASA-insider-possible-speed-of-light-changing-video NASA scientist claims time travel is POSSIBLE because ‘speed of light is changing’].
+
Warren and Yang appear as the two strongest. Sanders is melting away. Biden's support is a "wait and see" approach of moderate, primarily black voters who withstood criticisms of Obama, so this isn't difficult for them, but nowhere near as passionate or emotional. It still signifies the lack of minority support for Warren and others. Yang owes his growing success to Trump who blazed the trail for a businessman who never held elected office.
:[[Barry Setterfield]] vindicated? :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:21, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Not likely. Setterfield is widely ridiculed even within the creationist community. See the article [[C decay]].  He postulates two different time scales, "atomic time" and "dynamical time" in order to account for the inconsistencies in his theory.  His graph of C decay has been miraculously fudged in such a way as to (just barely) skirt the error bounds as measurements got more precise through the 20<sup>th</sup> century.  And he still can't stay within the error bounds.
+
  
:::I am constantly amused by the intellectual contortions that creationists go through ("time dilation field", for example) in order to make their young-Earth cosmology seem to fit in with plain observations and plain common sense.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:24, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
Warren most importantly represents a healing of the wounds and divisions from the 2016 Hillary/Bernie contest, which will be complete when Bernie drops out. Blacks need to speak up now to regain a leadership role; sticking with a mortally wounded candidate like Biden means DNC leadership has effectively "put them back in their place" after the Obama fiasco. Booker, Harris and Beto are toast. Gabbard is determined to fight despite the media blackout.  
::::SamHB, two points: 1) Swedish geneticist Dr. [[Nils Heribert-Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."
+
:::::Right.  You can't demonstrate macroevolution in 40 years.  I thought we all knew that.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:38, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::2)  Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:11, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::Right.  If you posit that "special creation" can precisely mimic evolution, then you can't tell the difference, can you?  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:38, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::Precisely mimic? [[Macroevolution]] is impossible! [[Abiogenesis]] alone is impossible and that is merely the first step of the whole proposed scheme (See footnote #2 of [https://creation.com/origin-of-life THIS ARTICLE]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:12, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::::Right.  (I'm being ironic here; you are actually wrong.)  Please don't bore me with more stupid creationism garbage.  In particular, I'm sure you know by now that I never read or look at (1) creationist YouTube videos (YouTube?  Are you serious?  You actually consider Youtube videos to be a source of wisdom?), (2) creationist websites, or religious websites attempting to make scientific statements in clear contradiction of widely known scientific facts, or (3) your very prolific writing on your pet topics, which involve all sorts of interconnected links from one of your pages to another and back again.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:45, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::Vargas, your writing style has almost always left me utterly baffled.  I can't figure out what you are trying to say. It makes me wonder whether you are simply trying to outdo your [https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/134#The_Blood_Moon "withering patrician disdain"] comment and ascend to new heights of making no sense.  Banana peels?  What?  And I don't try to make "bible thinkers [...] waste time and be at risk to slip on the nearby peels".  I don't consider "bible thinkers", or any other specific group, to be my main audience.  I'm not trying to make anyone slip on any metaphorical banana peels.  And being called an "expert/shill", by you, doesn't bother me.  I'm puzzled at being called a "sycophant/toady" toward essentially every high school or college physics textbook written since 1950 or so.  I don't see how one can be a "toady" toward a book.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:51, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Yet, you have repeated the phrase "withering patrician disdain" on nine? different occasions, even ''after'' I explained I had only copied the phrase rather than had custom-designed it to describe your introduction of a set of ideas you had formed about the moon. Don't you remember?  You seemed disappointed that I had copied it from one of Conservative's quotations and dismissed it as his type of "garbage"!  Please SamHB—end it.  The person the phrase was being used for was being a bit pedantic, and then I saw ''you'' being a bit pedantic.  The overly-precise description didn't even fit the style of argument of the person it was originally aimed at very well, much less yours. It goes no deeper than that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 03:31, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::OK, I admit I've overused that phrase.  I won't use it anymore.  There are others, like "[https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Parrot#No_Credit_Where_Credit_is_Not_Due SamHB embraces the pseudoscience that leavens science too tightly to be trusted]" and "[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1110822&oldid=1110821 He (SamHB) seems to have no suspicion that any of those he despises could find his stilted pose of indignant rationality merely laughable....  Transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind]".
+
::::Perhaps you could do with a little less florid prose about me personally, and be willing to discuss relativity in a sensible manner, one that doesn't set off my "sycophant/toady" alarm.  You seem to read books and stuff, and that's good.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:51, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::Those last two phrases belonged the ''same'' long quotation of what someone else said that contained the "withering patrician disdain" phrase.  You can't count that quotation three times! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 01:10, 13 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::I didn't say I was citing phrases from 3 edits; just 3 phrases.  From 2 edits.  I'll make a deal with you:  If you try to write in straightforward plain English, without all the florid phrases, I'll stop throwing your phrases back at you.  OK?  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::This scientist's new physical theory would vindicate Andy's critique of ''E'' = m''c''<sup>2</sup> in which he asked whether if ''c'' changed it would follow that energy all throughout the universe would change as well—For example (this is my example) the mass defect in molecules would change and increase or decrease the binding energy that holds the molecules together.  And if it didn't, how could we say that the equation ''E'' = m''c''<sup>2</sup> is true?
+
::::::I thought I had adequately debunked, above, "this scientist's new physical theory", the one from the '''Daily Star''' and nowhere else, the one that involves looking at fossils. making a laughable claim of putting an experiment on the International Space Station, and something about the moon.
+
  
::::::I had asked whether you had seen "this scientist's" "proof" that a changing speed of light means that E=m''c''<sup>2</sup> can't be true?  I guess what you wrote above, involving binding energy and mass defect, is your own "proof" of that. Fair enough.
+
And Buttigieg. What can I say? His support and money appears to be growing, but he carries more baggage than Yang. Only blacks could save him in the long run, which isn't likely. This particular segment of psychotic Democrats will ultimately support any line of crap Democrat leadership comes up with eventually, so no tears will be shed when he meets his ultimate destiny.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 09:36, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:The comedians took Electable Joe to task for the story of his poolside showdown with Corn Pop, He's now 7 points ahead of Warren in the RCP average as opposed to 11 points pre-Corn Pop. I thought the video of Biden struggling to remember Obama's name was even funnier than the image of him chasing a gang member with a pool chain, but that hasn't gone mainstream yet. Biden's support has actually been pretty steady. It's Warren whose support goes up and down. She hasn't been doing anything exciting lately, so I have to wonder why. In contrast, who can keep up with all the Biden news? I didn't even get to Hunter Biden's narrow escape from prosecutor Shokin in Ukraine or the disturbing image of Joe's eye going bloody on stage. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:37, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Warren, Yang, and Buttigieg in that order come February. Should impeachment come to a floor vote, it would be a test of Gabbard's strength. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:41, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::FiveThirtyEight has collected polls that suggest that Warren is everyone's second choice. So as the minor candidates drop out, I expect her to gain. In the last few days, the liberal establishment has turned on Biden, judging from the Corn Pop and Ukraine episodes. An even better indication of establishment thinking is the raft of news stories that claim that Warren has already surged past Biden. (We have one of these stories on MPR.) The RCP averages don't support this claim. My thinking is that the "left-wing lane" in Democratic Party is somewhat larger than Biden's moderate lane. Biden's percentage of the vote will of course rise as the minor candidate drop out. But his current 28 percent could be pretty close to his top. In short, I think Warren will get it in the end, albeit at a more stately pace than the impatient media is demanding. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 04:33, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
  
::::::Now I assume you've read the actual proof, the one overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community.  (If you haven't, go to [[Essay:Rebuttal_to_Attempts_to_prove_E%3Dmc²]] and look around.)  What the equation says is basically that "energy (E), right now, is equal to c-squared, right now, times mass (m), right now."  What you refer to above as "mass defect" and "binding energy" is the same thing. So if the speed of light changed from one era to the next, either energy or mass would have to change.  We have these fundamental laws called "conservation of mass" and "conservation of energy".  So "this scientist" (Louise Riofrio, by the way) is saying that one or both of these principles must not hold. And she uses fossils, and publicly available data about laser reflections from the moon, to validate this?  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
===A 2fer===
:
+
Looks like we got a Two-fer this week - Biden and Sanders got knocked out of the race. Looks like next year may be the Millenials year; time to start scrutinizing Yang, Buttigieg, and Booker closer, in that order. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:10, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
::::And consequently, assuming that change in the speed of light, since a constant speed of light is what Einstein presupposed in his 1905 paper about relativity, removing that principle would cause the rational basis of Einstein's relativity rehash to topple and fall.
+
:It's a five-way tie for third place: Buttigieg, Sanders, Yang, Harris, Clinton. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 20:17, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
:
+
::Before Sanders heart attack and Biden's trial in the U.S. Senate when Dems try to impeach Trump. This would be the perfect time for a Millenial moderate to emerge, but there are none running. Harris is toast. Booker has a shot this very moment, now or never.
::::For the record, despite all that, I doubt that Andy would adopt this scientist's theory, because she bases the change in the speed of light on her supposition that the moon is 4-5 billion years old, and therefore, it ought to be further out unless that speed of light had changed over the eons. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 15:25, 16 May 2019 (EDT) [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 01:15, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::Actually, Andy seems to have accepted worse crackpot theories than this one.  See item 46 in [[Essay:Rebuttal_to_Counterexamples_to_Relativity]]. And I find it amusing whenever creationists have to back off of something because it involves time scales of more than 6000 years. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
::You should vape that.  The ambiguity of my claims would quickly reduce SamHB to apoplexy as would his being called a sycophant/toady.  How did you figure it out? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 18:32, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
::If Clinton entered the fray - either as a candidate or through another backdoor deal, you would see such a mass exodus from the democrat party it would look like an immigrant caravan. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:45, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
::::Don't bother vaping it.  I would just put it back. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:45, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Via a couple of search engine queries.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:37, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
  
=== SamHB, re: you refusing to look at evidence presented at creationist websites ===
+
:::Thank you, you've provided a lot of food for thought for what I am sure is a grateful conservative community.  FYI It's been after ten pm in the U.K. for three hours, but some of them are still awake and include Sanders in the tie. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 21:04, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Bernie could recover in days if it was merely one stent and he had angina and not a heart attack. However, the situation could put a cap on future supporters willing to embrace his candidacy because in politics "perception is reality" is often the case.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 01:47, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::He's done. He knows it. He can't withstand the rigors of office, let alone campaigning. The warranty has expired. Convention delegates would have a hard time voting for him. In a field of 25, they can't find an alternative to a guy who slipped from 19% to 12%? And Democrats trust his judgement for a successor when they have the opportunity to vote themselves.
 +
:::::The good news is, this put Warren over 50%, unless the Millenial generation stands up now and says enough of this insanity. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 04:31, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
Bernie will stay in the race until the bitter end.  Many of his supporters are very loyal too.
  
SamHB, re: you refusing to look at evidence/arguments presented at creationist websites: See: [[Genetic fallacy]].  If you insist on being illogical, I cannot be of assistance to you.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:34, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
"So, how long does it take to recover after having a stent. The recovery time after having a stent or angioplasty is fast and patients are discharged from the hospital in usually 12-24 hours after the removal of the catheter. In most cases, patients can return to work within a few days to a week after the procedure but never miss on the doctor’s advice on the same."[https://www.epainassist.com/test-and-procedures/how-long-does-it-take-to-recover-after-having-a-stent].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 05:54, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
:Right.  I think I can endure living without your assistance in this matter.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:I think you've counted out Biden too early.  Many have experienced his hands-on approach to governance and are the ones moved to admit he has a good feel for the American people.  As a candidate he's a little touchy, but one who's known for not hiding his agenda but opening himself up to his team to truly reveal himself as he is.  And if you think this is stupid, remember this is the "PG" version. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 07:03, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::He is starting to get tainted by scandal like Hillary. If he campaigns too late in the day, he makes gaffes. Maybe you are right though. Democratic voters may not care too much about scandal and they may want a semi-muddled and gaffe prone candidate who is a more moderate candidate than the lefty alternatives.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 20:08, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::This is a replay of 2007-2008; you will recall Hillary was "inevitable" in 2007. Then a young upstart nobody ever heard of, Barack Obama, smoked her in Iowa. The scenario is the same: voters were tired of the old regulars and want fresh blood. Booker fits the mold of the Second Coming of <s>the >Messiah</s> Obama. Don't neglect the [[cult]]ic nature of Democrats over policy positions.
 +
:::Booker was supposed to fold 3 days ago after the [[FEC]] filing deadline; he hasn't yet. Watch to see if Biden and Sanders donors are bailing for Warren, or somebody else. Harris's big money California (Hollywood & Silicon Valley) donors are already bailing (Beto's Hollywood donors jumped ship for Harris months ago). They don't like Gabbard. That leaves Booker, Buttboy, and Yang, in that order at this moment.
 +
:::Booker should be the obvious choice - less baggage and more DC experience. Democrats aren't ready to follow the Trump precedent and nominate somebody like Yang who never held elective office - that's a prime source of objection to Trump. Trump beats Yang with the experience qualifier among moderate unaffiliated voters. Yang they can paint as "too far left" making Booker appear "centrist". The hicktown mayor Buttigieg also lacks experience, is too controversial, and carries too much baggage. Midwesterners are always at a disadvantage in presidential contests. It increasingly looks like a Warren-Booker contest, with Warren being the oldtime boomer establishment candidate, and Booker being a GenX upstart more appealing to centrists, moderates, and millenials. Gabbard could partner with Weld or [[Jesse Ventura]] to lead a Third Party protest vote.
 +
:::Oh, and remember Bloomberg said he might get back in if Biden folds? He's thinking about it again (meaning he's less than enthusiastic about "the people's choice" Warren). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:52, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Trying to predict what the Democrats will do is like predicting what a mad man will do next or predicting where a tornado will strike next. There are: competing factions, people with muddled and contradictory thinking and the list goes on.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 04:54, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::I compared Peter's description of Trump as unpredictable to Henry Adams' description of Napoleon towards Thomas Jefferson [[#What_does_Trump_want.3F|here.]] Those two were much more calculating than the Democratic mob. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 07:07, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::Follow the money, not the polls. I've laid out the marketing strategy of Democrat moneymasters in a general election - how to present contrasts with Trump. If age were to be an issue, it'll be put on Trump. Warren has age going against her, and Hillary is rattling her cage now, tooBooker could be the Second, young, clean, African American who speaks English, according to Biden and Harry Reid.
 +
::::::I have a [[DSA]] source in San Diego who first alerted me to Booker about 4 years ago, and his and theirs' presidential ambitions with him as an alternative to Hillary and as the Second Coming of Obama (oddly, California radicals have never been enamored to Harris, whose electoral strategy has been to scapegoat 'poor kids' to make herself appear 'centrist' and appealing to California whites). After reading about Booker, I can see why Democratic Socialists and regular Democrats were so excited about him. Booker even has Executive branch experience as a mayor, which Obama did not. In some ways he's smarter than Obama. He just needs to tap into those donor sources who propelled Obama over the aged and decrepit Hillary in 2008, but the money is spread too thin right now among so many candidates. They need to pull together. First they backed Beto. Then Harris. Now they are re-assessing again. But they want a younger candidate, in the mold of JFK, Carter, Clinton, and Obama, who all were at least 10 years younger than their GOP opponent.
 +
::::::Democrats always take youth over experience, Hillary being the exception. They learned from that disaster.
 +
::::::Look at it regionally, as well. Warren, Biden, Sanders, and Booker all hail from the Northeastern radius of about 150 miles. All are popular and respected among their constituents. It's been a competition for rich donors in the Northeastern corridor. The West Coast Hollywood/Silicon Valley donors are 0-2 backing Beto and Harris. They will now put their money on one of the four East Coast liberals. Biden and Sanders are toast. Warren has pee-off the local Wall Street gang. Booker is the obvious choice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:58, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::An Obama comebackI can just picture Booker saying: "They're still bitterly clinging to their guns, gods, money and jobs" again.  If anything, Obama will have prevented Booker from  winning the presidency, unless he wants to make it his full-time job and then maybe ride to the White House on a wave of Obama nostalgia in sixteen years. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 17:49, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::Here's [https://www.politico.com/video/2019/09/12/kamala-biden-2020-debate-068789 Harris summoning the departed spirit of Barack Obama.] Translation: "Voters are to stupid to care about issues. They vote on empty slogans." Harris's problem here was, while Biden addressed a serious constitutional issue, Harris appeared drunk. She was reminding him she's available for the VP slot to rally black voters on the trail, after calling him a racist. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:04, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Lol, I asked you if you thought that were possible back on August 6.  Took you long enough. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 21:00, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::I had written somewhere earlier, that she got into the race feeling she would get either the one or two spot by default as being black and Obama's heir. When that became obvious, it pretty well doomed her chances at #1 (proven again in the above clip). She's still in the running as #2, but now brings nothing to the table. California will go Democrat with or without her, and everyone knows now she's ''not'' really black. Granted, she has more black blood than Warren has Indian, but her "blackness" is more by cultural appropriation than experience.
  
==History is the new intellectual battlefield==
+
::::::Blacks fell for this line a rot before with that halfbreed Obama who did nothing for them. Sure, most still take pride in having a black president, but overall there's a feeling of disappointment. He wasn't one of them, and still isn't. Blacks know in their hearts that a vote for Harris or Obama is inherently an anti-white vote, not on the merits of the candidate. And they're ashamed of this. It's always been more of a feeling of "payback time" rather than justice. Obama's legacy is burning down their communities in senseless race riots, and setting back race relations decades. IMO, Booker knows this. Blacks want justice. Neither Harris or Obama ever stood for justice or equality, just more exploitation by white liberal Democrats. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:26, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Just wanted to ask, what are we doing to defend history?  More importantly, to advance it and restore it?  Anybody have ideas?  [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:36, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::::I had a dog that I walked around the block, and her usual walkers would never take her down the block over a bridge and then along a kink in the roadShe had started pulling that way though over a period of months if not years.
:Your question is ambiguous; are you referring to defending historical values and traditions, or defending old, sometimes discredited historical. narratives? Each generation has to discover history for itself. For example, in 2003 the United States went to war to build [[nation state]]s in Iraq amd Afghanistan, i.e. instill a sense of "nationalism" in what we called "Iraqis" and "Afghanis," whose primary loyalties were to tribes and/or religion. Today, "nationalism" is a dirty word, loyalty to a religion (e.g. Satanism, Islam, etc.) is okay so long as it's not Christianity, and tribal identity politics are sacred. So what exactly do you mean by "defend history"? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 19:51, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
::I left it ambiguous on purpose to get some thoughts, but my point is that if "each generation has to discover history for itself", how can we change this problem and overcome it, or in the least minimize it?  Hopefully to reverse it.  Our enemies aren't sitting back waiting for "each generation to discover history for itself". [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 20:21, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Education. Strip out the [[cultural Marxism]], and teach history as a search for economic improvements. Sure, Columbus discovered America to enslave Blacks, exterminate Indians, and rape the planet, and Ford invented the automobile to produce carbon emissions and kill us all, but had Europeans remained at home in Europe they probably wouldn't be overrun by Islam right now, and if Ford didn't invent the automobile, we wouldn't be living suburbs and driving to work. Economic improvements bring trade-offs, not perfect solutions. When artificial intelligence takes over, we won't need people anymore. And without people, we won't need artificial intelligence to determine when to launch a nuke. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 20:32, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Another good example is U.S. Defense spending. In the old days of the Cold War, we gave weapons to whoever shared our values of peace, love, freedom, democracy,etc.. Since the Clinton administration and Clinton Foundation, we sell weapons to whoever is willing to pay bribes to corrupt politicians. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 20:58, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
::::This will come across contentious and for that I apologize, but those all sound like policy ideas.  In other words, those are "something someone else can do" kinds of things.  I was thinking a little closer to home.  What can we do.  Not what can they do.  The idea that I came up with, and this was some time ago, was that of recording audiobooks and bringing things that progressives don't want to be seen back into the disinfecting sunlightIs it a requirement conservatives must either be running some sort of blog/vlog, on talk radio or on TV?
+
  
::::No, it is not.  Non-commercial open source/public domain audiobooks are a valid form of conservative mediaIt's been neglected for far too long to be honest. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 23:07, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::::One day I thought I'd give her a treat and let her walk wherever she'd likeAt first she didn't know what to do, but she kind of got the hang of the fact that she needed to make a choice. She would also pull and pull when she started her walk, because she wanted to get to the unfamiliar scents further out as quickly as possible, so I made a point of running that day to keep with her and to stop when she stopped.
:::::If we did that, immature hecklers would use the recordings of our voices and reattach them in ways that would make it seem as if were saying non-conservative things, or supporting our conservative arguments with foolish reasonings.  No thank you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 01:21, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::Confirmation bias is built into the battlefield of historical reasoning. If, for example, you believe 2 + 2 = 4, then you're going to look for the evidence that supports 2 + 2 = 4. Or if you believe negroes have smaller brains, than you're going to look for the evidence to support that thesis. Or if you believe God created the heaven and the earth, than you'll find evidence to support God created all creation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 02:05, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::There was a French philosopher who once said that it doesn't matter what kind of history students learn, so long as they all learn the same thing. I think there is a lot of truth to that. The left is constantly changing what kind of history gets taught, undermining the point of the subject. "Hey hey, ho ho. Western Civ has got to go," as Jesse Jackson put it. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:42, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
  
== Biden the tongue tied ==
+
:::::::Well, you can probably guess what happened.  She came to that point in her walk, and she turned and ran and ran across the bridge and along that bend in the road as I kept up. (I was pretty young, so I didn't look ''too'' ridiculous.)
  
Is Biden ready for eight more years in public office? Not if this amazing video is any indication: "[https://news.grabien.com/story-old-man-joe-biden-slurs-his-way-through-first-speech-preside Old Man Joe: Biden Slurs his way through First Speech as Presidential Candidate]." Hey Sanders! It looks like the Democratic Party is all yours. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:05, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::::When we got to the stop sign, we saw a swan on the neighbor's yard, and I unleashed her so she could charge the swan. She had often been tormented by ducks who had flown into the air or the water before she could approach and give them the sniff test seal of approval.  I didn't worry about the swan; if our dog had decided she needed to bite someone she'd probably open her mouth and then be confused and not know what to do. This swan flew straight up, then down the street. The swan wasn't homeless; there were miles of roads that surrounded a lake and the swan picked a road parallel to the edge of the lake. But I have to admit I'd never seen a swan travel down the street by flying; it was finally a victory for the dog against the waterfowl.
:Trump sounds like English is his second language. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 03:18, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
::Did you see the video? Biden's problem is clearly worse than Trump's. The media has been telling us for years that Trump's brain is barely functional. What does that say about Biden? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:39, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Excredible. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 09:22, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
::::Hey I don't like Biden either but at least most of what he says is understandable. Trump seems to only know a few words - terrific, beautiful, big, Obama, wall and 'big league'. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 15:43, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::Trump is actually extremely understandable/good at communicating with voters -- he connects with voters in a way that career politicians like Biden don't, and that's something that even his critics (the ones beside Jennifer Rubin and Max Booth!) admit. Watch a Trump rally and see for yourself. But Cons is right -- it's public policy that matters, and Trump is spot-on in that regard (see [[Donald Trump achievements]]). --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:51, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
I don't care how understandable Biden is. What he advocates is wrongheaded. He was for the weak trade deals which shipped jobs overseas. He was for the Iraq War. He was for the stimulus plan boondoggle which failed. He is for cap and trade. He is for student loan forgiveness, etc. etc. Biden's presidency would be a drag on the USA economy.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:25, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:Trump's rallies are going to be bigger than Biden's.  Trump wouldn't have big rallies if he wasn't a good communicator. And Trump strives to keep his promises. The reason many people ignore politicians is that they don't keep their empty promises.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:28, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
  
== Slacker Party Freaks ==
+
:::::::She thought this intersection was now going to be a good place to hang out with that happy memory associated with it, but I coaxed her turn back, but still letting her lead.
  
This is my new name for SJWsThere are many like it, but this one is mine.  I don't think Hillary is a SJW or SPF, but to attract them, it benefits her to act like one.
+
:::::::Once we crossed the bridge back to her block, she suddenly turned around and ran all the way back to a few meters behind the stop sign, with me closely following behindMaybe you can understand why she did this.  I thought it was because she figured she had the power to go wherever she wanted but sensed that the power was a temporary granting of her wishes.  So the road hadn't changed any, but she was just as happy to go there a second time.
  
[[Scott Lively]] studied the juggling of terminology and categories with regard to homosexual activists, and he came up with a great insight, almost as good as ShockofGod's question for atheists.  After hearing some speech or some person described as "homophobic" by a homosexual activist and self-appointed mental health expert, he encouraged his internet audience to try and ask these activists, "what are some of the non-homophobic arguments or persons opposed to the practice and sanctioning of homosexuality?"
+
:::::::I think another reason was that the event was ''too'' perfect, and in the back of her mind wondered if I had caused what happened just to get her to stop pulling to go over the bridge when she got to that place around the block on her walk so I'd never have to take her across there again.
  
This line of thinking can also be applied to Hillary's response to the New Zealand atrocity.
+
:::::::I think a third reason was that she felt like a human would feel if they had found a secret corridor and room in the house that they had lived in a long time without noticing.
  
:She wrote: "My heart breaks for New Zealand & the global Muslim community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms."
+
:::::::But I think the best reason is that she wanted to see if she could count on me to take her wishes seriously if she ever felt she needed to break away from the routine of walking around the block if there were a dog-sized emergent situation, even if she couldn't explain it (an urge to cross the bridge), it seemed arbitrary (going back to the same place), or it looked like a play of the imagination (running back instead of walking).
  
:White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.
+
:::::::Maybe blacks, who were made in God's image, voted for a candidate not the best in conventional governance, but whose presence acted to reveal, from the motive of having a lingering apprehension, whether the response to the black civil rights movement was just lip service, or whether blacks would be entrusted with real political power. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 02:43, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
  
Clinton used to sign her tweets in an initialized form when she actually wrote them rather than her staff, but that notice no longer appears on her Twitter page, so the authorship status of her tweets is not now clear.
+
::::::::Great analogy. Obama presented a moral dilemma for blacks in 2008, 2012, and now: ''Is a vote for Obama purely motivated by racism and pride, everything they abhor and in conflict with their sense of justice?'' I have enough confidence in the moral values and good practical sense of ''most'' of my fellow African American Christian brothers and sisters that they will admit, "yes". It doesn't matter if they admit it out loud, only to their own conscience. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup>
  
You may notice first that the tweet isn't even grammatically correct.  "fight the (A and B) of (C and D) in all ITS forms."
+
:::::::::Thank you! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 15:54, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
  
"...Fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia..." Yes, now ''Secretary Clinton'' is a self-proclaimed mental health expert who can diagnose phobias, which in reality are well-defined syndromes, but just think how helpful she could have been through the ages had she applied her unique talents to contemporary political discourse:
+
===Week of Oct. 9===
 +
Warren's surge in the twitter following is a default setting and bandwagon effect after the demise of Biden and Sanders, however her steady, uninterrupted, upward trend in other polling is impressive. Sanders surge is a "sympathy vote". Buttigieg has taken a dump in Twitter followers, despite beating Biden in fundraising. Yang can't seem to gain traction. In a Hillary/Biden matchup, Hillary would bloody his  other eye and kick him in the groin. A Hillary/Warren cat fight is interesting to contemplate; we'd find out just how much of down and dirty fighter Warren really is. Personally I think Hillary would mall her the way she malled Sanders, but I think forcing democrats to even contemplate a Hillary/Warren contest would create such an anti-Hillary backlash that she couldn't survive. Even blacks would flock to Warren. It maybe Warren's only hope to get blacks on board and solidify their support. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:15, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
  
:"King Louis XVI needs to put a stop to his Republica-phobic failure to enthusiastically embrace the beheading element of his nation's new Revolutionary regime..."
+
To thumbnail it: Biden & Sanders fundraising efforts will dry up in the fourth quarter, make them fight for a showing in early primary states. Warren likely will pick up Sanders financial backers, but her anti-Wall Street rhetoric will keep Biden money backers away. Her challenge is to pick up Biden's black supporters, who see the duplicity of her robbing affirmative action programs to promote her herself. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:57, 11 October 2019 (EDT)
  
:"The American colonists need to drop their objections to taxation without representation and own up to their Britainophobic prejudices against Tyranny."
+
===Oct. 14===
 +
The only candidate who is "gaining strength" is Buttigieg, albeit pathetically. Warren's lead is slowing, and is by default. Sanders, Yang, and Harris are giving ground. Biden's "bounce back" of half a point is an anti-Trump, pro-impeachment sentiment, reflecting both Biden's weakness and a lack of focus among the pro-impeachment crowd.
  
Like the examples, Secretary Clinton isn't on point to consider any non-Islamophobic opposition to Islam; in fact, she isn't even on point to consider any non-Islamophobic ''fear'' of Islam.
+
All in all, 2020 is shaping up to be a Nixon/McGovern replay, only the misuse of government agencies for illegal political spying is on the Democrat side this go-round. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:43, 14 October 2019 (EDT)
  
So when the expected happens, Islamists escalating the violence of the atrocity with their own atrocities against innocent Sri Lankan Christians, innocent unlike the ChristChurch mosque community discovered to have had ties to terrorism<ref group=note>"The parents of a man killed by a drone in Yemen say he was 'radicalised' in ChristChurch. But preachers at the city mosque say they are moderates.
+
:Tonite will be Booty-judge's moment; if he can't pick up the ball and run with it in such a weak field, he's probably headed for the showers sooner or later. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:31, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
:
+
 
"ChristChurch's Muslim leaders say they are shocked and 'disturbed' by claims two men killed in a drone strike in Yemen were introduced to radical Islam at their mosque.
+
==We gave up on impeachment as "he's not worth it" long ago, but impeachment is on the table==
:
+
=== Biden and Ukraine ===
"Australian Christopher Havard, 27, and dual New Zealand - Australian national Daryl Jones were killed by a missile fired by a US drone in November...
+
How did Hunter Biden get a $50,000 a month job at a Ukrainian natural gas company, despite his lack of energy-related experience or expertise?[https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/21/trump-ukraine-biden-1507051] Was this job offer in any way related to the fact that his dad was supervising American policy toward Ukraine at this time? Not only does the mainstream media think that such questions are out of bounds, they demand that Trump be impeached for asking the government of Ukraine to investigate them. To anyone who can remember the 2016 campaign, the idea that this type of request is taboo strains credulity. Andrew Napolitano reported that [https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-13/cnn-confirms-foxs-napolitano-british-intelligence-passed-trump-surveillance-us-spy-a the Obama administration asked the British to investigate Trump]. The Brits got Napolitano fired from Fox News for this. That's hardly the reaction you would expect if the original report was simply in error. Napolitano was reinstated a few months later, and he has never retracted his claims. Under the "Five Eyes" intelligence cooperation program, the type of cooperation Napolitano was describing should be routine.<br/>According to [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia this ''Guardian'' story], the British started passing intelligence about Trump to the U.S. in "late 2015." The article doesn't admit that the U.S. requested anything, but this is around the time that Dem leaders started worrying about Trump as a presidential candidate. Either way, it undermines the Mueller Report's claim that the investigation of Trump started with Papadopoulos and Mifsud.<br/>The Five Eyes program makes it all too easy for a president to evade laws against domestic spying. According to Napolitano's original report: “So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this." The U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have access to the Five Eyes database. All they have to do is ask one of the other nations in the alliance to access the database on their behalf and it becomes international intelligence rather than domestic spying. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 04:40, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
:
+
:See [[Biden-Ukraine collusion scandal]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 04:54, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
"Havard's mother and stepfather, Bronwen and Neill Dowrick, said their son joined the local mosque [Al Noor mosque in Addington, ChristChurch] and told them that was where he first encountered radical Islam.
+
::As the Romans would say, ''Cui bono'', who gains? The answer is Warren, who can leverage this scandal against both Biden and Trump. Ukraine is far from the only country that paid off Biden by making a sweetheart deal with one his sons. The dam has been breached and there is a reservoir of Biden corruption ready to pour out. Real whistleblowers provide first-hand evidence of irregularities. The whistleblower system is not supposed to allow partisan hacks to anonymously dish on the president. This "whistleblower" is obviously connected. If so, he represents the Deep State and he is telling Biden, "Take a hint, buddy."<br/>This incident reminds me of another example of Obamunist skullduggery: The leak of Clinton's irregular email setup to the ''New York Times'' by Obama aide Valerie Jarrett. I assume that this hit was intended to take Hillary out of the 2016 race and make Warren the nominee. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:50, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
:
+
:::They [[fake news]] media has it exactly backwards: The government of Ukraine has been trying to get in touch with the U.S. government for several years to expose the pressure that the Obama administration, and the Clinton campaign, put on the government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 elections.  Ukrainian officials have been denied entry visas by the Kiev embassy to visit the United States. An attorney was hired to hand deliver the documentary evidence to the US Justice Department in New York. The evidence was never relayed to Washington.
"When he moved into the mosque he realised what they were trying to convert people to. That's when he left and went to Dunedin. He didn't agree with what they were teaching," they said...
+
:::The new Ukrainian presidential administration took the non-response from their overtures as a sign of a diplomatic crisis - that the US was very angry with the government of Ukraine for colluding with Obama and Hillary to interfere in the 2016 election.  Eventually, the U.S. State Department asked Rudy Giuliani to act as an emissary, respond to their overtures, and meet with Ukrainian officials.
:
+
:::When phone call was made, the supposed "whistleblower" was unaware of the background. The alleged "whistleblower" heard of the call by hearsay.
"Dr Mohammad Alayan, a former senior member of the Christchurch Mosque, said claims of radical Islam in Christchurch were 'not true'.
+
:::The current IC inspector general is up to his eyeballs in the [[FISA abuse]] scandal, as well, having served as chief legal counsel for [[John Carlin]] and [[Mary McCord (DOJ)]] when the [[Carter Page]] FISA application was used to hoax the FISA court. His name in [[Michael Atkinson]], and it was Atkinson who granted "whistleblower" status to a non-witness by hearsay evidence.
:
+
:::We will know more details when the FISA abuse report comes, if Atkinson's name is redacted. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:08, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
"The mosque in Christchurch is very against that. Islam is all about peace."
+
::::The Democrats' accusations against Trump are projection. The Dems have been applying screws to the Ukrainians for a long time. Manafort was forced to resign from the Trump campaign because of material released by a Ukrainian prosecutor. The timing was so convenient for the Dems that it is hard to imagine how this could have happened without White House pressure. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has openly bragged of bullying Ukraine out of cooperating with Trump. This is no doubt why Trump's pestering of Zelensky went nowhere. See "[https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections Let's get real: Democrats were first to enlist Ukraine in US elections]." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:52, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::The argument in defense of Biden is, "Well, people all over the world were complaining about the prosecutor" Well, yah. [[Soros]] employs people all over the world with business dealings in Ukraine. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 11:25, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Trump to Ukraine president: "I would like you to do us a favor, though..."===
 +
A quote for the ages, right [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/25/trump-releases-transcript-call-ukraine-president/2438300001/ there]. MAGA! x [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 11:17, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:So 'splain to me the difference in nuance between "I'd like you to do us a favor" and "fire that SOB or else"? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 11:34, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Elizabeth Warren is closing the gap. And the frequently, barely coherent and gaffe prone Sleepy Joe Biden would be ripped to sheds in a debate with Trump. Furthermore, he could not deal with the rigor of full blow presidential campaign in full swing and some of his supporters/advisors suggested not having him speak later in the day when he is more gaffe prone.  
 +
 
 +
::Biden is so old news.
 +
 
 +
::And don't forget that Hillary Clinton first brought up the Ukraine/Biden situation to scare Biden out of the race.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 11:30, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::Trump to Ukraine President: "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible."
 +
 
 +
:::::JohnZ, did you see [[Robert Mueller]] during the recent public hearing? Deny that Mueller was incompetent and lose all credibility![[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 11:36, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." - King Solomon, Proverbs 25:2[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 11:41, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Mueller looked old and tired, for sure. What's your point?
 +
 
 +
:::::::Trump & Rudy have already admitted the substance of this (asking Zelensky for an investigation into Biden). That's impeachable. It's now simply a case of trying to persuade people their motives were ''pure'', and impeachment would therefore be disproportionate.
 +
 
 +
:::::::I obviously wish them the very best of luck with that. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 12:00, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::I don't think you have a clue what your talking about. Rooting out international criminal conspiracies is what both men, and the new Ukrainian parliament, were elected to do. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:10, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::A bunch of Western governments and NGOs had been calling for Shokin's head, and it had nothing to do with Hunter Biden being on the board of Burisma. I'm sure that won't dissuade you from producing thousands of words of nonsense to the contrary, though. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 12:27, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::See above. A bunch of [[Soros]] stooges called for Shokin's head, of course.
 +
 
 +
:::::::::Wait, wait, wait.....Isn't calling for the firing of a prosecutor [[obstruction of justice]]?  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:29, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::::::This guff only flies in the right-wing fever swamps, Rob. Most GOP senators, for all their faults, still have at least one foot in the real world. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 12:36, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::You may be confused from the reporting of events.  The first investigation of Trump was to investigate collusion.  But collusion is not illegal.  So the purpose of the investigation must not have been collusion, but election irregularities and possible election crimes, connected with the collusion.
 +
 
 +
:::::It was called a "collusion investigation", but we can't prevent news networks from describing it that way. Anyway the Mueller Report was forced to conclude there weren't even any collusion to begin with, much less surrounding criminality.
 +
 
 +
:::::Now Trump is colluding with the President of the Ukraine.  But yet again, collusion isn't illegal.  So what are the Democrats going to do?  Say we want a second investigation?  All the circumstances that might have been illegal surrounding the non-existent collusion have already been investigated.
 +
 
 +
:::::They've made it so Trump is free to collude all he wants, and even on the surface, we won't hear of a second trial because Democrats have so tarnished the name of collusion that Trump had to sit on his hands throughout the investigation even if there were an opportunity to make use of our allies' support or intelligence in that way.
 +
 
 +
:::::Now that it was proven to be a fake inquiry [no evidence of collusion to begin with], the rest of us reckon he feels the need to make up for lost time, having for two years lost that particular tool of managing foreign affairs, which is the President's duty. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 12:40, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::You're leaving out some facts; the current chief prosecutor in Ukraine is colluding with AG Barr and John Durham investigating [[Crowdstrike]], who are in possession of the DNC servers allegedly hacked by Putin.  Zelenskyy said, "First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:01, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Is the prosecutor the same one whom Biden extorted the Ukraine government into firing?  I hope so (payback time!).  Of course, if the ongoing collusion is no longer secret, it's doubtful if it be collusion any longer. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 14:57, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::I don't know; but it appears the Barr/Durham team is in contact with the new Ukrainian administration (we'll have to wait for Hunter Biden's extradition request, I guess).
 +
::::::::There are two elements Barr/Durham are investigating to find the original [[probable cause]] to begin [[Crossfire Hurricane]]:
 +
:::::::#the status of [[Joseph Mifsud]], and
 +
:::::::#the evidence [[Crowdstrike]] claimed to have alleging Russian hacking of the [[DNC]].
 +
::::::::CrowdStrike itself has extensive Ukrainian connections - it was founded by a Ukrainian and contracts with the Ukrainian military. CrowdStrike is also an FBI contractor - so there is your foreign collusion right there. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:49, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Just to clarify, when I say collusion isn't illegal, I mean collusion ''per se''.  Different actions where collusion plays a part may be unlawful.  Some were saying, but really only speculationg, Trump's conversation with the president of Ukraine involved a ''quid pro quo'' where information about the Bidens was sought in exchange for maintaining current foreign policy towards Ukraine. 
 
:
 
:
Mathewson, Nicole (June 5, 2014). [http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/10120347/Drone-victims-radicalised-at-mosque "Drone victims 'radicalised' at mosque".] www.stuff.co.nz website.
+
:::::Secretly moving to discontinue U.S. aid by the president to Ukraine would be an attempt to thwart U.S. policy, but the transcript of the phone call where it supposedly happened put the lie to that, as did the public remarks of the Ukrainian president.  But no such explanation can be offered for Joe Biden's public admission many years back that he extorted Ukraine to remove a prosecutor from legally pursuing his son. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 15:39, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::*''maintaining current foreign policy towards Ukraine. ''
 +
::::::The United States does not support corrupt regimes. Judging from the context, Trump "faithfully executing the laws of the United States." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 03:43, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Yes, but diplomatic relations are being maintained, like with Egypt, in hope for a change (sometimes in increments). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 07:27, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
JohnZ, you wrote: "Mueller looked old and tired, for sure. What's your point?"
 
:
 
:
Dr Alayan didn't seem to realize pleas that Islam "is all about peace" was, even then, the most well-known and cliché response—to those with any familiarity with the U.S. media—of suspiciously-acting Islamic authorities to charges of Islamic violence or radicalism.</ref>, Secretary Clinton leaves out the unforced conclusion that it ''is'' an expected response:
+
I clearly and strongly implied Mueller looked incompetent during the hearing. Being a [[secular left]]ist, it appears your bar is so exceedingly low for competence, that Mueller easily cleared it![[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 13:56, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
  
:On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I'm praying for everyone affected by today's horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka.
+
=== Conservapedia and it ranking for the Google search: "Ukraine collusion"===
 +
:[https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTzsq77piHtkJwCyoRunJkA2irPkQ%3A1569435054981&source=hp&ei=rq2LXaf-OJDY-wSu2qmIAQ&q=Ukrainian+collusion&oq=Ukrainian+collusion&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i10i30.2259.2259..4736...0.0..0.124.124.0j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.ciUkllILoc0&ved=0ahUKEwinjcqXyezkAhUQ7J4KHS5tChEQ4dUDCAg&uact=5  CP is an authoritative source on this subject], #9 on Google - Ahead of the ''New York Times'' and Wikipedia. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:13, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Wow! Go Rob! Ranking for [[Biden's age]] was a [https://www.historynet.com/picketts-charge-gettysburg Pickett's charge], due to very stiff competition and I never should have attempted it. Oh, well. You win some. You lose some. I should have remembered [[Sun Tzu]] (Attack weakness and avoid strength).[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 14:33, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::You see again the importance of early placement in keyword titling. I'd encourage you to begin a page on reorientation therapy with external links if you can imagine the keywords taking shape 6 months or two years down the road. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:37, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::You were insightful about this matter. I think it is because the early web article gathers more inbound links plus mentions on the internet. [[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 22:17, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::It wouldn't surprise me if Google "grandfathers" in, say, the top 20 or 50 to a keyword term, and after that there's competition for rankings. In the case of "Ukrainian collusion", 2 million results were added in the last 24 hours, up from 10 million to 12 million. CP bounces around between #9 and #11, but holds pretty steady at #9 or #10. Today, for a few hours, BBC knocked it down to #11, but its back to #10 now. [[Lawfare]]blog, which is leading the [[Deep State coup 2.0]] charge with its ridiculous, definitive, 'Trump-Ukraine conspiracy hoax timeline', was up to #2 or #3 for a few hours, but is back down behind CP right now. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 22:32, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update:''' there are now 23 million results and CP has fallen back to #13. It is #1 on DuckDuckGo. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:57, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update:''' There are now 42 million results and CP has fallen back to #15; I need one of the SEO checkers to tweak the page. Anybody got a link ? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:44, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update:''' Back into the Top 10, bumping ''WaPo's'' timeline and an Andrew McCarthy interview with Fox. They cropped down the number of results from 43 million to 33 million yesterday, but it's back up to 38 million. This version is having an impact. The problem is, right now I could fill it up with much more detail to shape the narrative, but that would overwhelm the specific points that need to be made. Also, introducing new foreign names into the narrative  always has its risks, [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 11:24, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update.''' Back up to #9. It fell to 15 two days ago (worst so far). The page is definitive. And There's more to come. I'm loaded for bear against these insurrectionists. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 04:03, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update.''' Up to #8, the best since #3 when the story broke. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:36, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update:''' Holding steady at #9; fallen back a bit to #8 on DuckDuckGo. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:04, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update:''' Hanging tuff at #9 with stiff competition. Also, #34 of 78 million under '''Biden-Ukraine scandal.''' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 02:36, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update:''' Holding at #10; '''Biden Ukraine scandal''' up to #20 on Google of 80 million. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:10, 11 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update:''' #6 on Google. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:53, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update:''' Back up to #3. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:05, 21 October 2019 (EDT)
  
But Secretary Clinton?  Didn't you just days ago call the fear, namely of the expectation of more Islamic violence, this very day taking the form of just such escalated, retaliatory violence, a ''mental disease''?
+
=== Trump to Ukraine president: "I would like you to do us a favor, though..." - continued ===
 +
*I must say that Ukraine is an odd hill for the Democrats to plant their flag on. First, off there is [https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections a history of the Dems bullying Ukraine on these same issues]. That the Ukrainians protect Hunter Biden while backstabbing Paul Manafort shows that they are more afraid of congressional Democrats voting against aid for Ukraine than they are of Trump. Impeachment will go nowhere in the Senate. Poll after poll shows that the idea is unpopular with the public. This incident also publicizes Biden's longstanding practice of using his sons as conduits for foreign money, although Biden's reign as frontrunner was just about up anyway. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 16:01, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Go nowhere in the Senate? [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/24/speaker-pelosi-bamboozles-base-by-announcing-enhanced-continuation-of-status-quo/ It's going nowhere in the House.]
 +
{{quotebox|There is not one thing different from today than yesterday, except the optics and new language to help the media hype something that doesn’t exist.  Speaker Pelosi did not announce her intent to hold a house vote to authorize an impeachment investigation; she didn’t even mention the word vote at all.  In essence what Speaker Pelosi has done is just satiate her base of Democrats with the fancy optics of something that doesn’t exist.
  
It's worse than you imagined:  Not only is the opposition to Islam non-phobic (reality based), but even if it is phobic, ''it's completely understandable on the basis of this day's Islamic action!'' It's not a perpetuation or normalization of a phobia, it's a perpetuation or normalization of violent action! Don't you think you owe those prescient enough to expect future Islamic violence at that time an apology today for calling them phobics?
+
What’s the difference from Nadler’s “impeachment inquiry” yesterday, and Pelosi’s “official impeachment inquiry” today?…  Nothing.
  
But she ''can't'' reconcile her diagnosis of Islam's opponents as phobic with Islam's terroristic behavior, by definition fear-inspiring, especially in the context of politicians like her ignoring or refusing to do anything about the problem.  She needs to be seen as an unapologetic ''slacker''So she won't bother.  She thinks understandable fear of Islam, phobic or not, is more dangerous than a pattern of murderous attacks, a pattern outscaling white supremacist terrorism, that she doesn't refuse to call out, by a factor of hundreds.  She won't change because she needs to be seen as a politically fixed-prejudiced ''freak''. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 02:52, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
The constitution provides for the formal process to initiate articles of impeachment for a sitting president.  The constitutional process begins with a vote in the House of Representatives to launch an impeachment investigation by House CommitteesHowever, Pelosi doesn’t want to hold a vote to start the process…. so she’s just modifying the language of the status quo and instead of the House voting to authorize an “impeachment investigation”, Pelosi announces an arbitrary “impeachment inquiry” by fiat.
:My estimation, Hillary has a fan base of radical feminist women over 50 who vote Democrat, less than 8% of the population at best. The rest are MSM journalists and a few under 50 feminists or loyal liberals just humoring her. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Millennials, Blacks, and Republicans have either lost patience with her or hate her guts. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 03:07, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
::Secretary Clinton is patient zero of my self-defined SPF syndrome, but just a carrier, that is, and not among the infected. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 03:32, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Why Hillary Clinton is hated by her former friends/allies. After General Robert E. Lee lost the Battle of Gettysburg, he said, "It's all my fault". Hillary is such a narcissist she essentially said, "It was mostly other people's fault". In short, excuseitus and blaming other people. She isn't a great leader. Great leaders take responsibility.
+
  
:::At its heart, SJWism is an excuse for underachievement. Hillary's vain excuse making partly involved SJWism (America wasn't willing to elect a woman she said), but it was mostly a reflection of liberal, baby boomer narcissism.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:31, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
It’s silly.
::::Hillary Clinton also suffered from complacency and a feeling of entitlement. Donald Trump outworked her and outsmarted her.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:43, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
When will the SJW fad end?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:54, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:Hillary Clinton is a homosexual. The gay rights movement became a federal issue during the Clinton administration, when the Clinton's married the gay pride movement to the Black civil rights movement. The monster she created bite her in the butt when a gay couple, the Obama's, stole her birthright and nomination from her in 2008. Now it's passed to the second generation of gay activists who want to be the second gay couple to occupy the White House. Hillary's all about ego now. She doesn't know when to quit while she's ahead, and feels she's been cheated. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:08, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
::(You yourself just married "doesn't know when to quit" to "quit while she's ahead".  Very smooth way to echo your point with a motif, sir—very smooth way. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 17:10, 30 April 2019 (EDT))
+
<br>
+
----
+
{{reflist1904|group=note}}
+
  
== Jews and U.S. politics ==
+
It’s the goofiest thing in modern politics....}} [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:47, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
  
Trump is the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history. Meanwhile, the Dems proudly proclaim their support for the openly anti-Semitic Ilhan Omar. Yet U.S. Jews remain as Democrat as ever. Here is the ''Jerusalem Post'': "[https://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/US-Jews-contribute-half-of-all-donations-to-the-Democratic-party-468774 US Jews contribute half of all donations to the Democratic Party]." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:11, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
===BTW, object of the investigation Trump requested of Ukraine—it wasn't Biden's son!===
  
:Even after Trump hired a Jewish lawyer.  I made an appointment with a Jewish firm, and when I arrived a lawyer walked up to me and said "Andrew D. Goldstein, former U.S. district court prosecutor, attorney-at-law!" As I clasped his hand I recognized him from Mueller's prosecution team and began to scream.  He just clenched my hand tighter and gave me a wicked smile.  Then mercifully, I suddenly started straight up and awoke in a cold sweat. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 19:51, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
Trump said "do all that you can possibly do". "I would like you to do us a favor, etc."
  
==Congress's arrest powers==
+
This had nothing to do with Biden's son.  It was about Trump's search for information that caused the Mueller investigation against him to start, and start with no evidence of collusion by the U.S. president in the first place, even though that was the pretext of the investigation.  The absence couldn't be hidden because no evidence of collusion turned up during the investigation, either. It was later in the conversation that Trump mentioned Biden's son. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 15:18, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
[[Inherent contempt]] was the subject of a recent (March 25) ''Congressional Research Report''. Inherent contempt was used in the [[Tea Pot Dome]] scandal, and threatened to be used by Sen. [[Sam Ervin]] against Alexander Butterfield in the [[Watergate]] hearings (Butterfield maintained Nixon's tape recording system, eventually complied with the subpoena and revealed the existence of the Nixon tapes).  The report says,
+
:*Statement of [[Viktor Shokin]] on September 4, 2019; [https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement] (definitely relevant to the Biden case);
:''The House or Senate may also seek to utilize the inherent contempt power to enforce compliance with congressional subpoenas issued to executive branch officials. As noted, the Supreme Court has confirmed the existence of each house’s independent and unilateral authority to arrest and detain individuals in order to compel compliance with a subpoena.252 If either the House or Senate was to revive the inherent contempt power, the chamber may consider establishing specific procedures to be followed in its exercise. Such procedures could govern consideration of an inherent contempt resolution and actions of the Sergeant-at-Arms, as well as the process by which the House or Senate would conduct the “trial.”253 These procedures could be established by a one-house resolution or—if both the House and Senate seek to use uniform procedures—by concurrent resolution or by statute. Although rare, the inherent contempt has been used to detain executive branch officials, including for non-compliance with a congressional subpoena....'' [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45653.pdf pg. 33]
+
:*“A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said Wednesday (September 25, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/u-s-attorney-john-durham-looking-into-ukrainian-involvement-in-2016-election]
As I understand it, a court ruling says Congress can't use Inherent contempt in a fishing expedition, but does have the right to arrest and try an individual for obstructing Congress's primary function of legislating (I think that's how it's interpreted).
+
Anyways, it looks like we're set up for the remainder of this term for a series of court battles over Congresses reviving it's powers of subpoena and arrest. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 23:19, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:Congress's inherent arrest power could not extend beyond its [[Capitol Hill]] grounds, and probably not there either simply for defying a subpoena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:25, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
::The House dusted off inherent contempt to use against Treasury officials who refused to give up Trump's tax returns,etc. Looks like Nadler just fast-forwarded the strategy to use against Barr. Barr (and all cabinet secretaries) are compelled to testify every 30 days to the Senate. The CRS report is probably worth reading - it's a roadmap for some of the upcoming legal issues. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 23:31, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::In 2012, the House held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to turn over documents related to Fast and Furious. The Dems didn't even brother to justify withholding these documents. They simply bashed the vote as "a transparently political stunt" (Pfeiffer) and "a crass effort and a grave disservice to the American people" (Holder).[https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988] This wasn't "inherent contempt," so the sergeant-at-arms wasn't involved. The FBI was supposed to arrest Holder. If Nadler goes ahead with his scheme, Trump can dust off this old warrant and arrest Holder. Make the House vote to release this corrupt doofus or cancel his old citation. Holder is a poster boy for corruption in the Obama administration. He was attorney general during the banking bailout, arrested nobody, and then took a cushy job in the financial industry. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:29, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::It would be refreshing if Trump talked about arresting liberal officials in response to their talk about arresting his advisers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:51, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::Point of fact: the money the government used to bail out the banks was, taken together, paid back in full. Except for one company, the crisis seemed to be a crisis of confidence among clients rather than real incompetence in lending practices. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 01:19, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
===Legitimate legislative purpose===
+
::::To win in court, Nadler and House Democrats have to argue that the subpoenas of Barr and for Trump's tax returns are related to some pending legislation. Ultimately, it's likely to fail. But this will be the political theater in coming months - that Trump is defying Congress and therefore needs to be impeached, etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 01:36, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::IOWs, Congressional arrest powers must serve a "legislative purpose," as  Asst. Attorney General [https://www.scribd.com/document/408455007/Boyd-Letter-to-Nadler Stephan Boyd relates here]. This is the language used in the Supreme Court ruling cited in the CRS report linked above. Oversight is differentiated from "legislative purposes." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 18:45, 4 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::Why Nadler will loose in court: the subpoena of Barr does not serve "[https://twitter.com/RepDougCollins/status/1125469294521999365 legitimate legislative activities]". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:48, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::Again, Mnuchin refuses to turn over Trump tax returns because the request lacks a [https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/mnuchin-rejects-neals-request-trump-tax-returns"legitimate legislative purpose."] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 18:43, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::Another CRS report released today contains this language outlining some of the pitfalls facing Congress:
+
:::::''[https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/LSB10275.pdf the provision can probably be viewed as a statutory delegation of Congress’ investigative and oversight powers to the tax committees, exercise of the authority granted by Section 6103(f) arguably is subject to the same legal limitations that generally attach to Congress’use of other compulsory investigative tools. Notably, the inquiry must further a “legislative purpose” and not otherwise breach relevant constitutional rights or privileges.'']
+
::::Its followed by a discussion on Legislative Purpose. The report is only six pages. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:03, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
==Black holes redux==
+
:'''Background:''' A forgotten article, ''Politico'', [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446 Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire], January 11, 2017 -- the same day ''[[BuzzFeed]]'' released the pee-pee memo, i.e. beginning of the "insurance policy" or [[Deep State coup]], to coverup [[FISA abuse]] and [[Ukrainian collusion]].
 +
:Impeachment 2.0 is an attempt to neutralize:
 +
:# Information about to come out in the Flynn trial;
 +
:# Information coming out in the Roger Stone trial;
 +
:# Information coming out in the Trump declassification order;
 +
:# Horowitz FISA abuse report;
 +
:# Durham indictments.
 +
:All this will play out up to Election day. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:51, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
  
I have to admit that I found the pictures of the woman who proudly displayed the first photographs that she took of what was presented as a black hole were just adorable.
+
::As we're awaiting declassification one thing is becoming obvious: William Barr is protecting Rod Rosenstein. There is no doubt that Rosenstein was a willing participant in the coup attempt. However, because Mueller kicked back the decision to prosecute in Book II on the obstruction charge, Barr said he and Rosenstein made the joint decision that there was no obstruction of justice. Therefore, Rosenstein can't go down, cause if he does, that calls into the question the decision on Trump's fate.  
  
But to me there are still some unanswered questions.
+
::This makes sense. McCabe so far appears to be the designated fall guy. Brennan's fate is in Durham's hands. And people in the Obama White House so far are skating. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:36, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
  
In Stephen Hawking's book, ''A Brief History of Time'', one of the chapters is entitled "Black holes ain't so black!", where he declares that black holes (this was back when he said they exist, not later when he said they didn't exist) were surrounded by what came to be called Hawking radiation.  So why isn't the photographed black hole surrounded by Hawking radiation rather than appearing black?
+
===Quid pro quo===
 +
Trump has created trouble for himself with his "no quid pro quo" tweets since it seems likely that he did hold up U.S. aid as a way of putting pressure on Ukraine. Foreign policy is all about making deals and quid pro quo, so this is the wrong standard to apply. You can interpret anything that benefits the United States as a benefit to Trump's campaign, so I don't find the "campaign contribution" argument convincing. The question should be, was Trump acting in the wider national interest or for narrow personal gain? John Durham's investigation is an official Department of Justice probe. A treaty concluded in 1999 authorizes cooperation between the U.S. attorney general and the Ukrainian chief prosecutor. Giuliani's involvement has raised eyebrows, but there is a tradition of presidents sending personal friends they can trust to back up official negotiators. The request to investigate Biden is the most problematic part of the affair since it creates a conflict of interest. The president has an obligation under the constitution to "take care that the law be faithfully executed." No one should be able to evade investigation simply by announcing a candidacy. In 2016, numerous Democrats demanded -- and got -- an FBI investigation of Trump. According to the Page-Strzok correspondence, Obama himself met with FBI agents on  this matter. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 16:10, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
  
::It's good that you have read the Hawking book. A few other books I can recommend that give good layman's-level explanations of these topics are
+
::"Trump has been justly criticized for hiring his daughter and son-in-law at the White House. But at least when he pressures a foreign leader for a favor, it’s to investigate corruption, not to get a prosecutor off his son’s back. Maybe Biden's son was guilty, maybe he was innocent. But it is a fact that Joe Biden held up foreign aid to a desperately needy ally in exchange for their halting prosecution that implicated his son. It's not Trump's fault that Biden is now running for president."—Ann Coulter, September 25, 2019.
::*''The Grand Design'' by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow
+
:Democrats are going to try to re-construct the Mueller investigation as a personal legal issue for Trump instead of 2+ years of abuse and denial of his civil rights, by virtue of his being an office-holder, by the legal system, there being no evidence of the activity that was supposed to have sanctioned it in the first place.  Lol, good luck with that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 16:33, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
::*''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene
+
::*''The Elegant Universe'' by Brian Greene
+
::*''Welcome to the Universe'' by Neil deGrasse Tyson
+
::*''Astrophysics for People in a Hurry'' by Neil deGrasse Tyson
+
  
::The reason the "black hole" appears black is that the Hawking radiation is incredibly faint. You touched on that below.
+
:::''[[NYT]]'':  "[https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1176882766597767168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw The Ukrainians weren't made aware that the assistance was being delayed/reviewed until more than one month after the call]."  
 +
:::How the impeachment frenzy plays out over the next month can be gauged real easy: watch to see if Biden's slide in polls reverses itself.  
 +
:::If voters say, "A pox on both your houses," What's their alternative? Buttigieg? Warren? Yang? Sanders? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:03, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
  
Secondly, even if so, why are the hot gases surrounding the black hole only seen in two dimensions?  If you have a two-dimensional vortex like in a pool drain, the water doesn't get sucked into it along a single one-dimensional line in front of it and behind it.  So why should a three-dimensional vortex only swallow in matter and energy along a two-dimensional plane?  I understand that there is two-dimensional motion in the case with Jupiter, where its rings fall along a plane.  But the black hole vortex looks more turbulent than one would think the gravity well of Jupiter would beSo how did there get be what looks like a compromise between the two, and why isn't it unstable?  It seems more likely that the matter and energy are either along a plane or they aren't because deviation from the plane would seem to quickly introduce turbulence that would quickly spread out the matter and energy away from one plane.  But we don't see that.
+
::Trump has finally turned the tables on Democratic leaders by starting investigations to match theirs, and they have responded with more presidential abuseSchiff needs to be impeached, and the other ones can’t be removed from office too soon. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 20:01, 12 October 2019 (EDT)
::The reason the image is in only two dimensions is that that's how pictures work.  We take two-dimensional pictures of things. Claude Monet's hastacks were three-dimensional, but his paintings were two-dimensional.  And your reference to the accretion disks and polar jets are pesumably inspired by the dozens of "artists impressions" of spinning black holes and vortices that one sees in the popular press.  The recent image of the M87 black hole shows nowhere near enough detail. All it shows is that there is a central region that appears black.
+
:::That is incorrect - and a Democrat talking point. Investigations into the criminal activity of Deep Staters and Democrats was ongoing before that bogus "impeachment inquiry" which is a cover to create the illusion that indictments of [[John Brennan]] and [[James Clapper]] are reprisals and an abuse of power. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 09:56, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::If it prevents that illusion from happening, I'm willing to wait. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 16:08, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
  
Thirdly, if the existence of black holes is based on science, and we think they exist, and then suddenly we think they don't; and one time we think they're black, and then we think they're surrounded by light; and then one time we think there's an event horizon where matter never escapes, and then we think there's an apparent horizon where matter can escape, how is this called science, which means highly-supported knowledge, when the interpretations keep changing?
+
===Conservapedia proven right?===
::I don't think anyone said they don't exist, after the discovery of Cygnus X1 some time ago.  The idea that the "don't exist" comes from the more recent (but still some time ago) theory that they aren't ''completely'' black, because of Hawhing radiation.  But this is just a childishly rigid interpretation of language.  I have a pair of "black" shoes that aren't completely black.  People use "black" to refer to a color, characterized by nearly no reflection or radiation.  People accept a significant amount of leeway in the way they use language.  As another example, the active substance in a "lead pencil", or a replacement "lead" for a mechanical pencil, isn't lead.  It's a clay/graphite mixture.  Everyone accepts that imprecise language.  It's the same with black holes.  When people say (as they have been saying for over 200 years) that "no light can escape" they weren't saying that no advance in quantum mechanics could ever allow for a single photon ever to appear to be coming out of a black hole.
+
:::No, this announcement that conditions weren't right for black holes to exist in the universe came long after the published ideas about Hawking radiation came out, I think sometime in the last 15 years.  Hawking himself agreed, so it's not something you'd forget.  And after that came the business of the "apparent horizon", and though the discussions came close together in time, I don't know if the two declarative descriptions were connected. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 23:55, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::
+
:::Andy Schlafly linked to it further up on the page:
+
::::Stephen Hawking: "There Are No Black Holes. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes/]
+
::Yes, I've read the Scientific American article.  It's actually been up there for quite some time.  It's too bad that Andy seems to take that as evidence that the entities commonly called black holes simply do not exist, or, more broadly, that relativity is wrong.  Please don't fall into that trap.  It's unfortunate that things that seem to have been written to be provocative (the introductory paragraph even says "would probably be dismissed as cranks") are sometimes latched onto as precisely serious and correct.
+
  
::The phenomenon of the "firewall" and the "apparent horizon" refer to quantum mechanical effects at a distance of the Planck length (10<sup>-35</sup> meters) above the "classical" Einstein/Schwarzschild radius.  This is extremely tiny.  But we already know that the conflict between gravity and quantum mechanics occurs over a distance of the Planck length.  At anything resembling normal distances, there is no conflict, and General Relativity is correct.
+
:Especially in Green's case, the less you study the liberal sludge involved with his office-holding the better (watch them try to skip the full vote to begin the impeachment inquiry) VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:57, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
  
::I suggest that you read that article again, very carefully.  Ask yourself a few questions:  What is the difference between black holes not existing because relativity is wrong and "conditions [not being] right for black holes to exist in the universe"?  Where did you get that latter statement?  It isn't cited.  Are you using language in a less-than-fanatically-rigid way?  That's fine, but you need to think about where you are going when you do that.  And, most importantly, if black holes can't, or don't, exist, why have Stephen Hawking and many others been doing so much research on the subjectWhat is the thing that the "firewall" surrounds?  What are the "event horizon" and "apparent horizon" if neither one of them exists?
+
Did Pelosi skip holding the vote from the whole Congress to start the House impeachment inquiryTrump is none too pleased regardless:
+
::If you approached a black hole to within a few times the Planck length, what you would see is what Einstein and Schwarzschild predicted long ago. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:18, 4 May 2019 (EDT)
+
John Selway said it was due to change of opinion.  But isn't opinion the ''opposite'' of science: weakly-supported knowledge ''versus'' highly-supported knowledge?  Someone might answer, they're disputed questions.  But if so, why do we have to respect the answer to these questions as if they were settled science?  And how are we to know whether they ''are'' settled or disputed? Obviously the ''prestige'' of Stephen Hawking and other famous 20th to 21st-century scientists isn't sufficient to determine the question.  The [[climategate]] scandal, among others, which continues to this very day, show scientists have political or theological interests which cause them to selectively promote or conceal different ideas according to their convenience in pursuing those interests.  Which goes to show that often what is presented as science is really just speculation and not honest speculation at that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 01:10, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Perhaps "opinion" wasn't a good way to put it.  In any case, what John Selway wrote, for better or worse, doesn't affect the existence or nonexistence of these things.  If you believe that people are changing their "opinions" and that that refutes science, you're welcome to hold that view.  But most people take a more flexible and nuanced view of how language works, and how science works.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:45, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
:That discussion of the "pictured" black hole's size further up on this page helped answer one of my questions.  Hawking says:
+
:The conversation with the new and very good Ukraine President, who told the Fake News, at the United Nations, that HE WAS NOT PRESSURED BY ME IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, should by and of itself bring an end to the new and most recent Witch Hunt. Others ended in ashes!
::[A] black hole ought to emit particles and radiation as if it were a hot body with temperature that depends only on the black hole's mass: the higher the mass, the lower the temperature. (p. 105)
+
:So evidently high mass = low glow. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 07:48, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Yes.  Just a rough guess would be that it's like 10<sup>-33</sup> (for Planck's constant in reasonable units) times 10<sup>-10</sup> (for size of the M87 black hole relative to the Sun) times 10<sup>-30</sup> (for size of the Sun in reasonable units). Not being an expert in this, I could be way off, but it's still incredibly small.  Observing a single photon or particle from Hawking radiation is a fairly futile exercise.  It's completely theoretical at this time.  (But remember that detecting gravitational waves was completely theoretical until recently.)  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:45, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
===Einstein's hangup on black holes===
+
:The Whistleblower’s complaint is completely different and at odds from my actual conversation with the new President of Ukraine. The so-called “Whistleblower” knew practically NOTHING in that those ridiculous charges were far more dramatic & wrong, just like Liddle’ Adam Schiff fraudulently and illegally inserted his made up & tweeted words into my call with the Ukrainian President to make it look like I did something very wrong. He then boldly read those words to Congress and millions of people, defaming & libeling me. He must resign from Congress!
Einstein had his problems with a black hole, and he wrote this paper [https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.48.73] in part to discount the idea of one. But he also helped to write this one [https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777] because he thought there was something wrong with his ideas of quantum mechanics, which to physicists mean entanglements between two bodies, which led to this 2013 paper [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/prop.201300020] linking wormholes to black holes.  I'm speculating here, but I believe that Einstein probably was concerned about the science fiction aspect of the subject rather than the science. You can "prove" a wormhole tunnel with a black hole at either end via physics, but to have such a thing out there in reality is a bit of a stretch.  Anyway, the Einstein papers are there, and they are very interesting reads. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 13:15, 4 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
== More bad news for militant atheists in 2019. 2019 will be the worst year in the history of atheism ==
+
:The only people that don’t like my conversation with the new Ukrainian President are those that heard Rep. Adam Schiff read a made up and totally fraudulent statement to the House and public, words that I did not say but that he fabricated (& admitted to this fabrication). Sick! —Donald Trump, September 28, 2019.
[[Image:Amish Republicans.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Many Amish have large families and in 2012 the Amish were named the fastest growing faith group in the United States and the Amish population is projected to grow to 1 million people by 2050.[https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1130/For-Amish-fastest-growing-faith-group-in-US-life-is-changing]
+
  
In the above picture, Amish residents are waving to President George W. Bush (Lancaster, Pa., August 2006)]]
+
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 23:43, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
The [[Amish]] population explosion and what it says about a more [[conservative]] future.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqvi5kozc6Q] In Lancaster County, [[Pennsylvania]], the Amish population is doubling every 20 years despite urban sprawl.[https://www.witf.org/news/2019/04/lancaster-county-amish-population-thrives-despite-sprawl.php] See also: [[Desecularization]]
+
::Word is, Barr is in Italy right now interviewing Mifsud personally. Mifsud is spilling his guts how Brennan roped him into something bigger than he imagined and he's been in hiding, fearing for life, cause he doesn't want to end up on the Clinton body count. Nadler and Pelosi need to take out Barr before they can take out Trump. Barr's gonna be, shall we say, upset, when he returns, cause he's not just investigating the Democrats anti-democratic election interference from 4 years ago, he sitting right in the middle of another Deep State coup.
 +
::Trump, as Commander in Chief, can call out the military against these insurrectionists. But [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDpQmCGjEPc Barr also has the U.S. Marshall Service] at his disposal, as well. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup>
 +
:::The Drudge Report seems to have gone over to the dark side. It's full of headlines that make it sound like Trump is finished. Trump's net approval is at minus 8.[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html] That might not sound good, but that's pretty much as high as he has ever been. Biden is toast, according to the betting markets. Black voters don't respond to Warren. So the path is open to Hillary, according [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/could-trumps-impeachment-crisis-push-hillary-clinton-run-2020-84301 to this article]. On the eve of a coup, the coup plotters will engineer a crisis. Then the coup can be portrayed as the resolution of the crisis. Maybe it's not about Hillary's triumphant return to head the Democratic Party. The media and left have financial reasons to feel nostalgic for the Mueller investigation. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 11:06, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::(A) The media wants impeachment to drive ratings; (B) Drudge is limited to sources because of Google censorship; (C) it's a rallying call to wake up voters because of the danger of the moment.
 +
::::IN the Clinton impeachment, I personally worked on several issues for nearly 5 years; Not until ''after'' the House Judiciary passed the Articles (the point at witch Nixon resigned) did ''most'' Democrats for the first time ever hear the names Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, were enraged, and circled the wagons. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:13, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Charlie Kirk isn't having any today:
  
Many Amish have large families and in 2012 the Amish were named the fastest growing faith group in the United States and the Amish population is projected to grow to 1 million people by 2050.[https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1130/For-Amish-fastest-growing-faith-group-in-US-life-is-changing]
+
::::::Barack Obama asked Ukraine to investigate his political rival's campaign manager
 +
::::::3 Democrat senators asked Ukraine to investigate Trump
 +
::::::And the DNC solicited Ukraine's help to dig up dirt on Trump
 +
::::::And the media was silent about all of it.
  
[[Eric Kaufmann]] is entirely correct. Religious fundamentalism will grow in the Western World and world at large in the 21st century. See: [[Growth of religious fundamentalism]]
+
::::::Why is it that Democrats can spend 32 MILLION dollars investigating election meddling, all in an attempt to destroy their political enemy—the President
  
2019 will be the worst year in the [[History of Atheism|history of atheism]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:23, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::...But when they accuse him of doing the same thing—investigating meddling & corruption—they want to impeach him?
  
:Don't think they're not feeling it—each December the ''Atheist Yearbook'' listing their accomplishments just keeps getting smaller and smaller.  And yet they ''still'' insist on using the "C.E." year nomenclature, like ''Atheist Yearbook, 2018 C.E.'' I mean why tempt fate by making everybody mad when you don't need to? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 20:06, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 15:49, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
==Appeal for justice==
+
  
What is justice?  In a human being, it is that equable temper from which all fitting actions flow. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 19:32, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::America, being a two party system, always views foreign policy in black and white, good and evil. For American readers it needs to be presented as two competing factions - one pro-American, one pro-Russian (ignoring the fact Russians do not regard themselves as anti-American). Both these factions are corrupt beyond imagination. Like Dems and Pubs, one faction serves a few years kissing up to America until its driven from power due to corruption; then the other faction serves trying to strike a balance between the U.S. and Russia, until its driven from power due to corruption.
:Justice is raising the [[minimum wage]] so [[white privilege]]d kids get pay raises and [[black]] kids get [[unemployed]]. That's an easy question that everybody knows the answer to. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 16:01, 2 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::What about illegal aliens who get free medical care in emergency rooms, a driver's license, [aren't loyal citizens, don't cost the expense of OSHA training or equipment,] don't pay taxes and don't return their wages to the local economy?  They can out-compete blacks and teens regardless of the minimum wage. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 17:00, 2 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Or Congressional support for human trafficking and drug smuggling. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 17:17, 2 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::What we need is a bit of the ''old'' [[Robert Mueller]] who runs sting operations against customers of sex-trafficking like [[Eliot Spitzer]]. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 21:21, 2 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::Looks like [[John Brennan]], [[Sally Yates]] and [[John Carlin]] need to start [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html looking over their shoulders] for the SWAT team. And I wanna see [[Nellie Ohr]]'s [https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441580-nellie-ohrs-hi-honey-emails-to-doj-about-russia-collusion-should-alarm-us#.XMoCeaNTrcY.twitter mugshot so we can upload it] for her bio. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 08:46, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
== Article/Essay idea ==
+
::::::The grave sin committed here was the attempted brainwashing of Americans by Obama and media that Russia and the U.S. are enemies, and Ukraine is caught in the grip of two competing factions, one pro-American, one pro-Russian.
  
Hey all - I read the Greatest Conservative movies essay yesterday and if gave me an idea. I play video games but the only ones I like and play are the ones that don't glorify violence (like the GTA series for example) and there are games out there that push a different message. I would like to create an essay detailing games with a more conservative theme because they do exist and some are quite popular. Would that be something of interest? [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 15:39, 2 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::[[Christopher Steele]] aligned himself with anti-Russian Ukrainians and cultivated contacts when he worked for UK intelligence in the 1990s. Ironically, Russians view the Ukrainian nationalists as racist, fascist, antisemitic, anti-[[multicultural]], anti-universal order (legacy of the Soviet times) bigots. These are the groups Hillary Clinton, [[John Brennan]], [[Richard Dearlove]], and the [[DNC]] chose to align themselves with, taking up ''their'' cause wholeheartedly. [[Alexandra Chalupa]], a Ukrianian/American citizen and member of the Democratic National Committee (paid $500,000 since 2004) was the linchpin who wanted to trade corrupt Putin puppets who employed [[Manafort]], for corrupt Ukrainian fascists who employed Hunter Biden.
:Actually, [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Video Games|something like that already exists]]. You can contribute to it, however. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:42, 2 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::Oh great - thanks! I'll add a few. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 15:45, 2 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
== New chant for [[Elizabeth Warren]] student loan amnesty rally ==
+
::::::Chúpala fed her dirt to Steele and [[Isikoff]]; Isikoff and Steele fed that garbage to [[Yahoo News]] and the FBI, which fed it to the [[FISC]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:32, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
  
[speaks through bullhorn] We didn't mean for the poor Obama economy to hit those most likely to have been undergoing liberal indoctrination...So thanks to the U.S. government...
+
:::::::Actually, the John Birch Society and The New American, even Trevor Loudon, makes it very clear that Russians are indeed still communists, let alone bad guys, and those sources are not for Obama either nor do they shill for him. Also, I'm not sure Obama was against the Russians. I definitely recall Obama during the infamous hot-mike incident specifically stating he has one more election to go and then he'll be wide open to making concessions to the Russians. That doesn't sound like someone who's against Russia in the slightest. More likely than not, Obama cynically used Russia as a scapegoat for the hacked DNC servers to push the narrative that Donald Trump was backed by them. Maybe if the Russians completely give up Communism to such an extent that they even obliterate Soviet symbols and replace them with Tsarist symbols, I'll start believing they've truly reformed from Communism. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::The Russians are about as communist as the Chicago City Council. Sure, corruption and communism go hand in hand, coupled with greedy, undemocratic leaders who maintain control in a [[single party system]], but the Russians are neither a nuclear threat to the U.S., a conventional military threat to the U.S. or Western Europe, or a threat to the international global trading system. Their entire economy is dependent on access to that international trading system. Exxon keeps both the Russian government, i.e. civil service, and the Russian military, afloat.
 +
::::::::(This of course would lead us to a discussion of the use and effectiveness of targeted sanctions, a sort of microsurgery to cut off key individuals and anyone connected to them by monitoring global banking transactions via sophisticated technology. In the old days, the Germans would just send troops into Belgium or Poland; nowadays leaders have to think twice cause they can't expand their business contacts beyond markets using their own currency, and they eventually have trouble maintaining the cost of their country villa. Even Trump now has come around to the idea of targeted sanctions against Iranian mullahs, rather than a cruise missile attack.
 +
::::::::The wisdom of this modern approach to addressing international conflicts rather than sending in troops has yet to play out. It would require another thread to fully explore). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 08:00, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::Actually, the Russians right now are about as communist as the Seattle City Council. As bad as Chicago is, I don't think they've gone as far as to retain at least one monument to Marxism or even build a new monument as far as I know, while Seattle's rather infamous for having a statue of [[Vladimir Lenin]] in its premises. And the comparison is apt since they still have a monument to Karl Marx in the middle of Moscow's public square instead of doing to it what they did to Stalin and Lenin's statues and toppling it, and they still have Vladimir Lenin's tomb open to the public when, had they truly given up on Communism, they would have bulldozed that tomb and, if they were to do anything to Lenin's corpse, it would be either to bury it in an unmarked grave, or otherwise hang him from a streetlamp to set an example as to what happens if anyone dares try to bring Communism back. That's what I would do if I headed the Russian government or were the Russian people. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:22, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::Ironically, they keep Lenin's tomb open cause it's a tourist attraction, like the Pyramids. Great Wall, the Louvre, or British Museum. It's a monument to capitalism these days.
 +
::::::::::We hear much about Russian propaganda and influence in foreign elections, in Europe and America. NBC News worldwide has a budget about three times larger than the Russian Foreign Ministry which dedicates only a fraction of its budget to information and propaganda campaigns. And we haven't counted the impact of CNN, ABC, Fox, etc. yet, either.  From the Russian perspective, it's difficult to compete in a world that honors free speech when they are outspent about 60-1 globally. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 08:32, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
  
All:<br> The more you squandered...the more you get.<br>
 
Let's all pay off student debt!<br>
 
:
 
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 08:42, 4 May 2019 (EDT)
 
:In 1992, Paul Tsongas attacked Bill Clinton as "Pander Bear" and carried around a stuffed Panda bear to his primary rallies. It didn't work. Being anti-pander does not hit home in the Democratic party. Warren is trying to lock down the student vote (pity the poor students, torn between Warren and Buttigieg, student debt vs gay rights). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:57, 4 May 2019 (EDT)
 
  
== Restraint of trade, and Facebook hides it ==
+
:::::You told us a story that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry wanted a photo-op with a rebel leader and a Syrian government official to highlight and secure a peace treaty, and that Putin provided one too and ordered the other killed and secured a peace treaty independently.
  
Leftists are making their move to criminalize conservatism according to ally to conservatives [[Paul Joseph Watson]].  Watson reported a news story that found a leftist group pressuring MasterCard to set up a board, the members of which would define political extremism and direct MasterCard in denying their services to them.  This is a certain step towards ''restraint of trade'', an action illegally applied to anyone but criminal enterprises; so with two jumps, the leftists think they can control and move the board leftwardly, and the leftist media can call organizations they are already falsely calling extreme, dangerous and in this way restrain the trade of conservatives and their allies as leverage to suppress conservatism and conservative voices.
+
:::::To retaliate, Obama broke off diplomatic relations with Russia (or at least at a number of embassies) on some pretext at the end of his administration while staging NATO military exercises at the same time.  Trump and Putin were able to secure each other's trust, and nothing came of it except feeding obliquely into the holdover intelligence community's conspiracy to falsely attribute to Trump the pursuit of Russian interests before his own country which failed catastrophically.
  
Shortly afterwards, Watson's account was removed from Facebook as well as conservative [[Laura Loomer]]'s and ally to conservatives [[Milo Yiannopoulos]]'s as they simultaneously removed [[Louis Farrakhan]]'s account, leftist media cynically labeling him right-wing as well to attempt to fool potential black supporters while smearing conservatives with Farrahkan's extremism, topping a series of abuses by social media that began against Watson's patron [[Infowars]] a few months ago.
+
:::::Now you're telling us there was an anti-Russian cabal in government that was "aligned" with the Obama administration making things happen.
  
The situation has degenerated to the point where it has managed to annoy our President, who has expressed it on Twitter, and whom I would imagine is not without sharing some of our own incredulity.
+
:::::But the antagonistic tone of the investigation always seemed to be the resentment of the (allegedly intelligent) intelligence community toward a leader not dependent on anyone, and who therefore couldn't be pressured into backing off from scrutinizing their little fiefdom.
  
Let this be a lesson to trust Andy's judgment in the political realm—he foresaw Facebook's ill potential, which has now devolved the social media site into the petty tyranny in which we now see it to be sunk.
+
:::::How did they think that an anti-Russian sentiment could be evoked from such a clumsy contrivance, when it was clear from the beginning that Obama did not like Russia?  I originally thought they were carrying out Obama's sweet revenge, but then I actually believed the Russians were involved, because who would have the mental...inadequacy as to set themselves up for the kind of backlash that would inevitably follow? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 22:44, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::(ec) I don't know where the Kerry reference comes from, but neither Hillary nor Obama had much experience or understanding of foreign policy while in the Senate. True, Hillary had more DC experience in the White House and Senate, but never an indepth interest or understanding of foreign policy until - the formation of the Clinton Foundation.
 +
::::::As Secretary of State, Hillary was more qualified and experienced than Obama, but going back to the Riady's and the [[Chinagate]] scandal, their only approach was shaking down international donors for access. Cold War politics and ideology exited American foreign policy with the Clinton's in the 1990s; now it was focused on influence peddling, access to technology, and trade deals.
 +
::::::Ukraine has always been the red-headed stepchild in the Russian sphere, going back to the Czars. The Germans tried to make it part of Germany twice in two World Wars (Hitler was going to make the Crimea the "German Riveria" by extending the autobahn east from Budapest, as the climate is pretty nice there by European standards). Now the Ukrainians want to be part of the [[EU]] (i.e. that dream and vision of the Kaisar and Hitler that the rest of the world was adamantly opposed to. Sheesh, the EU can't keep its own house in order right now, let alone expand out to the Black Sea).
 +
::::::So what do  the Russians have to say about this 21st Century dream of Hitler and the Kaisers coming true, now?
 +
::::::Then, when you factor in 70 years of multicultural communist integration, making the number of Russians and Ukrainians evenly split at 50%, with halfbreeds of Turks and Slavs everywhere, you think Russia will allow a [[NATO]] base at Sevastopol? Will the UK allow a Russian submarine base at Dublin? Will the US allow a Chinese naval base at Acapulco?
 +
::::::I mean, c'mon. Just what have these Democrats been teaching our children the past 40-50 years> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:26, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
  
In the meantime I would advise you to keep an eye out for the restraint of trade issues so you are not blindsided by events into a shocked silence. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 12:39, 4 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::And since I'm asking, why would anti-Russian Hillary negotiate the sale of large amounts of Uranium to Russia? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 23:11, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
:We need articles on [[restraint of trade]] and [[Inherent contempt]]. It's better to be ahead of the curve rather than always playing catch-up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:43, 4 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::Cashola (a brokers fee for the Clintons). The US was bound by previous trade agreements, mainly the Sakhalin I & II projects negotiated by [[Rex Tillerson]] in 1996, which allowed Exon to be part  owners of the land and resources where they drilled (unlike the deal with Saudi Aramco in 1926 where the Saudis retained exclusive ownership of all land and reserves below ground). As a ''quid pro quo'', Russia was free to buy land and mineral resources in North America. The deal itself was legal, the $500,000 brokerage fee to paid the Clinton family is not. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:32, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
  
==White nationalist category==
+
====Kerrys and queries====
  
Why would anyone interested in finding solutions to political issues that make use of a conceptual category unless it were to help understand the issue being discussed?  Because they weren't arguing in good faith to begin with.
+
Here is your [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&diff=1320608&oldid=1320396 Kerry reference], Rob:
  
"White nationalism" is being shown to have bamboozled even more well-meaning conservatives at the end of last week than you'd like to have expected:
+
=====Trump's moves to take control of the CIA=====
 +
Trump's authorization to the CIA to expedite drone strikes, that with Pence's statement Julian Assange should be locked up for life, and the firing of Flynn, are the first steps to repair the breach with the Intelligence Community. It is IC's turn to come around, and they can begin by telling McCain & Graham, "False Alarm!" "There's no 'There' there!" RobS (March 14, 2017)
  
:You’re calling P[aul] J[oseph] W[atson], [Alex] Jones, Milo [Yiannopoulos] and [Laura] Loomer white nationalists?
+
The issuance of authority to CIA for drone strikes without the checkback provisions Obama had is a Win-Win for Trump and the CIA. It gives the CIA authority to do drone strikes on leadership of militias loyal to the Syrian regime while at the same time giving Trump deniability he ordered strikes against Putin and Assad allies.
  
:Please stop clogging my mentions with low-IQ stupidity. Thanks.
+
This is presumably payback for Russian intervention in Syria. In late 2015, John Kerry arranged for Syrian peace talks with Assad and the Russians on one side, and the 'Syrian opposition' and US on the other. However the [http://www.businessinsider.com/zahran-alloush-death-assad-2015-12 Russians whacked the 'Syrian opposition leader' the US groomed after talks were agreed on but before the US puppet could get to the table], leaving Assad & Putin in full control and making Kerry & Obama look like the idiots they are. RobS (March 14, 2017)
  
:—Brittany Pettibone
+
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 16:39, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
  
"Trump News" (that is President Trump's Twitter account) has an audience of 60 million, while CNN has a viewing audience that stays much of the time less than 2 million, and Trump has shown that he is able to pressure CNN (as recorded on Conservapedia's Main Page Right) and those like it to indirectly signal to the social media giants to back off their attempts at a conservative purge. CNN folded their campaign of negativity against Trump and broadcast editorially at the end of last week that Trump deserves credit for a healthy U.S. economy.
+
:Ok, thanks for digging it out. It took me a minute to regain context and I just noticed this thread her right now. Sorry for the delay. The question is (referring to the present Ukrainian and Russia collusion schemes, I presume):
 +
::''How did they think that an anti-Russian sentiment could be evoked from such a clumsy contrivance, when it was clear from the beginning that Obama did not like Russia? I originally thought they were carrying out Obama's sweet revenge, but then I actually believed the Russians were involved, because who would have the mental...inadequacy as to set themselves up for the kind of backlash that would inevitably follow? ''
 +
:"''They''" being IC conspirators presumably, and "''clear from the beginning''" only refers to "''clear from the beginning of the anti-Trump deep state operation, c. mid 2015''". Obama obviously was Putin's b*tch since at least August of 2008 (link available) and reiterated it to both Putin and Romney's face on live national television in 2012. So still don't quite understand the question.
  
But for a brief time there was a swell of misinformation being directed at conservatives, some of which was along the lines of "white nationalism".
+
:Reference point: [https://archive.is/73G5z Statement from Senator Obama on Russia's Decision to Recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Independent States, Chicago, IL | August 26, 2008] (there have been efforts to scrub this statement from the internet). Candidate Obama, who just hired Joe Biden as his foreign policy expert, says:
  
This was a category that no one cared about, and then one week it was a category that news broadcasters insisted was something dangerous that everybody needed to care about.
+
:*''The United States should call for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to condemn Russia's decision in coordination with our European allies.''
 +
[[File:Ukro-nazis.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Obama administration Russian foreign policy experts, 2014.  Written on the wall: “Ukraine for Ukrainians.” ]]
 +
:Candidate Obama announced to Vladimir Putin and the world:
 +
::(A) Dear Vladimir, Please occupy Abkazia and Georgia. Be my guest.
 +
::(B) I went to school for International Relations, but don't know a thing about it.
 +
::(C) I trust that American voters are too stupid to know Russia has a veto in the UN Security Council and my statement is meaningless.
 +
::(D) Also my dear Vladimir, I do not understand a thing about Putin or Russian designs, and neither does anyone on my staff of advisors.  
  
They were correct—but the only danger was to left-wing political success.
+
:To pretend 5 years later President Obama suddenly awoke to "''the Russian threat''" after inviting them to occupy Abkhazia, or his staff of experts and advisers are knowledgeable, or even concerned, about Russian activities in Syria or Crimea is a joke and farce.  
  
In American politics, there emerged different "identity groups"; ethnic and special interest minority groups that gathered to support each other in places like universities, large businesses and neighborhoods, and I think it's familiar to lot of people that they promoted policies to shield themselves from being marginalized. These policies were maybe a little aggressive, but again, I think most would say that they were promoted because they wanted to direct positive attention to themselves.
+
:The DNC, through [[Alexandra Chalupa]], and the Obama administration and Clinton campaigns, got in bed with [[Banderist]]s, i.e. [[xenophobic]] [[Russophobic]] Ukrainians, and turned over U.S. Russia and NATO foreign policy expertise and relations to Banderists, through [[Crowdstrike]] and the [[Atlantic Council]], because of the Obama administration, DNC, and Clinton campaign's own lack of expertise and understanding. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 11:46, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
  
This turned out to be a slippery slope, however and the "shields" turned and are turning into a "sword". And even groups that, by interest, were non-political, had members, because they favored liberal views, made a point of introducing liberal themes, or if not that, themes that would make it easier for them to be compatible with other "identity" groups with liberal themes should some tangentially liberal (often hoped for) common interest arise.
+
===Trumpism===
 +
Trumpism, aka [[MAGAnomics]] is simple to understand. We Americans have something very valuable to sell, that the rest of the world wants to buy into - access to our consumer market. We are among, if not ''the'' largest, richest, consumer market in the world (the EU in size rivals, but it appears to be an artificial structure that is falling apart). The question is, ''At what price are we willing to sell?''
  
This didn't pass unobserved by conservatives even from the beginning, and ideas like a "white students union" at universities were floated, and while a few whites and other majoritarian groups experienced disadvantage by these types of groups' activities, the ideas were more of a kind of commentary in jest of commonly-held suspicions of cynical favoritism held by many of the groups' members, especially in the context of liberals' simultaneous fervent professions of cherishing ideals of broad and consistent egalitarianism.
+
The argument to give Mexico and China a hand up by selling access cheap is over. Russia ''is not'' passing out AK-47s to the poor, downtrodden, and dispossessed like church groups do with coffee and donuts to the homeless. These countries can stand on their own.  We don't need anything from the rest of the world. We are self sufficient. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:03, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
  
Am I treading well-travelled paths for you so far?  Or have I just observed this alone? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 09:38, 5 May 2019 (EDT)
+
==="Professor Mifsud, I presume."===
:How long do you think it will be before Bill Barr wants to castrate gays, stone feminists and abortion activists, ship blacks back to Africa, and make transgenders pee outside by the dumpster? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 12:04, 5 May 2019 (EDT)
+
Attorney General Barr is headed for Italy to meet the thought-to-be-lost Professor Mifsud and hear his account of a CIA plot against then-presidential-candidate Trump, including a deposition he made after Trump won the election and before he went into hiding.
:Demonizing Barr has made [https://thehill.com/homenews/house/441762-ocasio-cortez-joins-calls-for-barr-to-resign Ocasio-Cortez a team player again.] He's gotta be a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. Democrat unity in 2020 depends on it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 12:37, 5 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
Thank you for taking an interest.  Bill Barr fortunately seems to have resources at his disposal, not the least of which is "Trump News" which, through the person and writings of Trump himself, immediately went right to the top of media food chain to question their value to America.
+
Ranking Democrats feel Mifsud's story is so ridiculous that Barr needs to recuse himself immediately—I guess because his revealing the falsifying perpetrators of the 2+ year Russian collusion investigation will cause too many Democrat allies in the intelligence community to laugh themselves into criminal indictments. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 13:20, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
  
I would like to continue a description of the way the ideas, which were picked up and are used by the hysterical today, were introducedI hope we can be of help <s>today</s> in the current developments, even if it's just verbally in an article, and the source of the progress of them to show where the forward pressure is directed. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 13:43, 5 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:Sorry, I thought this was factActually he's already there, and [[George Papadopoulos]] on belief thinks it's to meet Mifsud, as do nervous Democrat legislators. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 14:04, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
  
:RobS, why didn't you ''tell'' me Nancy Pelosi intimated Bill Barr ''might'' have perjured himself after he wouldn't show up to Congress to explain why he wouldn't start a second investigation into Trump on obstruction and debate it on the merits? That's not news?!  Those 20 pages Mueller wrote in ''Mueller Report Volume II'' dedicated to defending his interpretation of statute: 18 U.S.C. § 1512 subsection (c)(2) were ''already'' bloody epic, and his legal perspectives were sure to prevail!  I disavow Bill Barr!  I disavow!  I also relinquish and renounce! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 00:27, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::That's why the Impeachment inquiry - the poop is about to hit the fan and Democrats want to put Republicans on the defensive. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:09, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
  
::"For two years, people denied the electability of @realdonaldtrump and then for two years people denied the election of Donald Trump." – @KellyannePolls [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 02:07, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
===Ukraine investigates Biden's favorite prosecutor===
:::[[Comey]], [[John Brennan]], [[McCabe]], [[Sally Yates]], [[John Carlin]] and [[Nellie Ohr]] - all white people - are  all going to jail. Maybe [[Clapper]], [[Strzok]] and a dozen other people. That's the story. We're being fed more B.S. race baiting stories again now by the same cabal of hucksters and their media allies that we've been fed for three years already to divert attention. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 02:25, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
Lutsenko, the chief prosecutor Joe Biden bullied Ukraine into appointing back in 2016, made the media rounds last week as Biden's star character witness. Lutsenko has no law degree and the parliament had to modify Ukrainian law so that a non-lawyer could be chief prosecutor. [https://nypost.com/2019/05/16/joe-biden-and-son-hunter-cleared-of-wrongdoing-by-ukraine-prosecutor/ Here is Joe and Cokehead Hunter looking real happy when Lutsenko cleared Burisma (Hunter's company) back in May]. Zelensky, who was elected president in April, has reopened the case against Burisma. Now Ukraine has opened an investigation of Lutsenko for “abuse of power and malfeasance...by facilitating illegal gambling businesses."[https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-probes-ex-chief-prosecutor-lutsenko-on-gambling-charges/30193895.html] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:13, 1 October 2019 (EDT)
::::Thank you for realizing the problem. We need a grand unified theory of SJW patter including "white nationalism" smears to repel waves of distractions, which sometimes break forth in major ways like at MasterCard. I've identified two large clusters:  The freaks who can't ''survive'' in social conditions regarded as normal twelve years ago and are able to box the political compass with a free pass to change the rules of whatever political group they like for the alleged purpose of accommodating their sensitivity. And the slackers who will be defined next in a like manner. I've found people on Twitter who have devoted much of their free time identifying these persons and their deceptions on Twitter; because of their selfless efforts, we owe them to make good use and application of their behavioral studies of how some create chaos and avoid interception of their abuse if we possibly can. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 07:38, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
=== Racial demographic/political shifts and the future of white identity politics ===
+
  
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybeLya7G3Gs STUDIES: Whites (not strictly defined) Projected to Become Dominant Supermajority in U.S]
+
:Thank you for having provided this timely information. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 01:01, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
*[https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2018/14-december/features/features/interview-with-eric-kaufmann-race-on-a-professor-s-whiteboard Interview with Eric Kaufmann: race on a professor’s whiteboard]
+
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdQaD_RaZ4I Eric Kaufmann on Nationalism, White Identity & Immigration]
+
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCsTBfsdo50 Harvard: Diversity + Proximity = Republican Voters]
+
  
These are excellent resources on future racial demographic/political shifts and the future of white identity politics. I especially like the material by [[Eric Kaufmann]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:53, 5 May 2019 (EDT)
+
===Step 1: Call Ukraine.  Step 2: Call Australia===
 +
[[File:Downer-and-halper.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Halper and Downer, along with Mifsud, were recruited by John Brennan to frame Papadopoulos and Carter Page.  Richard Dearlove, the head of UK's [[MI6]] also worked closely with Brennan. They didn't like Trump's talk of making [[NATO]] allies pay more for their own defense. The future of the [[military industrial complex]] was at stake ]]
 +
Like I said, Biden's son was a less important issue to Trump than Ukranian collusion.  Now it seems the phone calls were a one-two punch against the FBI and their fig leaves of stories as to why exactly the FBI felt the need to mobilize against Trump as if it were a four-alarm fire.
  
:I thought you were RobS and was about to tell you "Conservative reads a lot of Eric Kaufmann too!" Thank you for the info. [And for keeping an eye on these ideas.] What I'm getting at, once I get through the sinister word choices, is that "nationalism" is also a dog-whistle for socialists because "national" socialism, and that includes China, is blamed for thwarting ''international'' socialism.
+
In fact, the Biden angle now looks like nothing more than a distraction.  If Trump finds out why the Australians pretended to be shocked at George Papadopoulos stale news that Hillary's emails were reported to be in the Russians' possession, it will be seen together with the fact that when the DNC emails were hacked, the DNC refused to let the FBI investigate, but instead hired CrowdStrike, the Ukrainian company.
  
In order to change the "shields" into "swords" to marshal the politically naive and justify the continuation of political aspects of the group that a liberal might like to make use of, even if conditions had really improved (though perhaps still short of full success) it became helpful to increase the sense of a ''threat'' to do so. Over time, this eventually came in the form of the alleged presence of "hate speech" and "hate groups" for the purposes of silencing and then more easily defeating their opposition.  This spread outside the political groups and poisoned conversation in general, introducing animosity between many social groups where time had allowed it to nearly disappear before.
+
If the FBI wanted to investigate George Papadopoulos and his environs so badly that it was all hands on deck (scores of agents), why didn't they at least ''suggest'' to the DNC that they examine their server? Isn't the physical evidence of ''the secret being taken'' as important as the circumstances of the ''person who knew the secret''?
  
It's probably the case that some young conservatives and other non-liberals were able to witness this transformation of liberal defensiveness from beginning to end and found that it offended their sense of fair play in the political contests of persuading others to their points of view as well as in disapproval at the deception.  And so around 2016 a practice on Twitter and Reddit congealed around the idea of ''overloading'' the liberal groups' newly-institutionalized sensitivity to any free speech that was negative about them. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 13:43, 5 May 2019 (EDT)
+
Especially when the so-called "secret" was a newsstory and not private information?  And when the FBI found out it was a newsstory the FBI...did what? Stopped the investigation of George Papadopoulos, released the agents and halted the surveillance? Does this make any sense to you [that they actually didn't do any of those things]?
:I have not read a lot of [[Eric Kaufmann]] material. I am merely good at doing research and quickly finding material relevant to issues. So it was not hard for me to find information related to various points Kaufmann has made.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:30, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::Vargas. Can't you see? The whole [[Deep State]] effort to overthrow the President and violate American citizen's rights is blowing up in their face. The Democrats' response is (a) to [[demonize]] Barr, and (b) rally support by playing the [[race card]] and changing the subject. I'm not buying it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 01:50, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::All I see is that this thread is in utter shambles after inviting you two to ''briefly'' tell me how awesome my new thinkpiece was while I was in the middle of composing it. And if you think I'm starting over now because that wasn't a good idea, you can forget it.
+
:
+
:::Conservative, I apologize.  Your awesome Eric Kaufmann statistics became so seared in my memory they crowded out everything else.  I remember this guy ''by name'' on three to four different occasions in your tremendous recent dissertations/tutorials-slapbacks if necessary directed at Ace ''et. al.'' on the ["]skeptic["] outlook as it stands in 2019, which is saying something.
+
:
+
:::RobS Yes and where there's explosions, there's cowards like me to hit the sidelines and foreswear any connection to whatever conservative is taking the heat, however feckless the Democrats' efforts at any kind of recovery of a silver lining on the effort that ended up so frustratingly unfruitful may be, because they're really just mad at Robert Mueller.
+
:
+
:::These weren't ever really supposed to be "funny" topics, but when your digging a hole for yourself, go with what you know, I guess. And now I don't know when I'll be able to get back to answering SamHB about Neil DeGrasse Tyson not being a conservativeAnd I don't envy my task tomorrow to figure out how to segué back to dignifying "white nationalism" with the serious look and a steady gaze I started with.
+
:
+
:::As for getting lost in these discussions, sometimes I even get occasionally worried that I'm being listened in on just because of the conservative viewpoint, the socialist attitudes among journalists and the intelligent equipment, but Siri laughed and said not to worry about it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 03:23, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::Stop trying to change the subject to white nationalism. Focus on the coup plot and the globalist attempt to destroy American democracy. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 04:45, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::You want to stop the coup plot and globalist actions against America? Do yourself and us a favor and stop calling America's form of government a democracy. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Want an actual Democracy? Look at France during the French Revolution, whether it be the September Massacres or the Reign of Terror. Look at Athens in Hellenistic Greece, even. In fact, our founding fathers specifically wanted to AVOID a democracy. By stating it as "American democracy", you're only helping the globalists and the Deep State. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:50, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::Our elected officials are democratically elected. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 19:55, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::::Still doesn't make us a democracy. A real democracy entails mob rule, like with the French Revolution, or, heck, various Communist revolutions (or even Southern Somalia in the episode "Collapse" of SEAL Team on CBS). The founding fathers specifically envisioned us as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, and in fact, what happened in the French Revolution is precisely why they did NOT want a democracy, that as well as how Athens fell. Sure, thanks to Woodrow Wilson and a certain Constitutional Amendment, we're closer to a democracy, but we still have checks and balances, and thus are NOT a democracy. Even the Communists believed in democracy, as [https://robertwelchuniversity.org/Not%20a%20Shot.pdf Jan Zovak made clear in "Not a Shot was Fired"], heck, Lenin for that matter, and the communists are a big part of the Deep State. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 20:45, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::Pokeria, did you see my reading collections [[User:VargasMilan/Mob rule in democracy]]?  That seems to be topic of interest here at Conservapedia, and you might like them. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 08:06, 7 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::::I've yet to do it in full, but I've gotten a start. You might want to also add in excerpts from "Not a Shot is Fired", and maybe also Lenin's "What Must be Done", since they also spoke glowingly of democracy in a manner that can only be best described as "mob rule" in favor of Communism and Socialism. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:14, 7 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::::Have you noticed, since a certain Amendment got passed, we don't have any short, bald, fat guys get elected president? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 09:34, 7 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::::Ha-ha, you mean like the future Joe Biden? You're going to end up eating your words; dashing Beto is holding Hillary-sized crowds, and women are throwing themselves at electable Biden, saying he can rub their necks anytime! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 08:11, 8 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::::Commie agit-prop. It's gonna be a Harris/Buttigieg ticket, the first LGBT ticket, top and bottom. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:52, 8 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::::Personally, I don't think most Americans are onboard with the Democrats plan for ending abortion by making everybody gay. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:59, 8 May 2019 (EDT)
+
Breitbart reported that one of the main perpetrators of the "White Nationalist" smears, fake news CNN, announced yesterday that they have been holding job buyout offerings to employees that have laid off a hundred people. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 09:45, 7 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
== Colorado shooter -- anti-Christian Democrat ==
+
Likewise, why deify the Ukraine "whistle-blower" if the ''event he whistled at'' is a matter of recorded history and renders his account ''unnecessary''?  By the very means of the Democrats' frenetic camouflage efforts, this informer's irrelevance is teaching us, and the American people who pay attention, lessons about how to receive the Australians' evidence explaining their over-attachment to George Papadopoulos and his story, should they provide it, with the right kind of critical eye and ear with which to view and audit the perpetrators (reacting or pretending to react unnecessarily)?  Ouch, that's gotta hurt. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 19:51, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:[[John Brennan]] and [[Richard Dearlove]] set it up.
  
The Colorado shooter apparently was a registered Democrat who praised Obama, criticized Trump, and mocked Christians for believing that homosexuality is a sinful practice: [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/08/report-colorado-school-shooter-allegedly-a-registered-democrat-praised-obama/ 1],[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/colorado-shooting-suspect-denounced-all-these-christians-who-hate-gays 2],[https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/32248-one-denver-school-shooter-post-anti-christian-anti-trump-messages-the-other-think-s-she-was-a-boy 3] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 15:21, 8 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:[[Halper]] and [[ Alexander Downer]] were in on it. So was [[Mifsud]], albeit he may have been used unscrupulously without his knowing by Dearlove & Brennan.
  
===Students refuse to be useful idiots for gun control===
+
:Downer has deniability, passed off to Erika Thompson, as the Mueller Report says. However, Downer did not follow channels of reporting back to [[Canberra]] for proper vetting, who then would share it with the CIA if the information was any good, but rather passed off the information to Clinton stooges in the U.S. Embassy in London, who sent it back to Clinton stooges at the DC State Department, who gave it to the FBI conspirators. It was outside the official [[Five Eyes]] process for intelligence vetting necessary to open a [[counterintelligence]] investigation on a U.S. citizen. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:29, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Many students walked out of a "vigil" (aka. gun control rally) when its speakers began advocating for far-left agenda items. This caused at least one group (Brady Campaign, which shows how politicized this event was in the first place) to apologize: [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/colorado-students-flip-the-script-by-saying-they-dont-want-to-be-used-to-push-gun-control 1],[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/9/students-walk-out-vigil-after-speakers-turn-event-/ 2],[https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/09/students-walk-out-school-shooting-vigil-turns-gun-control-rally/ 3] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 10:02, 9 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
== Serious question for the conservative hive mind ==
+
:Most American's don't understand who Alexander Downer is; by American standards, he would be something like the grandson of George Washington. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:33, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
[[File:Leaks.png|right|350px|thumb|Illegal leaks by career [[civil service system]] employees and [[Democrat]]s spiked during the [[Deep State coup]] attempt against [[President Trump]].]]
+
What's the story with Senate Intel's subpoena for Junior? It seems completely at odds with current White House / GOP tactics. Cheers, [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 21:09, 9 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
:In case it isn't obvious to you yet (despite a ton of different stories in the past three -- and more -- years showing this) at least half of the GOP's officials oppose and/or are working against President Trump and his conservative agenda. We've seen this with ObamaCare, the border crisis, opposing certain conservative nominees, Republican politicians' support for mass amnesty and low-wage migrant workers, etc. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:12, 9 May 2019 (EDT)
+
=== Hunter Biden is on the board of a Chinese company  ===
::I get that a good chunk of GOP senators despise Trump, but they've generally been so passive / transactional in their dealings with him, that I'm struggling with the idea of this as a deliberate grenade. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 21:30, 9 May 2019 (EDT)
+
It's high time somebody who knows how to read Chinese business records took a look at the Biden in China story. ''South China Morning Post'' was not able the substantiate the claim that Hunter Biden got $1 billion from the Bank of China. That always seemed like a wildly improbable amount. However, Hunter is listed in China's National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System as a board member of BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Company, an investment firm backed by the Chinese government. It all sounds suspiciously similar to the deal he got from Burisma in Ukraine. See "[https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3031632/joe-bidens-son-listed-director-china-backed-equity-firm Joe Biden’s son listed as director at China-backed equity firm, government filings show]" and "[https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/3009709/sleepy-joe-biden-one-few-us-politicians-whos-wide-awake-about ‘Sleepy Joe’ Biden is one of the few US politicians who’s wide awake about China]." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:59, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
:::They're only passive in the pages of ''The New York Times'', CNN, and other MSM/left-wing sites. The only reason why they aren't waging outright war against Trump is because they know he has a >90% approval rating among Republican voters (think primary elections). --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:40, 9 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:On the Chinese government records lacking a record of this matter: "Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus he is master of his enemy's fate." - [[Sun Tzu]].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 19:55, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
::::This deserves consideration: ''"[https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/08/senate-intel-committee-subpoenas-donald-trump-jr/ there’s something a little, well, ‘off’ about how the story is being presented…. zero official verification. Without any verification, and with only vague references to anonymous sourcing, CTH would advise to wait-and-see on this one. DJT-jr has been used more than once for leak hunting.]"''
+
::Follow the link to the ''NYPost'' article for more on BHR - Bohai Harvest RST (Rosemont Seneca Trust) from here: [[Hunter_Biden#China]]. Chris Heinz, of the Heinz family fortune and John Kerry's stepson, had enough to sense to bail, pulling out RST and leaving the deal to the Biden and Bulger families, i.e. Mueller informant [[Whitey Bulger]]'s nephew.
::::[https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/05/black-hat-hunting/ Here are] [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/15/too-deep-to-drain-aspects-lost-in-the-james-wolfe-pleading/ several examples] of [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/07/03/yesterday-brian-ross-today-ali-watkins-new-york-times-moves-reporter-2-out-of-washington-dc/ fake news leak hunting]. The [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/07/23/indicted-senate-staffer-james-wolfe-leaked-a-2017-copy-of-full-fisa-warrant-against-carter-page-to-reporter-ali-watkins/ Senate Intel Committee director of security was indicted for leaking Carter Pages' FISA app].  [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/07/02/hogwash-brian-ross-didnt-resign-over-the-fake-news-flynn-story-he-resigned-because-he-was-reporter-4-within-james-wolfe-indictment-senate-intelligence-leak-investigation/ Brian Ross was fired from ABC]. Ali Watkins was reassigned at the NYT. Inspector Horowitz found a culture of leaking under Comey at the FBI. Barr and Wray have both testified about ongoing leak investigations, of which there is a record number. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 02:58, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
Brexit/Trump were the first major splashes of ice cold water upon the faces of globalists/liberals/leftists. In terms of the stages of grief, globalists/liberals/leftists are still in the denial/anger stages. Once the European Union breaks up, globalists/ liberals/leftists will go into the bargaining stage of grief. Then once the religious right begin to have very significant power, as the scholar [[Eric Kaufmann]] predicts will happen by 2050 or as early as 2021, liberals/leftists/globalists will go into depression (some already have. See: [[Secular leftists and psychogenic illness]]).  And remember, the pace of events will quicken as time progresses (see: [[Acceleration of 21st century desecularization]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:54, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
==Framing Barr==
+
::Whitey Bulger is suspected of 52 murders while a Mueller and [[Bill Weld]] informant in the 1980s and '90s.  [[John Durham]] was called in to investigate the whole mess and clean it up.
  
The Attorney General has offered to let Democrats view a version of the Mueller Report that is 98.5% unredacted
+
::Mueller was promoted to head the FBI for covering up corruption in the Boston FBI field office. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:13, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
  
The only redactions are ones that are required by law
+
::I misspoke; The "T" in Bohai Harvest RST is for "Thornton", which is the Bulger family. RST is the merger of Rosemont Seneca (Heinz family fortune) with Bulger interests (Thornton). After Chris Heinz bailed, it became simply Bohai Harvest - a Chinese military operation which Hunter Biden sits on the board. Whitey Bulger's nephew was recently convicted in some $60 million Wall Street scam (meaning he's available to testify). Looks like Hunter and [[PRA]] (Peoples Revolution Army) are all alone in this now, along with Uncle Joe. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:34, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
  
Not a single Democrat has viewed the report, yet they are holding AG Barr in contempt for following the law?
+
==Bolton out==
  
—Charlie Kirk
+
===Saudi Arabia===
 +
:::We are joined at the hip because the neocons want to keep the (unconstitutional) petrodollar scam going. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has been using that as leverage to hold our economy hostage. Either we do what they say, or they devalue the dollar and destroy the US economy. And if we really get them mad, they unleash their al-Qaeda and ISIS "bad cops" to bring us to our knees through sheer terror. We must not tolerate these acts of geopolitical blackmail. It's time for a (very nasty) break-up.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 18:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Nah. You gotta look at the bigger picture. We didn't build up the third largest defense establishment to have it used against us. Only liberals and Democrats would make such a stupid argument. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:24, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::[promoted by VM] I ''am'' looking at the bigger picture. The petrodollar agreement was an illegal trade deal orchestrated by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger which replaced the gold standard with an oil standard controlled by the Saudi-dominated OPEC through oil price manipulation. Almost ''everything'' that has gone wrong with our foreign policy since then can be traced back to that deal. The deal is also partly to blame for our inbility to balance the budget, because it established the dollar as a global reserve currency, which means we have to keep printing money indefinitely in order to avoid a global recession. The petrodollar deal has brought us to our knees, and the Saudis know it. But unlike other countries, the Saudis aren’t willing to re-negotiate this deal. Any re-negotiation would destroy its quest for a global caliphate. No, they would rather sponsor assassinations, unleash terrorists on the whole world, and start major wars to keep the status quo. We have no reason to treat them as anything but a mortal enemy. They have the blood of thousands of Americans on their hands. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 22:01, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Without doing a deep dive into specifics, I'd say you just put your finger on a big reason why we're joined at the hip (since fracking, the balance has shifted much more toward the U.S., who now can dictate to the Saudi's what the world oil price should be). However, you seem to follow the school of thought that the Saudi government and bureaucracy functions, or has power and control, analogous to Western nations. Saudi oligarchs, and others in the Gulf, have an amazing degree of freedom and independence to act on the world stage apart from the Saudi government and policy of the Saudi ruling regime. This comes from its base law - ''Shariah'' - which does not recognize man made regimes (same is true in virtually all Islamic Republics; only the most [[secular]] regimes are run by ''tyrants'' who follow Western models of a modern police or [[administrative state]]).
  
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 10:48, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::The Saudi ruling clan are basically the first among equals, whom the other tribal leaders defer to in the area of foreign policy since that is what brought them such prosperity. However, many of these other oligarchs and tribal chiefs still can have their own foreign policy, arm terrorists outside their borders, etc., which is really just an issue of Saudi domestic politics. If the ruling clan blanketly tried to restrain them, that would be a rejection of their own legitimacy under ''Shariah'' as guardians of the Holy Places.
:The plan here is to hold Barr, Mnuchin, McGahn, ''et al'' in contempt and rally pubic support for impeachment of a corrupt administration, or at least lose the 2020 elections. House Democrats have the support of maintsream fake news media and their social media Gestapo disrupters of like-minded conservative groups and users. Never mind if it is legal to demand that the Attorney General violate the law. They'll get months and months of publicity demonizing Barr as crook, and by the time they loose in court the news will be buried on the back page.  
+
  
:All this is motivated by an effort to cover up the criminal activities of Comey, Brennan, Sally Yates, [[John Carlin]] ''etal'', dominating the fake news cycle in coming weeks and years, as much as their hatred of Trump. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:16, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::When you speak of "sponsor assassinations, unleash terrorists", etc., yes, you are referring to what we in the West call "Saudi citizens" or "Saudi organizations" or "Saudi companies" etc.  But they are not executing the policy of the Saudi ruling clan, i.e., the "Saudi government" ("There is one God but Allah, and Mohammad is his Prophet;" Islam does not teach government by men, so the Saudis walk a fine line holding any legitimacy over the territory of the Arabian Peninsula, or as Keepers of the Shrines in the Islamic world. And don't tell me, "''Screw their Islamic traditions, we should create a power vacuum and impose a Western style secular or Christian regime over the Islamic Holy Places''"). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 22:39, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
::This is all about Spygate. The Democrats went to tar Barr so his Spygate investigations/prosecutions have less political fallout. It probably will not work. Barr is a tough cookie and so is Trump. The only question is: How far does Trump want to go? I know Ford pardoned Nixon. The logical conclusion of justice would be to put Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Obama behind bars if everything were proven in a court of law. I am not sure how far Trump is willing to go though.  
+
:::::First off, you seem to believe that it's only certain tribes that support terrorism. That's not true. The central government itself has sponsored terrorism in the past, and it continues to do so today. And even if it didn't, the fact that it even allows other tribes to sponsor terrorism (with the help of princes acting on their own accord) without consequence is a sign of tacit approval. The US and the Saudi system of government in its current form cannot peacefully co-exist. If we want Wahhabi terrorism to stop, we must give the Saudis an ultimatum: ''Either break ties with the rogue tribes and shut down all terrorist-supporting institutions such as the Muslim World League, or we ally with Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and other anti-Saudi countries in the region and we jointly pursue a policy of containment against you.''--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:52, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::[promoted bt VM] Again, look at the bigger picture. ''Why did the Pentagon clone itself in a country with a population smaller than California?''  And the Pentagon didn't do this on its own - it was the State Department and Congress. The Pentagon functions in the Middle East, dba Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia recruits and hires for its armed services and mercenary groups from all over he Arab and Islamic world (typically Egyptians, with vast manpower reserves attracted by high wages). The U/S/ and Saudi Arabia jointly do training. It's better than sending Americans to die in some stupid war.  
  
::Equal justice under the law is very important. On the other hand, there is the "triage" issue. The USA is bleeding in a lot of ways (large national debt, trade deficits, poor schools, crumbling infrastructure, poor immigration policy, etc.).  
+
::::Some ideological vetting occurs depending on the mission. Iran remains the bad guy until it gives up its anti-American, anti-Israeli, and anti-Saudi views.  This is probably a long way off, since the older generation which is dying off now, was schooled in war from its earliest existence (1980-1988).
  
::In short, President Donald Trump has a lot on his plate. Most of the stuff on Trump's plate should have been handled by his predecessors, but unfortunately it was not.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:59, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::I agree wholeheartedly - the Iranian people and the U.S. are natural allies. But you can thank idiot Democrats in the Carter years for this mess they left as their legacy. And I see no indication, whatsoever, that idiot Democrats who speak on foreign policy today have learned a thing from their mistakes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:14, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
:::First up: James Comey. And Comey has to implicate Brennan, which then implicates UK GCHQ. Comey also will implicate the DOJ, accross the street from the FBI. That is Sally Yates and John Carlin. Carlin and Yates will have to implicate the AG Lynch and the White House - Susan Rice, Obama, McDonough, Rhodes, Monaco ''etal''.
+
:::::You seem to be abiding by the premise that Iran is the bad guy. Iran is ''not'' the bad guy. It may be ''a'' bad guy, but it's not ''the'' bad guy. The Saudis are ''the'' bad guys. They are the ones who need to be contained, not Iran. At this point, I would be more than happy to ally with Iran, even if the current regime is in power and even if it's still anti-Israel (I'm starting to become anti-Israel myself because it's actively participating in a propaganda campaign falsely portraying Iran as the cause of all terrorism and smearing those who don't fall for it as being anti-Semitic). --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 07:47, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
:
+
::::::The Iranian government is the bad guy; the Saudi government is an American stooge regime that does nothing on its own.  All it's actions are directed by the U.S. [[intelligence community]]. When it created ISIS, it was at the behest and direction of President Obama and [[John Brennan]], the record has borne out. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:56, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
:::The way this breaks down is, a fight between Obama appointees and Clintonistas in the DOJ, FBI and White House. The Clintonistas are guilty, the Obama appointees need to be pressed to sing and finger them. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 12:07, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::[promoted by VM] So in other words, you agree with me that the Saudis and the Deep State are tied at the hip. But you disagree with the premise that the Saudis are willing collaborators. When you start with the premise that they are puppets rather than willing collaborators, you're in a whole different world. If ''that'' premise is correct, then not only did the government know about 9/11 in advance (which I believe), but it (probably) also helped carry out or even ''ordered'' 9/11 (which I don't believe). Do you believe that?--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 15:37, 11 September 2019 (EDT)  
:
+
::::::IMO, you're barking up the wrong tree again. I'm intimately familiar with all the events in Sudan, in Afghanistan, in Saudi Arabia, and in the White House leading up to 9/11, from about 1989 onwards. You're falling into the trap, again, of labeling Saudi oligarchs and Saudi citizens as "the Saudi government'. The Saudi government in fact cooperated extensively with CIA in the pre-9/11 period. The Saudi government itself attempted an assassination of bin Laden in Sudan (1996?) causing him to flee to Afghanistan (the CIA wanted to do it themselves, but the Saudi regime moreless talked them out of it and convinced the CIA of the wisdom of letting the Saudis do it).
:::Comey's kinda stupid, and he only since getting fired started to realize how Brennan set him up to be the fall guy. He'll be singing like a canary soon enough. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 12:23, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::Steve Bannon predicts Trump will go "full animal" on his opponents now that the Mueller investigation is over. And Trump says his favorite Bible verse is "An eye for an eye". We will see what happens.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:28, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::I hope Trump's rabid shark fans will chomp down on the three chunks of raw meat he's tossing to them (if Trump doesn't back down), and he ''sic''s them on the Democrats until the next election.  It's like illegal immigration has morphed into a black market. It's not as if the Democrats didn't start it. You can count on Biden issuing a few choice complex political lies in the meantime ("they want to put you-all in chains").
+
:
+
:::Conservative, if someone told you that the National Debt is a growing problem, they were probably fooled by a liberal.  Due to the economy Trump inspired and his savings in Federal spending, Trump's tenure in office (1st two full years) has halted the growth of Debt ''in proportion to the yearly Gross Domestic Product'' (the best estimate to how quickly it can be paid back) essentially to ''zero'', while still growing millions of jobs. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 14:40, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:
+
:::And Trump has jawboned for months and months about a proposed infrastructure bill.  If, God forbid, there is an engineering failure that endangers people's lives, the public can't blame Trump for not trying. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 14:48, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:
+
:::As for that, there are other reasons why failure to pass infrastructure wouldn't stick to Trump, but shh... the walls have ears.
+
:
+
:::Rob, do you really think the public's going to be shocked at accusations they throw at Barr if Trump's base is reasonably well-informed?  All they have to say is that the Democrats are "Trumping" Barr by attacking him the moment he sets foot in office. Eventually Democrat supporters are going to get fatigued at having to defend series of arguments growing further and further detached from the truth and will need either a retreat or a distracting disturbance to prevent themselves from being persistently laughed at. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 15:28, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::Comey's going to jail, it looks like. Too bad. It should be Brennan. But opening the Brennan Pandora's box opens a re-examination of the US-UK "special relationship" which allowed UK intelligence to interfere in American elections. That then threatens the future of the whole NATO alliance. Somebody has to swing, and unless Comey is wiling to convert to Trumpism to save himself and rat out Brennan, he's the designated fall guy as of this moment. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 08:16, 15 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::Mark my words: Comey's going to look as disheveled as [[Michael Cohen]] or anybody else who endured a North Korean interrogation before this over. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 08:24, 15 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
:::My cryptic remark about Trump giving out three chunks of raw meat, turned out, alas, another time where Trump backed down. We were told that Jared Kushner was finally going to redeem himself and rally conservatives around Trump by composing an immigration policy bill that gave conservatives THREE-fourths of what they have been asking for in immigration law.
+
::::::Bin Laden signed onto the Iranian, anti-Saudi Muslim Unity Movement. There were other oligarchs in the Arabian Peninsula, which Western media repeatedly mislabels as "Saudis", but while they are (a) holders of Saudi passports, in fact (b) support the overthrow of the Saudi regime.
  
:::Today, Ann Coulter reported that the bill had no provisions for the wall or decreasing the number of legal immigrants.  How are Trump's sharks supposed to feed on that? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 23:26, 16 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::Iran is complicit with Al Qaeda, not the Saudi government. [http://iran911case.com/] As Iran was complicit in the Khobar Towers attack. Iran allowed the 9/11 hijackers to pass through Iran on forged passports.
  
===John Durham===
+
::::::The notion that the government of Saudi Arabia is complicit in 9/11 is liberal Democrat BS. Even such a seditious traitor as [[John Brennan]] (a man in the know - CIA Station Chief in Saudi Arabia in 1996) would never espouse such dangerous, bigoted and xenophobic crap. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:00, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
[[John Durham]] has already investigated both [[Robert Mueller]] and [[John Brennan]], Mueller in the Whitey Bulger case when Mueller was US Attorney in Boston. Bulger named Mueller as a defense witness before going on the lam. Mueller was promoted to FBI director for his role in the Boston field office coverup. An FBI agent did go to jail, and four innocent men who were framed by prosecutors for a 1965 murder won a $100 million lawsuit against the FBI. Bulger, an informant for the FBI and the Boston US Attorney's office, spent Mueller's entire 10 year term as director as a fugitive. Durham's case ended before Bulger was finally captured as Mueller's term ended, and convicted of 19 murders (he was suspected of 52).
+
  
Bulger, who was sentenced to life, was murdered six months ago while in US custody.
+
::::::The 28 pages withheld from the 9/11 report detail what I alluded to above:
 +
:::::::''The Saudi ruling clan are basically the first among equals, whom the other tribal leaders defer to in the area of foreign policy since that is what brought them such prosperity. However, '''many of these other oligarchs and tribal chiefs still can have their own foreign policy, arm terrorists outside their borders, etc., which is really just an issue of Saudi domestic politics'''.  If the ruling clan blanketly tried to restrain them, that would be a rejection of their own legitimacy..."''
  
[[Bill Weld]] also figures into the Bulger/Mueller case.
+
::::::It is a difference of cultural idiom which Western and American (idiot) journalists are incapable of comprehending, and would only promote anti-Arab [[xenophobia]]. Until these basic misconceptions surrounding Saudi Arabia as a "[[nation state]]" akin to Western concepts of the nation state are corrected, those 28 pages will remain classified. Those pages ''do not'' point a finger at the Saudi government; they detail complicity of rich holders of "Saudi passports" and "Saudi citizenship" who, under ''Shariah'' law which grants the Saudi government legitimacy, the Saudi government is incapable of taking action against.  
  
Brennan was investigated  by Durham in relation to the CIA torture program. The case ended without any prosecutions, and before Brennan was appointed CIA director and hacked into the Senate Intel Committees servers to tamper with evidence in the Senate Committee's Torture Report. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:59, 15 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::The name "Saudi Arabia' itself tells you as much; while a consensus existed in 1925 to give the new nation state the name "Saudi Arabia," a consensus lacked over its legitimacy to use the territory's  proper name - Arabia or the Arabian Peninsula. It would be like renaming Arkansas, "Clinton Arkansas", or New York "Trump New York". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:17, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::So in other words, what you are saying is that Saudi Arabia shouldn't be treated as a coherent entity. Okay, then. Then here's how Saudi Arabia can redeem itself. ''Become'' a coherent entity. Become a nation-state. Don't give a crap about what the other tribes think. If they want to rebel, ''crush them''. Settle this nationalist vs. de facto autonomy conflict the way Lincoln did here in the US. Then the American people will finally take MbS' reforms seriously and get of Saudi Arabia's case. I'll admit MbS has taken steps in the right direction, but his lack of overall progress plus his jingoistic behavior towards other countries in the region make me greatly distrust him and have extremely strong doubts regarding his true intentions. Meanwhile, let's get out of the petrodollar system anyway. It's illegal to begin with. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 17:23, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::[promoted by VM] I think you need a better understanding of Islamic law and the extent of the Muslim world. Without ''Shariah'', the Saudi ruling clan wouldn't exist. You're just calling for a power vacuum, chaos, and more needless bloodshed.
  
==This is all messed up==
+
::::::There have been proposals to create an international zone for Mecca and Medina. But even that has its own problems.  Islam doesn't recognize, and is at war with, the concept of "global order" (unless, of coarse, it's under Allah and the Koran).
Andy and DavidB4,
+
  
We have an article titled [[First sale doctrine]], one titled [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act and First Sale Doctrine]], [[DMCA]], but no article that is just dedicated to [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] by its full proper name.
+
::::::The Saudi king appoints the Grand Mufti of Medina, who is somewhat analogous to the Pope in Christiandom, albeit with less secular and more spiritual power (Warning: these are rough analogies I'm drawing here; a Muslim kid posted on Facebook his understanding that Donald Trump was the Pope of Christianity). Structurally, it's like the President appointing a Supreme Court Chief Justice. In fact, this system is controversial; in Iran the Supreme Council (akin to the Supreme Court) elects their supreme leader as Head of State - the Ayatollah. So you see there are two competing systems there. Sunnis, 90% of Muslims globally, tend to support the Saudi system, however there are violent dissenters from this system. While many oppose Shia Islam and Iran, some feel the Iranian system is closer to what the Prophet intended. Other violent dissenters don't.
  
What do you think would be the best way to proceed in cleaning all of this up?  This will take a series of merges and content copies, but what should they be?  That the DMCA long title article has a section about first sale is a good thing, but does that really need to be an 8 word title?  As long as the articles are properly linked, wouldn't that be more encyclopedic? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 22:43, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::Simply labeling people as bogeymen - the Saudis, MBS, the Ayatollah, bin Laden, etc etc etc - doesn't address any of these structural flaws that the successors of Mohammad have been grappling with for 1,500 years. Those types of criticisms are just [[liberal claptrap]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:31, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Oh, I fully understand the role of Sunni-style Sharia in the existence of the Saudi "state." Although I do appreciate the level of detail in your reply. But regardless, if the House of Saud expects the status quo to remain forever, it's totally delusional. At this point, it has three choices: (A) Become a coherent nation state and actually start acting like a civilized government; (B) Dissolve the country USSR-style and be content with having less land to control while the other tribes wither away and kill each other; or (C) Take an extremely high-risk gamble and try to maintain the status quo indefinitely, a move that likely will eventually cause the entire rest of the region to rise up against it and tear the country to pieces in an imperialist scramble that may well start another world war. There's no escape from those options. That possibility ended years ago. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 17:53, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
  
#Copypaste  [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act and First Sale Doctrine]] into [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]];
+
The recent troop deployment to Saudi Arabia is like a service warranty; for all the equipment the U.S. has sold them. A few micky-mouse drones got through and wiped out half of Saudi Arabia's oil output. Now some sort of lower level radar has to be installed, with a missile defense system to knock out a midget drone. The missile defense systems developed and operational thus far are for larger type missiles.
#Switch the ==First sale doctrine== subsection of  [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act and First Sale Doctrine]] with [[First sale doctrine]], leaving a main article link to [[First sale doctrine]];
+
#Merge [[DMCA]] into [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]];
+
#Make redirects from [[DMCA]] and [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act and First Sale Doctrine]] to [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]].
+
: [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 23:23, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
::Great suggestions. Thanks for identifying this, Progressingamerica!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 01:07, 11 May 2019 (EDT)
+
Another problem is swarms of drones. If 50 long range cruise missile's were inbound, we know we could wipe out 60%+ of them; if a 1,000 small drones were launched just over the horizon, flying not much above tree-top level, that presents a new defensive problem that has not been combat tested yet. (Eventually these types of drones with the ability to pinpoint target we'll see launched from Gaza, rather than the old-fashioned bottle rocket type missiles being launched).
  
==Update: Mueller Report says Rosenstein didn't try to persuade Trump to fire Comey==
+
The U.S. military presence is basically there to install the advanced prototype systems - radar and missile defense - we've developed thus far, and train locals how to operate and maintain them.
  
See [[#Update: Mueller Report says Rosenstein didn%27t try to persuade Trump to fire Comey]]. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 22:15, 12 May 2019 (EDT)
+
It's a revolving door. The U.S. possesses technology that can likely deal with drone attacks like the one that just occurred; however, once that technology is shared with foreign allies, there is no way to keep it out of the hands of Iran, China, and Russia, which will eventually copy it, making it obsolete, paving the way for the next generation of weapons development. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:16, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
  
==Even [[Laura Loomer]]'s Twitter fan club page removed from Twitter after she takes her protest #StoptheBias to front of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey's house==
+
===China===
 +
::::::[promoted by VM]As long as there is Iran-China cooperation (which is why Trump is courting Iran right now - evidenced by the firing of Bolton), there will remain U.S.-Saudi cooperation. Russia is the wildcard that plays both against each other, or sides with the winner. Russia definitely favors siding with the U.S. over China - more evidence of the disastrous failure of Obama's global vision. We have virtually a universal consensus now even among 25 Democrat presidential candidates and members of both parties in Congress, that China, not Russia or Islamic terrorism, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "is the focus of evil in the modern world." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:18, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::What you just mentioned reminds me a lot of John Xenakis' "Generational Dynamics" prediction, which had major influence on the development of Steve Bannon's ideology. If you're not familiar with Xenakis, he's been predicting (since 2003) a "Clash of Civilizations" World War that pits the US, Europe, Russia, India, Japan, Iran, and Israel against China and the Sunni Muslim countries. Now, I'm not entirely convinced that this exact alignment is going to happen, because I do believe some European countries will side with China. I also believe some Sunni countries will side with the US because of existing tensions with other Sunni countries (specifically, some Arabian tribes will side with the US to protect themselves from other Arabian tribes and especially Turkey, the latter who I believe will be -- along with Pakistan -- among China's main partners in the Muslim world). In that event, keeping Russia and Iran on our side would be absolutely critical, because if either of them side with China or fall to the pro-Chinese alliance, then China will have a "land bridge" of allies that would allow it to deploy troops to Europe without having to deal with American naval superiority. Such an event would cause the US to face its most serious national security crisis since 1991, if not since 1945.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 01:20, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::To keep things sane, most people (emphasis on most) understand that a war would be over in 15 minutes. Let's assume that modern warfare is fought out in trade deals and between trading alliances. China, at the moment, has a huge advantage in Africa which is rich in material and human resources.
  
Laura Loomer was removed from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Paypal.  Wikipedia calls her a "conspiracy theorist" in the lede of her Wikipedia entry. Imagine if that could have happened to a female reporter from a liberal media outlet, even in prolonged full-throated falsely-sourced reporting on anticipated legal actions against Trump that presupposed a Trump-Russia collusion theory.  Loomer's only outlet left is YouTube, the stagnant Gab and the unknown Telegram.  All for asking tough questions and discovering and reporting on corruption, and because she's an independent journalist, these corrupt organizations think they can isolate her.
+
::::::::I don't see a consensus in the Arab world to improve their material lot through trading alliances with non-Muslims, so that's a situation they will have to fight out and settle among themselves.
  
But let's focus on Twitter.  Reportedly Dorsey makes over a billion dollars from President Trump's account. Loomer was banned from Twitter for posting this question based on undisputedly correct information:
+
::::::::As to China, it grew too big too fast, economically. it's a manufacturing-export economy, and has skipped a lot of internal economic development. It's basically a house of cards - and a very big one at that. The question is, will its communist leadership accept the fact that it's days of rapid growth are past, that it no longer has the get-rich-quick access to the American consumer market, and focus on developing an internal service sector with lower revenues from exports? As corrupt and evil as their leaders may be, I think there are still sensible, and will chose that path.
  
:Isn't it ironic how the twitter moment used to celebrate "women, LGBTQ, and minorities" is a picture of Ilhan Omar? Ilhan is pro Sharia Ilhan is pro- FGM Under Sharia, homosexuals are oppressed &amp; killed. Women are abused &amp; forced to wear the hijab. Ilhan is anti Jewish. https://[...]
+
::::::::As to the EU, assuming it survives, its leaders also have to learn something from the current crisis. There's no going back to its pipe dreams of [[John Lennon]]'s ''Imagine''.  The German economy is on the verge of recession because Chinese orders for manufactured goods are not coming in because of China isn't making the money they were off the American market.  We, the U.S., don't need any of them - the EU, Russia, or China - for manufactured goods or raw resources. We don't need oil from abroad. We're self-contained. We're holding all the cards. We've done our part in giving them all a hand up for 70 years. We're tired of playing policeman of the world, paying for European socialists defense and having them spit in our faces how they can afford free healthcare for their people and somehow we're cruel because we don't. It's a new age, and Trump is leading the world into it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 02:00, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::[promoted by VM] One thing that I will never accept is the idea that if two nuclear-armed great powers go to war, the conflict will immediately escalate into an apocalyptic-scale nuclear conflict. When you go to war, the goal is to win. If there's a chance the war can be won without using nukes, that chance will always be taken first. Sure, there probably will be some limited nuclear weapons usage, but I don't see any of the nuclear powers (except perhaps Pakistan) being stupid enough to launch all their nukes at once unless they are absolutely certain that's the only option left.
  
calling it "hateful conduct".
+
:::::::As to the Arab world, its time as a major player is running out. Its failure to unite around a single, all-powerful tribe leaves it at the mercy of Turkey and Iran, both which are centered around eons-old civilizations that united, well, eons ago.These two countries, along with Israel and ''possibly'' Egypt, will be the major (non-great power) players in the region in the foreseeable future.  
  
Now it appears that Google may be suppressing her website, just as they suppress some news stories by "piling on" information presenting false pictures of the stories from preferred outlets.
+
:::::::As to China, its economic woes are only part of the long-term problems it faces. There are also growing tensions among the many ethno-religious groups in the country, and the CCP is growing increasingly worried that there may be a rebellion or even a civil war. This is far from the first time the internal situation in China has reached this point, China faced similar crises (which more often than not exploded into extremely bloody uprisings) in the 1920s-40s (Chinese Civil War/Second Sino-Japanese War), in the 1850-60s (Taiping rebellion), and in the 1790s-1800s (White Lotus rebellion), and many other such crises in the centuries before those. This in my opinion makes a major war involving China and another great power even more likely.
  
Only one person contributed to her legal defense fund Freeloomer.com within the last eighteen hours (for ten dollars), and her website hasn't been updated in the last sixteen hoursMaybe she got a big contributor. But maybe not.
+
:::::::As to Europe, how would you envision a post-EU continent. What factions do you think would rise?--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 13:02, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::I'm agreement with much you said. Expanding on the Arab world: it's probably because Arab's view the [[nation state]] as a [[social construct]] counter to the teachings of the KoranAs to China, there is some danger there; historically they are averse to messing around outside their borders. However, the trade relationship that was built up from 1972 onward was because Nixon didn't want any more unwinnable wars like Korea or Vietnam. That's their "trump card" now, if you will: if the U.S. doesn't accept trade on ''their'' terms, we could expect a return to endless, unwinnable wars with Chinese proxies. How the North Korean negotiations turn out will give us some sense of the direction.
  
But let me ask this, since we're talking about Twitter and since Laura can't: How long do have to watch Jack Dorsey stand on the mound, before we finally admit he (and by extension his enormous institution) has irretrievably balked on his commitment to the American value of free speech? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 17:52, 13 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::::There's still a lot to play out in Europe. Some demographic shifts are permanent, which will affect its future policy. The global elitists have overreached, and many haven't realized it yet. But take Germany, for instance: I don't see it being a member of NATO in 20-40 years when its troops would rather swear allegiance to a caliphate than to democracy. Alternatively, it could follow the Russian model of 40% troop strength of [[secular]], anti-fundamentalist Muslims who are willing to fight to keep their independence from religious imams. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:41, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
:The commies are taking over the world. Proof enough. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 19:05, 13 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::As right-wing populism and conservative religion becomes more common and competition develops for Twitter/Facebook, etc., corporate America will be forced to be more conservative/moderate. The EU and European governments are putting pressure on Facebook/Twitter in terms of trying to shut down anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant speech.[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/technology/twitter-facebook-google-europe-hate-speech.html] Right-wing populism and anti-Muslim/immigrant is growing quickly in Europe though and the social media companies are not going to stop this.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:46, 14 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
== Papadopoulos and Mifsud ==
+
===Iran===
 +
Happy days, everyone! He’s finally gone. Hopefully he’ll be prosecuted for his seditous behavior later on. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 15:03, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Never happen. Just look for Trump and the Ayatollah singing ''Kumbaya'' (like Trump and Kim) by election day. What happens after that is anyone's guess.
  
According to James Comey and ''The New York Times'', the FBI's Russia/Trump investigation was triggered when low-level Trump adviser George Papadopoulos talked to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in London in May 2016. Papadopoulos told Downer that the Russians had thousands of emails that detailed "dirt" on Hillary Clinton.<br/>But this wasn't information Papadopoulos knew as a campaign insider. He was relaying what he had been told earlier by FBI informant Joseph Mifsud. The FBI used an extraordinary multinational ring to set Papadopoulos up. They even arranged for him to meet British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. See [https://www.steynonline.com/9382/the-deep-state-goes-dangling Mark Steyn's interview of Papadopoulos].<br/>Trump won the New York primary on April 19, 2016. This was when the pundits realized he could win the nomination and stopped laughing at him. Yet the Papadopoulos story shows that FBI plotting was already at an advanced stage. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:50, 15 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:It should be further noted, this has nothing to do with the canceled Camp David meeting with the Taliban. This is the result of Trump making nice with the globalist [[Macron]] at the recent G8 Summit. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:37, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
:So, are you saying Comey and the ''New York Times'' have lied to the American people? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:11, 16 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::No, it was the result of many months of Bolton's seditious, borderline treasonous conduct. He will go down as one of the worst, if not ''the'' worst NSC in our history.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 18:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
::Mueller indicted Papadopoulos on account of his meeting with Mifsud, as if this proved he was somehow a Russian asset.[https://twitter.com/MarkSteynOnline/status/1129141988723515399] [http://content.maltatoday.com.mt/ui_frontend/thumbnail/684/0/joseph_mifsud_boris_johnson.jpg This] is the last known picture of Mifsud. It shows him with Boris Johnson. "London professor" Mifsud also met with Obama Secretary of Defense Ashe Carter. Mifsud fooled these two cabinet members, but Papadopoulos was supposed to know better? IMO, Mueller was desperate for at least one conviction that he could connect to his Trump-Russia mandate. I certainly hope Trump gives Papadopoulos a pardon. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:57, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::He was needed at the time to pose a tuff line in tearing up the [[Iran nuke deal]] (JCPOA). That being done, he outived his usefulness. Trump is free to start over and negotiate his own deal. Trump and Macron already appear to be on the same page. BoJo too (assuming he survives) will go along with whatever approach Macron and Trump come up with (BoJo has much to make amends for, considering he had oversight of UK intelligence at the time of Brennan and Dearlove hatched the plot to destroy Trump. He's now deeply indebted to Trump, particularly Trump's offer of much needed trade deals after Brexit is completed). Merkel (on her deathbed) and the Germans will go along with the Macron/Trump proposal, with some input from Putin.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:18, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
  
== News addition ==
+
Can we put on the "In the News" section a link to [https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-john-bolton-light-the-fuse-of-the-uk-iranian-tanker-crisis/ this article], which is evidence that Bolton is Deep State?--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 19:08, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
What really matters isn't that Bolton is gone, but who will replace him. Like him or not, he wasn't even close to being the worst person in the White House. At least he supported national sovereignty (including Brexit) and rejected supranational organizations. People like Mike Pompeo, Jared Kushner, and Steven Mnuchin, who are generally just as globalist/hawkish, but who also emphasize a "moral obligation" to be interventionist, are still in the White House. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 19:21, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:My guess: Pompeao will make the choice. Probably one of Pompeao's chief flunkies who he regularly communicates with and knows Pompeao's thinking.
 +
:The position of NSA has been downgraded from a policymaking role under Trump. The NSA is just a messenger boy between Trump and the National Security community. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:28, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Trump is a very independent person and not a neocon. I never thought for one second that Bolton was going to influence Trump to go to war. Maybe Trump just wanted a "devil's advocate" or a cabinet/team of rivals like Abraham Lincoln. Maybe he just wanted to play good cop/bad cop with North Korea, China and Iran (and maybe even Russia).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:23, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Bolton did a good job. His job was to kill Obama's nuke deal. Time to move on.
 +
:::Three candidates [https://youtu.be/lBEaKlM-CMw listed here (about 5:00 mins in)]. Gen. Keith Kellogg, Brian Hook, and Rick Waddell. Kellogg already served as interim between Flynn and McMaster (Trump took McMaster on Kelly and Mathis advice); Hook fits the bill perfectly; Waddell sounds like a bureaucrat who pays attention to process,
 +
:::The whole goal now is to have a ''Kumbaya'' moment with the Ayatollah between the convention and election day. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:43, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::I almost want the Iran deal brought back. We're just may need Iran as an ally if we expect to defeat Wahhabi terrorism once and for all.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:52, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Even Macron wants a new deal. He wasn't among the culprits and criminals who negotiated the last one. France rejoined NATO after 40 years because of fear of Iran, not Russia (more simple evidence of the farce of Russiagate). it's Macron's opportunity to put his own stamp on what every Frenchmen knows is a big issue, and possibly salvage his legacy. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:42, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::Don't you see the irony here? France dropped out of NATO in 1967 claiming the Russian bogeyman was BS; they harbored the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] as a [[human rights]] activist up to 1979; in 2004 France rejoined NATO claiming they were right all along since 1967, that Russia ''was not'' a threat to Western Europe, but they had made a mistake in 1979 by harboring the Ayatollah Khomeini. Now their goodwill gesture resulted in a grave threat to their own national security. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:23, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Israel===
 +
How do you believe Bolton's firing will affect relations with Israel, if at all?--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 18:35, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Personally, I believe in the short term it will cause a period of deep distrust between Trump and Netanyahu, and perhaps even cause the US-Israel relationship to deteriorate until either Netanyahu changes his foreign policy or Israel elects a new PM. I cannot see any attempts at detente with Iran sitting well with Israel at this time. During the aforementioned period of distrust, I expect to see anti-Israeli sentiment rising within the GOP, and some hardcore Israel supporters defecting to the Never Trump camp. Whether that adds fuel to the fire is yet to be seen. But nonetheless, I believe that the US-Israel special relationship is in trouble, at least in the short term. In the long term I expect relations to rebound as Israel shifts its focus to the Balkanization of the Arab world and perhaps even tries its own attempts at normalizing relations with Iran.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 18:45, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Eewww, tuff question. Israel (Netanyahu) has a direct pipeline to the Oval Office (Jared). Bolton basically was advocating the Israeli hardline against Iran. Israel has always shown a willingness to negotiate with Iran, however. With Bolton gone, I don't really see any substantive changes, unless Netanyahu were to become openly critical of the Macron/Trump process. That would be indicative of a marital break-up.
 +
 
 +
::As to the Palestinians, no substantive changes.
 +
 
 +
::Bolton's anti-Russian [[neocon]] approach to [[Syria]] appears to be in the dumpster. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:49, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::By direct line I mean that literally; [https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/When-Netanyahu-slept-at-the-Kushners-and-other-media-tales-of-Trumps-Jewish-confidantes-481486 Netanyahu used to visit the Kushner's home] to get campaign donations from Jared's father when he was still alive and before Jared took over managing the family business. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 06:29, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::All I have to say is that Israel better not pull off any stupid stunts in the interim. I'm very disturbed by the allegations (I say they are allegations because the claims originated from a POLTICO report whose accuracy is being contested by the White House) that Israel was placing spying devices extremely close to the White House. What if Israel was trying to put them ''inside'' the White House? That would be a major scandal, and it would give Trump a good reason to turn against Israel completely. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 09:03, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Yah <shock, horror> Israel is spying on an ally (again). We can't rule out the possibility it is a bunch of Ilhan Omar aligned anti-Semite Democrats and media trying to frame and smear the Jews, again. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:38, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Who's in control?===
 +
:Bolton lost his influence in the White House after Trump blamed him for Venezuela back in May.[https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/05/putins-influence-trump-blames-bolton-for-venezuelan-coup-failure/] Now it's all Trump and his instincts. Who advised Trump to meet with the Taliban at Camp David? That's the guy who should be fired. Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis recently came out with [https://www.amazon.com/Call-Sign-Chaos-Learning-Lead/dp/0812996836/ a great book bashing Obama's foreign policy]. When Mattis and Tillerson were in the cabinet, I had the sense someone who knew what they were doing was in charge. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:03, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::"[https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2019/09/mike-pompeo-bigger-pentagon-now/159863/?oref=defense_one_breaking_nl Mike Pompeo Is Bigger Than the Pentagon: In the nine months since Jim Mattis resigned as defense secretary, one man has become the public leader of President Trump’s national security policy: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.]" Whren Trump took office, he relied heavily on Pentagon personal (Flynn, Mathis, Kelly, etc) and didn't trust the State Department and CIA who he was at war with and were actively engaged in a coup against him. Pompeo has brought both under control. The DOJ remains rogue, and the Pentagon itself has some internal problems. But its taken more than two years to gain control over the swamp, which is still far from being complete.
 +
 
 +
::Pompeo is Trump's Dick Cheney now in foreign policy and national security. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:01, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Trump comments on Bolton===
 +
It should be noted, Trump's unusual open criticism of Bolton is not being addressed to the American public or media. Trump is speaking directly to Iran, Venezuela, Macron and EU counterparts, etc., clearing the table for a reset on new negotiations. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:57, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Bolton's post-firing temper tantrum===
 +
Perhaps as a final "eff you" to his former boss, not only is Bolton now publicly trashing him, but there's speculation that he may have leaked information to the anonymous whistleblower on the way out.[https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/john-boltons-revenge-tour/][https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/10/01/john-bolton-source-whistleblower/] --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 13:24, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Getting around Google algorithms ==
 +
We all know Google has algorithms it is manipulating to limit the availability of conservative thought, and until we can get changes made to [[CDA 230]] that won't change.  However, not all algorithms are created equal or have the same goals.  One of the most draconian algorithms in this respect that Google employs is the '''Google News''' one.  Almost all news from conservative sites is disallowed as the Google news queue is built.  There is an opportunity here for conservapedia.
 +
 
 +
The page [[Top Conservative news websites]] is now the #3 item if that title is searched.  Didn't really take much effort to get the page there either.  However, Thoughtco is #2 and has huge traffic numbers, and of course nobody beats Wikipedia's traffic save for Google themselves.  So we have realistically gotten as high as we can with it.  Here is the point:  Having this [[Top Conservative news websites]] page exposed so highly exposes many of our other internally linked pages.
 +
 
 +
For example, we don't currently have a page for ''The Federalist'', so there is no internal Conservapedia page to link to.  But for pages that do have an internal page, it is highly exposed and if we built these pages up we could get more traffic from it.  I'll eventually get to it, but if anybody is interested in an "all hands on deck" effort we could get this done somewhat quickly.  Just throwing it out there.  Even if no changes are made, it would probably be good to discuss the differences in algorithms.
 +
 
 +
If anybody wants to help me out with this let me know.  [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 14:10, 18 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Two suggestions: 1) Have each of the 60 website articles listed in [[Top Conservative news websites]], link back to the [[Top Conservative news websites]] in their "see also" sections. For example, have the [[Gateway Pundit]] article link to [[Top Conservative news websites]] in its "see also" section. 2) When applicable, lengthen the articles listed in the list so they are more than stub/short articles. For example, expand the Gateway Pundit article. [[User:Wisdomcriesout|Wisdomcriesout]] ([[User talk:Wisdomcriesout|talk]]) 15:09, 18 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Another suggestion: Move [[RedState]] down the list or possibly remove it. This is due to Eric Erickson's former Never Trumper stance and his present weak endorsement of [[Donald Trump]]. [[User:Wisdomcriesout|Wisdomcriesout]] ([[User talk:Wisdomcriesout|talk]]) 15:27, 18 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::The main thing that is needed is to make the pages bigger.  The wikipedia page for Gateway Pundit has 34,488 bytes of information currently, ours has 706 bytes.  The wiki page is absolutely horrendous, but multiply this by the sixty in our list and it's a huge task a single person.  It really depends on how much others are interested.  So far, doesn't seem to be much interest. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 09:16, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::That's the difference between liberals and conservatives: conservatives don't organize well, while liberals are masters at it.  I suppose that would be evidence for the fodder that liberals are more pragmatic and willing to sacrifice on behalf of others, while conservatives are more ideological, self-centered, and stubborn.
 +
::::Another observation: conservatives won't honor their commitment to a role in a collective, organized plan as soon as they get bored, whereas liberals will fight to the bitter end, including being tear-gassed and jailed for a wrongheaded objective. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:38, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::You seem pretty committed.  So how about it? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 20:27, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::On news sources? I endorse it wholeheartedly. Right now, I'm expecting the FISA abuse report (said to be massive) and other key documents to round out and finish my massive chronicle of Obama era corruption. The new bogus Ukrainian Impeachment 2.0 doesn't help. I got my hands full, but can help out where I can. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:54, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==A favorite lie (corrected Oct. 15)==
 +
 
 +
Sen. Warren and some of the other Democratic candidates appeared at a homosexual/transexual candidate forum in Iowa, where they met a single question about what government goodies they and their cohorts could expect to receive with them as President.
 +
 
 +
When it came to be Warren's turn, she read a list of names:
 +
 
 +
:The auditorium fell silent as the litany of names continued. “… Bee Love Slater, Ja’Leyah-Jamar: Eighteen trans women of color who have been killed so far this year,” she said. “It is time for a president of the United States of America to say their names.”
 +
 
 +
Journalist Andy Ngo debunked this claim of the number of men trying to act like women targetted for violence, with hate as a motive, months ago by means of taking a strange course of action for a journalist of today—he investigated the claims of the purported targets and reported what he found.
 +
 
 +
[Of the 26 transsexuals murdered in 2018, including white people, male or female, h]e found at least [2] of them were actually targets of domestic violence, [5 involved in prostitution] with spouses or clients who presumably already knew they were born men, and therefore couldn't simultaneously be very tolerant of the practice of alternate gendering and also engaged in attacking them with a motivation of hatred for the practice.
 +
 
 +
[1 was involved in criminal activity, and at least 8 others were also not believed by police to be involved in bias crimes.]
 +
 
 +
It's not as if Andy Ngo is not a public figure; he has a large Twitter presence, appears on national news shows and recently gained notoriety by being violently assaulted by Antifa members causing him neurological injuries.
 +
 
 +
To Warren, all Trump has to do is say their names ''one! last! time!'', or it ''proves'' he's afraid! The plan's already been set, and everyone's busy, so we can't change the number of people purportedly targeted by hate based on this new information, nor pass around some kind of update on the numbers.
 +
 
 +
But we promise we won't use any recital of Trump's to write news stories with us claiming he's been inattentive to their plight (all [ten or less] of them in a nation of 320,000,000) and has suddenly demonstrated it by the lengthiness of the recital made with his very own words, and because of this surprising and unexpected angle that no one thought of, insist Trump will need to say ''one! last! time!'' he supports even more draconian federal hate-crimes legislation.  It would be easy for Trump to do.  So if he doesn't do it, it ''proves'' he's afraid!
 +
 
 +
Meanwhile persons dying of heart disease per year number in the 700,000 range.
 +
 
 +
So why don't the Democrats provide every American with counseling about the dangers of and remedies for heart disease instead?  Answer: Because who would believe them?  They have abused their power to affect the government so often and to such an extent that they've lost all credibility to persuade about nearly everything.  Not to mention even the smaller journalists whose reputations are unwillingly caught up in their colleagues' abuse and lowered standards who actually ''seek'' the truth rather than ''shun'' it.  It's too late for them.  Journalistically speaking, the Democrats have poisoned the well!
 +
 
 +
[I regret the enumeration errors I made working from memory. Andy Ngo adds: "Trans homocides are underrepresented compared to non-trans groups."]
 +
 
 +
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 15:58, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Did you miss the big story coming out of the conference? Biden wants men to be able to choose to go to women's prisons.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:04, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::It's all just a blur of bad ideas that even doctrinaire egalitarian Chinese communists have enough common sense to avoid. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 21:10, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Gotta love it. A year from now when Democrats try walking all this back, pretending to be moderates, saying "We didn't really mean it." The more insanity we can make a record of now, the more they have to walkbalk later.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:59, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Dissuade you from your own chosen strategy of marshalling the relevant facts into informed, comprehensive accounts of American (if not worldwide) political professions and undertakings of today in hopes of fostering the growth of its remaining political sanity for tomorrow?  I'd sooner attempt to shave a lion. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 00:20, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::More than half, a majority, or 57.7% to be precise of trangender murders are non-hate crimes. It's not like we didn't know (or surmise) this. It might be a surprise to the liberal left/communist [[MSM]] crack heads, though. I'm sure it'll be covered up or explained away. The pressure of transgender discrimination among straights causes their alleged spouses to beat them, I suppose. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:42, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Greta Thunberg and mental illness  ==
 +
 
 +
Greta Thunberg suffers from various disorders of the mind, including Asperger's, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, eating disorders, anxiety attacks, and high-functioning autism. That much doesn't seem to be in dispute. But if you call her "mentally ill," that's a totally different kettle of fish, as Michael Knowles recently discovered. See "[https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-news-wont-book-michael-knowles-again-disgraceful-comments-greta-thunberg-1242789 Fox News Won't Book Guest Again After "Disgraceful" Comments About Greta Thunberg]." The holy child and her climate nonsense are apparently above criticism. Kids should go to school. Thunberg is telling them to leave the classroom and march for some political cause they don't understand like Red Guards in 1960s China. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:59, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:[https://t.co/DmbUeF0T0e Aussie broadcaster Alan Jones takes the "virtue signaling little turds" down] better than I can: “To all the school kids going on strike for climate change, you’re the first generation who have required air conditioning in every room. You want TV in every room, and your classes are all computerized. You spend all day and night on electronic devices. More than ever, you don’t walk or ride bikes to school, but you arrive in caravans of private cars that choke suburban roads and worsen rush hour traffic.” [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:36, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Although Fox News has been buffaloed, Australia's Sky News is on a hot streak. This is the best summation of the Thunberg matter that I have seen and it belongs on MPR: "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DticpNH3a2Q Thunberg is 'not the messiah, she is an extremely anxious girl']". Make it plain, Andrew Bolt! [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:48, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Speaking as a high-functioning autistic person who did nearly end up brainwashed by the leftists in academia, I somewhat sympathize with her, due to nearly turning out like her. Of course, unlike her, my parents at least made sure to have dinner conversations and even make sure I knew that what the teacher taught was not necessarily the truth (I was one of those few kids who actually STATED what I learned at school each day). From what I heard, she didn't even get that, she instead got parents who if anything made sure she was relentlessly assaulted with climate change agendas specifically to make sure she was parroting them by 16 years of age. Talk about sick... [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 20:07, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::I watched a bit of Greta's UN speech. Her shtick is to hold her own mental health hostage. The implied message is "Believe and panic or I'll go nuts." It's a celebration of mental illness and a throwback to the Middle Ages when one man's demonic possession was another's saintly ecstasy. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:43, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Greta needs to start naming names and pronto, so we can know towards which high-ranking government officials we should lob hysterical climate shrieks next.  You know, co-ordination?  A good way to make them nervous is to sit in on televised committee hearings and dress like a protester but only erupt in small-sized groups at key moments, because you know, no prior restraint?  On the other hand does that mesh well with prior restraint campaigns against conservatives that might begin on social media? Worth checking out. Wait...what wiki is this? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 06:45, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
There has been virtually no MSM coverage of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzufjsnCa7Y Trump's speech at the UN] denouncing globalism due to the Dems making a query of impeachment against Trump, just thought that's worth mentioning [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 02:46, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:There is no impeachment inquiry. Congress has to vote to authorize the Judiciary Committee to do so. There is no vote scheduled. Pelosi did not announce a vote. It's [[fake news]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 02:56, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Pelosi's son boarded recently on an oil company called Viscoil that did business in the Ukraine.
 +
::She was in a YouTube ad they ran too! Maybe she wants to stave off the company being included in an investigation that Trump suggested to the President of the Ukraine, and that's why she can't "find" the votes, at least until she gets re-elected. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 06:45, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Two-front war?==
 +
 
 +
Everybody hates Hitler.  Except the Left chooses to hate him because he turned his National Socialism against Stalin's international socialism, not because he tried to conquer western Europe with Mussolini.
 +
 
 +
Hitler's "second front" was already being menaced by Stalin since the beginning of the war.  Stalin would never stop relieving the troops stationed near Hitler's only access to a regular supply of petroleum fuels.  And Stalin's delay in invading Poland was just long enough after Hitler did to insure Hitler would be held responsible for starting a European war.
 +
 
 +
You'll notice just before Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico by Soviet agents.  Trotsky was in a position to know Stalin's war plans and had outlived his usefulness as a show of toleration for dissenters.
 +
 
 +
<s>In his propaganda press, Stalin held up the European war as an example of a war-mongering that was an inevitable result of imperial and capitalist countries.  Then he shifted and talked about the virtue of war bravery.</s>
 +
 
 +
In his propaganda press, Stalin talked about the virtue of war bravery.  Then on May 6, 1941, ''Pravda'' disavowed the war, stating "The whole weight of its incalculable misfortunes is laid on the shoulders of the workers.  The people do not want war.  Their gazes are fixed on the countries of socialism which are reaping the fruits of peaceful labor."
 +
 
 +
You can't say Hitler didn't make rapid progress in his second-front invasion of the Soviet Union.  So how could Stalin's war measures have been that inept?  A milder winter could have had the Soviet regime fatally decapitated.  A question that might be worth asking is: how much did Stalin spend for war preparations and how (or where) were they applied? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 12:37, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:[http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/ You might be interested in this.]
 +
 
 +
:Soviet unpreparedness was the result of Trotsyite purges of 1938, where Stalin executed the top leadership he feared was loyal to Trotsky. Trotsky was No.1 on the execution list, and they got to him eventually.
 +
 
 +
:The rest of your questions I'd direct you to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLc53JhyFcU Victor Suvorov's] ''[https://archive.org/details/ViktorSuvorovIcebreakerWhoStartedWorldWarTwo Icebreaker]''; [https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov) ignore what Western critics say about it until ''after'' you become familiar how Russian's themselves have reacted to it]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:24, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:The Stalinist purges of Trortskyism cannot be underestimated in the scheme of things (even the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] has to be seen in this light); in America, it was the murder of [[Juliet Poyntz]] that caused [[Whittaker Chambers]] to defect, rat out [[Alger Hiss]], and the rise of [[Richard Nixon]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:32, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:In the period of September 1, 1939 to June 22, 1941, Hitler and the Nazis were praised and hailed by communists {Stalinists) as heroes of the Revolution, taking on and taking out French and British [[Imperialism]], paving the way for the establishment of the Socialist world order.
 +
 
 +
:The Crimes Against Peace charged at Nuremberg included a violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (the USSR was not a signatory to the original Versailles Treaty), thus imposing ''de facto'' recognition of its validity on the Western Powers; this became quite a sticking point throughout the Cold War as the U.S. never recognized Soviet Annexation of the Baltic States. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:39, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Oh, and Mussolini tried to conquer Western Europe? That's news to me. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:01, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Hitler did...with Mussolini ''as an ally'' who tied down many Mediterranean nations. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 15:14, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::The Mediterranean is Southern Europe, not Western European. You're the victim of Hollywood propaganda, fake news, public school education and brainwashing. How's it feel now being called a fascist for pointing out obvious facts? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:11, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Rob, France and England were big powers! And Southern Europe is relevant because English protectorates and allies there like Greece whether occupied by Germany or Italy couldn't render support.
 +
 
 +
::::And how am I supposed to believe these accounts of Polish atrocities against Germans?  National Review Online said nothing about them! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 16:46, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::"allies" and "tied down" are not really apt descriptions. Hitler and Mussolini were not "allies" in the sense that FDR & Churchill were, co-coordinating strategy and actions together such as the [[Manhattan Project]] or [[Operation Overlord]].  Mussolini and Hitler did not act or coordinate together. In fact, Hitler blamed the loss of the War on Mussolini, claiming Mussolini's failed invasion of the Balkans delayed [[Operation Barbarossa]] by several weeks, and the Germans didn't reach Moscow until the snows started to fall.
 +
:::::But it was convenient to link Mussolini and Hitler together for propaganda purposes. Mussolini's granddaughter ran for the Italian parliament, and some idiot American reporter started asking her about anti-Semitism and the holocaust. That's how brainwashed and ignorant of history Americans are. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:01, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::Did I ever mention, I met Herman Goering's daughter here in New Mexico? I went on a sales call to her house in a remote area up in the mountains. She was living under her maiden name. I didn't ask at the time, but my suspicions were confirmed when I saw the film, ''[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2359085/videoplayer/vi1948104729?ref_=tt_ov_vi Hitler's Children]''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:19, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::I suppose we may encounter members of famous families more often than we think.  But only the observant, like yourself, are the ones who are treated to the surprise of noticing. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 18:27, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::This place was so remote, and I never met or seen anyone with the name before, I joked to myself on the drive out there that if a Goering was looking for a place to hide out, this certainly would be the spot. I'll give you a clue: it's a little north of [[Jeffrey Epstein]]'s 10.000 acre ranch. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:10, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::Please remain in those larger states, Rob, where it's more difficult for the enemies of conservatism to zero in on you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 23:17, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
The Conservapedia "[[Causes of World War II]]" article isn't very helpful.  The article leads the reader to induce that since Germany sought ''lebensraum'', and Germany invaded Poland, that invading Poland was part of Germany's seeking of ''lebensraum''. Worse, it doesn't mention that Russia reneged on their planned simultaneous invasion, or the claim that Lord Halifax? was intent on destroying Germany. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 18:45, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
Or whether Poland was influenced or not by Germany's treatment of Czechoslavakia. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 18:49, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:It's an incomplete article from the early days of CP. Historians now are beginning to date the War from 1930 - 1945, which in my opinion is more accurate. It's an age-old debate; typically the answers have been ranked as follows:
 +
:*''What caused WWII?
 +
:#Adolf Hitler.
 +
:#Treaty of Versailles.
 +
:#Great Depression.
 +
:The politically correct answer has always been #1, but in recent decades historians have been moving away from that. Those who vocalize it risk being called fascists.  OTOH, judging from the reaction of students who hear this answer, and given the effects on the world we live in, the answer can seem simplistic, which then has the opposite and negative effect of evoking skepticism. 
 +
:Churchill called it "The Unnecessary War," which barring Hitler, is true. But that again only speaks to British experience, reduces and leaves out the whole Chinese experience of the War, which in this "Global Age" China is having none of it. So it does seem kinda racist to ignore China and sell the Angelocentric version to the whole world. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:27, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Thank you for your considered opinions, Rob.  I had prepared a number of my own as well, but this has to be a really depressing subject for some, so your versatile question-fielding notwithstanding, I'd like to take this up at another time when I'm capable of dealing with it in a more measured conversational approach.  You almost have to be an expert to talk about certain types of things, and I think this is one of them.  We've had some disturbances in our family, and this sort of thing takes my mind off of it, but I realize not necessarily in a way that is helpful to anyone else.  But thank you again. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 23:17, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Evolutionism played a key role as far as the cause of [[WWI]] and [[WWII]]. See: [[World War I and Darwinism]] and [https://creation.com/darwinism-and-world-war-one Darwinism and World War One] and [https://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust] and [[Social effects of the theory of evolution|Social effects of evolutionary ideology]].
 +
 
 +
:::Darwinism, WWI and WWII all weakened Britain which lead to the decline of British empire.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 23:40, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::If evolutionism/atheism didn't weaken Russia and the geographic area of the Soviet Union, maybe Germany would have been reluctant to attack the area. See: [https://creation.com/what-happened-when-joseph-stalin-read-charles-darwin What happened when Stalin read Darwin?].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 23:46, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Vargas, sorry to hear, but when ever your ready let me know. The article you cited definitely needs some improving.
 +
:::WG, Yes, most definitely. While atheism and evolution played a big role going back a lifetime (1914 = 1848 = 65 years) leading up to WWI, WWII was the same unresolved issues on bigger scale. I discovered this as a student of history trying to understand the Cold War, which had its roots in WWII, which had its roots in WWI, which had its roots in the second half of the 19th century. As a high schooler during the Vietnam War draft, I figured if I was gonna get killed, I should at least know why. I started studying then and haven't stopped since. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:36, 1 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Glory to Hong Kong ==
 +
 
 +
On October 1, the first serious injury in three months of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong occurred. A high school student was shot in the chest at point blank range by a police officer. Listen to "[https://youtu.be/llTR9kb_n70 Glory to Hong Kong]," the anthem of the city's protest movement. Christians are the vanguard. There are prayer rings before each protest with black clad youths psyching each other up before going into action against the police. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:34, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Why are Conservative Girls So Attractive and Liberal Girls So Ugly?==
 +
 
 +
Have you ever seen Scandinavian women? Very beautiful and very liberal.--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 12:03, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Really? Why do the religious Filipinas dominate the world's beauty contests? See: [[Religious Philippines winning streak in the major international beauty pageants]]
 +
 
 +
:"Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize?" - The Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:24.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:13, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::So you do not find blond haired blue eyed women attractive?--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 12:15, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::By the way, the English anthropologist Edward Dutton indicates that using right-wing politics as a proxy for religiosity, there is evidence that atheists are less attractive and he pointed out that right-wing politicians are more likely to have symmetrical faces according to a study.[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201806/defending-atheist-mutational-load-theory-part-2]
 +
 
 +
:::There you have it. Both science and the world's beauty contests point to conservative, religious girls being far more pretty - especially with their long, flowing locks of luscious hair! "But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering." - The Apostle Paul.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:19, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Blond, blued eyed? We all know Swedish, angry, feminists die their short, butch, hair blue! [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/10/28/aposematism-may-explain-why-so-many-angry-women-have-blue-hair/][[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:23, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::Take a look at this gallery [https://www.gettyimages.com.au/photos/beautiful-swedish-women?sort=mostpopular&mediatype=photography&phrase=beautiful%20swedish%20women] Do you find them attractive?--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 12:24, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
Science and the world's beauty contests trumps your anecdotal "evidence". Conservative, religious girls are prettier - on the inside and the outside![[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:26, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::What science? Do you have a link of reference to a respected scientific article that can confirm this?--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 12:30, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
By the way, slim, Indian, girls are far prettier than secular, European cows![https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM6vpRbyVbM&list=PLc2eSR_oncVgqCs8vXJgu5G7LeV5RR98m&index=7] See: [[Secular Europe and obesity]].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:33, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Notice how slim the Christian, Filipina/Indian girls are compared to their rivals - namely, the secular, European cows:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_obesity#/media/File:World_map_of_Female_Obesity,_2016.svg World obesity prevalence among females].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:38, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Once again, the conservative, religious girls win hands down.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::[https://www.thelocal.se/20150506/obesity-set-to-balloon-in-sweden-by-2030 Obesity set to balloon across Sweden by 2030]. Is there anything more fragile than beauty among women in a liberal nation? Eggs or vases perhaps? No doubt the liberal, Swedish lesbians will contribute to growing obesity problem in Sweden. See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 13:04, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::[https://www.thelocal.se/20180515/young-swedes-eating-too-much-junk-food-study Most young people in Sweden are eating too little fruit and veg and too much meat, candy, and soda, according to a new study.]. Last time I checked, most beauty contests involve young women.
 +
 
 +
:::Is this one of the reasons why Filipinas are triumphing over Nordic ladies in the world's beauty contests?[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 13:11, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Irreligious mutants will never be prettier or more handsome than the religious who will inherit the earth! See: [[Atheists and genetic mutations]] and [[Desecularization]].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 13:54, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Look, guys, I can't speak for whether Filipino women or Nordic women are more beautiful, since ultimately, it's down to personal taste. I will make this much clear, however: Being religious doesn't necessarily mean one is beautiful. Look at [[Mother Teresa]]. She was very deeply religious, yet last I checked, she would never win a beauty contest. Also, considering several beauty contests right now are little more than left-wing talking platforms right now, I really wouldn't use them as a basis (and for goodness sakes, did you just imply that being vegetarian allows for being beauty. Last I checked, vegetarianism isn't really a hallmark of conservativism, especially when we've got far too many liberals who adhere to that line of thinking. Also, I thought we created Conservapedia to get rid of the leftist bias that was prevalent on Wikipedia, so using Wikipedia as a source isn't good.). Also, we don't know if those Swedish people in those photo galleries are even liberal. For all we know, they could just as easily be closet conservatives. We can't use the photo galleries, or for that matter, beauty contests, as an actual objective measure on beauty and politics (otherwise, we'd have to cite Miss Spain and Miss Polonia as examples of liberal women being more beautiful than conservative women just because leftist women won those contests, one of whom is a practicing lesbian). Sorry, I just get very annoyed by this kind of talk. I do agree on one thing, though: Ultimately, Christianity WILL dominate the Earth, with God as ruler. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:14, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
[[File:Madalyn Murray O'Hair-Wikimedia.jpg|thumb|200px|[[Madalyn Murray O'Hair]], the founder of [[American Atheists]].
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
As you can see above, she was far less pretty than Sarah, the wife of Abraham.]]
 +
[[Abraham]] is often called the "father of faith".
 +
 
 +
The book of Romans say about Abraham: "That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." - Romans 4:16
 +
 
 +
Wikipedia, a website founded by an atheist and agnostic, says about Abraham's wife Sarah: "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all depict her character similarly, as that of a pious woman, renowned for her hospitality and beauty, the wife of Abraham, and the mother of Isaac."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah&oldid=918387599][[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 17:08, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Let's take a look what the fairer sex says about atheists since many ladies are often concerned about beauty and fashion and are therefore experts in this area: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQhjqiyK_d8 All atheists are ugly].
 +
 
 +
:There you have it. An expert in beauty saying "all atheists are ugly".[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 17:29, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Pokeria, you wrote: "Look, guys, I can't speak for whether Filipino women or Nordic women are more beautiful, since ultimately, it's down to personal taste."
 +
 
 +
::Absolutely not! Since objective beauty exists and beauty is not merely subjective in nature (see: [[Argument from beauty]]).
 +
 
 +
::God and the religious Filipinas who win the international beauty contests are all objectively better looking than [[Madalyn Murray O'Hair]] was.
 +
 
 +
::"One thing I have asked from the LORD, that I shall seek: That I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, To behold the beauty of the LORD And to meditate in His temple." - Psalm 27:4[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 17:49, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::I never said anything about whether the Filipinos were prettier than O'Hair. Yes, the Filipinos were most certainly better looking, objectively speaking, than O'Hair. However, to be fair, even the Swedish women in that gallery that Chewy Suarez posted, most of them on at least the first page anyways, actually DID objectively look better than O'Hair, as well, so that really doesn't mean much. Besides, technically, [[Mother Teresa]] is objectively ugly on the outside, yet she's very pious and more likely than not beautiful on the inside. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:13, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Chewy is rather silent now.
 +
 
 +
::::Evidently, Chewy could not handle all the proof and evidence I rained down on him showing him that conservative, religious women are prettier than secular, leftist women!
 +
 
 +
::::"By sheer weight of fire, morale is lowered. Observation and movement hindered. Control disrupted. And weapons become less effective... These are the neutralizing effects of artillery."[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrubDDcygb4][[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 19:17, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::To be fair, we really don't know the political affiliation of those Swedish women in those galleries that Chewy posted. For all we know, they could have just as easily been conservative. After all, France is generally considered a very secular and leftist country (about as far left and secular as Sweden, as a matter of fact), yet even THAT has a conservative segment of the population (not to mention the [[May 1968 riots]] participations being exaggerated as I myself verified with a French family at my parish a couple years back). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:21, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
In 2011, only 2 of the 50 [[Miss USA]] contestants thought [[evolution]] should be taught in schools.[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/miss-usa-2011-evolution_n_880749.html] Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists or [[agnosticism|agnostics]] (see: [[Evolution]]).[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 19:42, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::How about that other theory of evolution&mdash;the one that does ''not'' employ methodological naturalism?  Are its defenders agnostics too?  I have attempted, many many times, to teach the Cons people about the correct grammatical use of nonrestrictive clauses.  I can't be bothered to look those lectures up; I'd suggest you ask the Cons people about them.  Your writing style seems rather similar to that of the Cons people&mdash;including choice of topics, stylistic approach to those topics, utter insanity of positions (conservative girls are attractive and liberal girls ugly????), and intensity of editing.  It's almost enough to make me think you are a sockpuppet.  I can't be bothered to check your footnoting style.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:53, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:True, but then again, Miss America went far left recently thanks to Gretchen Carlson (herself a former Miss America winner) demanding they emphasize philosophy. And besides, Miss Spain and Miss Polonia weren't exactly conservative either, the former being an open lesbian, and the latter basically describing as her ideal man a bunch of polish political leftists. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:45, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::JohnZ was blocked. Apparently, he thought it was a sign of mental illness to talk about whether secular leftists were less physically attractive. That is rather ironic considering that both science and international beauty contests indicate that the religious are more beautiful that their mutant, secular leftist counterparts. This is yet another case of secular leftists hating science! Futhermore, atheism has been tied to mental illness (see: [[Atheism and mental illness]]).
 +
 
 +
::Another irony is that Edward Dutton, who goes by the name the "jolly heretic", is the main proponent of the mututant/ugly atheist theory and he appears to be a fellow British atheist/evolutionist.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLZVsTf99gc]
 +
 
 +
[[File:Nuxated iron.jpg|right|425px|thumb]]
 +
 
 +
::The topic appears to get under the skin of some atheists and a NZ atheist even tried to convince me that he resembles [[James Dean]]. The topic also appears to be one of the more popular items I have written about and the [[atheists and physical attractiveness]] article gets about 25,000 page views a year. So in 10 years, the article will have obtained about 250,000 page views.
 +
 
 +
::My all time favorite atheist is Edward Dutton. He is rather funny and entertaining. [[Eric Kaufmann]] is my favorite agnostic.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 01:43, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::Oh, I agree that atheists tend to be hideous (just look at Jean-Paul Sartre, for example). That said, Mother Teresa certainly wouldn't be the type to be able to win a beauty pageant even if she wanted to, and she's pious and devout to Christianity, so I really am not fond of saying all Christians are beautiful due to it being inaccurate (if all of them were physically beautiful, then what does that make Mother Teresa?). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:40, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
====Conservative proven right====
 +
 
 +
I thought I knew the health and beauty benefits of luxated iron on proud American women, and that was all there was to say.  But look, it also produces "strong, sturdy men" here in America too! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 23:21, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== How did Amber's key even work on the guy's room? ==
  
 
Hi.
 
Hi.
  
I have a suggestion for the news section due to a famous, or rather, ''in''famous moment for one of PBS's flagship children's series. Another reason why PBS needs to be defunded has appeared: The longest-running children's series Arthur has Mr. Ratburn coming out as homosexual and entering a homosexual "marriage" in a celebratory manner. [https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/05/14/arthur-features-gay-wedding-in-season-premiere/] [https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/05/14/arthur-features-gay-wedding-in-season-premiere/] [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 21:59, 16 May 2019 (EDT)
+
I don't think this question was ever asked, so forgive me if I am mistaken about thinking it wasn't asked during the trial, but... how on earth did Amber's key work on a room that wasn't even hers? My parents and I went to hotels with card keys, and they're usually reserved strictly for the room we're assigned to. It seems odd for her key to work in a room that wasn't even supposed to be hers. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:40, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Guyjer brought in two witnesses who both said they had also accidentally parked on the wrong attached parking level and walked down the hall to the wrong apartment; one witness said she was at home one time when a homeless guy let himself in with a card key. She chased him out, and said he just opened another apartment down the hall.
 +
:The complex evidently is a real hellhole, with homeless people sleeping in stairwells, etc. The places are easy to break into by attached balconies. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:34, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::I read the account in the ''Daily Mail'', and it said she noticed that the door was unlocked (thinking it was her apartment)—and if true, it's understandable if she expected an ambush.  But Conservapedia Main Page Right has a point, The ''Daily Mail'' could be promoting an abusive leniency toward majoritarians, in this case men's larger membership in conservative groups than women. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 07:26, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Trump declares Mar-a-lago "sanctuary resort", seeks refuge==
 +
 
 +
A beleaguered President Trump, tired of "impeachment nonsense" has moved his operations to Mar-a-lago, his resort in Florida this weekend.
 +
 
 +
"I'm seeking refuge here.  If city councils can do it for illegals, why not me?  They say nobody is above the law.  But then they get a better coverage than I do—is that above?  Nobody should be below the law, either," Trump said.
 +
 
 +
"People can still visit the resort—they just may have to watch their step for the transmission cables for the White House TV production set."
 +
 
 +
"I said that's it—the people in this country want us to do our jobs to Keep America Great!" referring to his updated slogan for the 2020 presidential race.  "I just declared myself immune.  And if they don't like it, they can clear out the sanctuary cities and states, first. Then we'll talk."
 +
 
 +
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi expressed surprise when she heard the news.  "He's got us there.  Wow. I didn't think... Even if we impeach him, we won't be able to remove him from office—he's in a sanctuary.  I'm flummoxed."
 +
 
 +
Constitutional scholars have been poring over U.S. law, seeking an end to the standoff.
 +
 
 +
"Trump is right when he suggests he has more legal standing than an illegal immigrant to seek sanctuary," said one expert. "But hey, when was the last time the Constitution stopped the U.S. Government from doing anything?"
 +
 
 +
"Like every time they hold a press conference to launch a government program that expands the government's purview into yet another lighting fixture!" continued the cynical expert, who probably needed a vacation himself. "Funny how they're always in a rush acting like they're in the middle of something and don't have time to show that little "constitutionality" part of the law—constitutional scholars gotta eat too, you know!" [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 09:47, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Too "on the nose"==
 +
No matter how much Dems and the MSM lie to you,
 +
 
 +
It is not illegal for a POTUS to request mutual legal assistance from another nation in an evidence based investigation
 +
 
 +
What is illegal is weaponizing allied IC services to spy on Americans then fabricating evidence. —John Cardillo
 +
 
 +
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 19:46, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:This guff is getting zero traction beyond the base. Trump will be impeached. That much is certain now.
 +
 
 +
:Whilst it's still anyone's guess what happens in the Senate, I think it's safe to say there are plenty of GOP senators who, absent electoral anxieties, would dearly love to pull the trigger.
 +
 
 +
:How many True Conservatives<sup><small>TM</small></sup> can you lot come up with who'll stick with Trump no matter what? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 22:45, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::I would recommend a little less gloating.  We all have a pretty good idea (well, at least you and I do) how this is going to turn out.  I'm sure you've seen the signs in zoos, on the cages of dangerous animals: "Do not annoy, tease, or harass the animals", or words to that effect.  The creatures you are taunting, while they can't maul you to death, have block powers and aren't afraid to use them.  Gloating simply gets you a 3 day rest, which slows you down.
 +
:::> How many True Conservatives<sup><small>TM</small></sup> can you lot come up with who'll stick with Trump no matter what?
 +
::Well, I can suggest the person who has made thousands of edits to the "Donald Trump Achievements" articles.  Whether he's actually a conservative I can't tell, because I don't read those articles.
 +
::The nation is going through difficult times.  But it will get better.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:17, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::I think the Commander in Chief should just declare Martial Law and end this insurgency. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup>
 +
JohnZ it is time for you to get out of leftist La La Land and come back to reality. Trump has a 90% approval rate among Republican voters.  The Senate is not going to impeach Trump. Even Nancy Pelosi is afraid to bring it to a vote due to Trump winning in the districts of 31 Democratic congressmen back in 2016. The GOP will win back Congress if Pelosi goes forward with impeachment and she knows this.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 01:32, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:It's a shame to see the First Woman Speaker of the House end such a storied legacy so pathetically. What an inspiration for young women to follow! And we thought Biden was the only one losing his mind. Hey girls! This is what you should strive for! Promoting hate, division, and corruption, only to end in failure. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:40, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:[https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/434892-senior-ukrainian-justice-official-says-hes-opened-probe-into-us-election Barr needs to appoint a Special Prosecutor] to look into the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Obama administration's collusion with foreign governments and meddling in elections. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:59, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Barr needs to practise his Nuremberg defence. It's ''obviously'' not his fault if Trump orders him to investigate thoroughly-debunked nonsense, and - if you squint really hard - not his place to question whether Trump's motives are corrupt. (Note also that Sessions refused to touch the DNC / Ukraine collusion guff with a bargepole). 
 +
 
 +
::I'll ask again: name the True Conservative<sup><small>TM</small></sup> GOP senators who'll stick with Trump no matter what. Fabulous prizes to be won if you can get to 34! [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:20, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::"The media seems to think that if it just says the magic words often enough, the problem goes away. We already know that Creepy Joe lied. We already know that his adulterous, crackhead son who banged his brother's widow was being paid ludicrous sums of money for doing nothing by the Ukrainians.
 +
 
 +
:::The word "debunked" clearly no longer means what it used to mean. But what level of truth can you reasonably expect from people who also claim that "man" means "woman", "cat" means "dog", and the number six means "purple"." - [[Vox Day]][[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 18:37, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::Can't see any GOP senators in there, like. Maybe you missed a bit in your copy/paste. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:57, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::JohnZ, Thoroughly debunked nonsense? Like what?
 +
::#That [[Mifsud]] was a KGB agent working for Putin?
 +
::#That [[John Brennan]] told [[James Comey]] that [[Papadopoulos]] was having contact with Joseph Mifsud, a KGB agent so the FBI could start a counterintelligence investigation?
 +
::#That Russian's hacked the DNC?
 +
 
 +
::John, gimme a cite where all this nonsense was debunked? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:02, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::Try [https://www.thedailybeast.com/crowdstrike-the-truth-about-trumps-insane-ukraine-server-conspiracy?ref=scroll this] for starters. Trump would do well to (but almost certainly won't) heed his [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/enough-trump-s-former-homeland-security-adviser-disturbed-ukraine-allegations-n1060051 former Homeland Security Advisor].
 +
 
 +
:::Still waiting on those GOP senators. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 20:06, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::HAHAHA! [[NBC News]] see [[Shawn Henry]] (coming soon). And [[Atlantic Council]] for [[CrowdStrike]]. Why was the founder of CrowdStrike tweeting [[Fancy Bear]] (a Ukrainian hacker group that hacked the DNC)? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:38, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::JohnZ is right.  We need to answer his question which presupposes arguments whose refutation he entirely ignored ''one! last! time!'', or it ''proves'' that we're ''afraid!'' Check the British odds-makers about the odds of Trump being removed.  The odds are ''exactly'' the same since one week ago.  JohnZ is just here (in a section that I originated) to make noise and try to move the needle—which he clownishly failed to do. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 16:52, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==An example how to use Sorcha Faal==
 +
Today's Sorcha Faal entry is a good example how to use the website.
 +
 
 +
The January 11, 2017 ''Politico'' article, ''[https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446 Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire]'', which exposed the [[Ukrainian collusion]] scandal, [https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTzsq77piHtkJwCyoRunJkA2irPkQ%3A1569435054981&source=hp&ei=rq2LXaf-OJDY-wSu2qmIAQ&q=Ukrainian+collusion&oq=Ukrainian+collusion&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i10i30.2259.2259..4736...0.0..0.124.124.0j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.ciUkllILoc0&ved=0ahUKEwinjcqXyezkAhUQ7J4KHS5tChEQ4dUDCAg&uact=5 presently remains at the top of Google results], providing a factual counter-narrative to the [[impeachment inquiry]]. (IOWs, a nearly four year old article is drowning out the impeachment spin). The article became obscured by Trump-Russia and the Mueller probe.
 +
 
 +
Sorcha Faal provides context, and this underlying link: [https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/biden-meet-poroshenko-ukraine-jan-15.html Biden to meet with Poroshenko in Ukraine on Jan. 15], dated the next day, January 12, 2017. Factual evidence investigators can use to demand the substance of those discussions between Biden and Poroshenko after the ''Politico'' leak.
 +
 
 +
The ''Gatewaypundit'' article, [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/you-fcked-up-exclusive-report-joe-biden-blasted-ukrainian-president-after-politico-report-reveals-bidens-role-in-2016-dnc-election-interference/ citing the same January 12 ''Kiev Post'' article], provides no evidence for the claims made in the headline. Context is more important than sensationalism.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:37, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==United States fiscal year 2019 ended==
 +
 
 +
On September 30, 2019 the United States fiscal year 2019 ended.  About that time, the advance GDP (gross domestic product) and national debt figures were released:
 +
 
 +
For FY 2019 beginning October 1, 2018 and ending September 30, 2019, the United States production that was consumed this fiscal year (called gross domestic product or GDP) increased by about $858 billion, adding up to a total of about $21.2 trillion GDP for the year.  On the other hand the national debt increased by about $1,203 billion.
 +
 
 +
The new $1,203 billion debt divided by the total GDP (GDP also being what is the United States' yearly income, in a way) for this year (the total GDP including the $858 billion increase) is about 5.7% (called the new debt per GDP ratio).
 +
 
 +
But comparing the ''new'' debt to ''total'' GDP doesn't show the most important effects of the United States governments' total debt.  As far as measuring debt increases goes: firstly, the new debt per GDP ratio is like comparing the price of the car you bought to your total household income for the year—if you already owe a lot of money, your new debt proportion will still change more than someone who doesn't have a lot of debt, so it won't show your ability to borrow more, and secondly, nor will it show comparisons well to changes in new income.
 +
 
 +
Comparing GDP ''total'' to ''total'' national debt includes those important effects every year it is applied, so taking increases ''after'' this ratio is applied, one year upon the other, one can get a more accurate picture of the change in debt burden.
 +
 
 +
{| class="wikitable"  style="font-size:98%; margin:left;"
 +
|+Recent ratios of totals of U.S. federal debt to totals of GDP and trade deficits, trillions
 +
!
 +
!align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|2008
 +
!2009
 +
!2010
 +
!2011
 +
!2012
 +
!2013
 +
!2014
 +
!2015
 +
!align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|2016
 +
!2017
 +
!2018
 +
!2019
 +
|-
 +
!China trade<br>Defic. (prelim.)
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|-$0.27
 +
|align="right"|$-0.24
 +
|align="right"|-0.26
 +
|align="right"|-0.29
 +
|align="right"|-0.31
 +
|align="right"|-0.32
 +
|align="right"|-0.34
 +
|align="right"|-0.36
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|-0.35
 +
|align="right"|$-0.37
 +
|align="right"|-0.41
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|-
 +
!Business<br>debt
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|$10.55
 +
|align="right"|$10.30
 +
|align="right"|10.05
 +
|align="right"|10.20
 +
|align="right"|10.65
 +
|align="right"|11.15
 +
|align="right"|11.80
 +
|align="right"|12.60
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|13.30
 +
|align="right"|$14.15
 +
|align="right"|15.10
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|-
 +
!Household<br>debt
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|$14.15
 +
|align="right"|$14.00
 +
|align="right"|13.80
 +
|align="right"|13.65
 +
|align="right"|13.60
 +
|align="right"|13.70
 +
|align="right"|13.90
 +
|align="right"|14.10
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black" align="right"|14.50
 +
|align="right"|$15.00
 +
|align="right"|15.50
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|-
 +
!incr. or decr. GDP
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|0.45
 +
|align="right"|$-0.30
 +
|align="right"|0.40
 +
|align="right"|0.55
 +
|align="right"|0.65
 +
|align="right"|0.55
 +
|align="right"|0.75
 +
|align="right"|0.75
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|0.45
 +
|align="right"|$0.75
 +
|align="right"|1.05
 +
|align="right"|0.85
 +
|-
 +
!Total GDP
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|$14.75
 +
|align="right"|$14.45
 +
|align="right"|14.85
 +
|align="right"|15.40
 +
|align="right"|16.05
 +
|align="right"|16.60
 +
|align="right"|17.35
 +
|align="right"|18.10
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black" align="right"|18.55
 +
|align="right"|$19.30
 +
|align="right"|20.35
 +
|align="right"|21.20
 +
|-
 +
!<span style="color:gray">Intra-gov.</span>
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|<span style="color:gray">$4.25</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$4.40</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$4.60</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$4.65</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$4.85</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$4.80</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$5.10</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$5.10</span>
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|<span style="color:gray">$5.40</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$5.55</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$5.85</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$6.00</span>
 +
|-
 +
!<span style="color:gray">public-held</span>
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|<span style="color:gray">$5.85</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$7.50</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$9.00</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$10.05</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$11.30</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$11.95</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$12.80</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$13.05</span>
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|<span style="color:gray">$14.15</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$14.65</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$15.75</span>
 +
|align="right"|<span style="color:gray">$16.80</span>
 +
|-
 +
!align="right" style="border-top:solid 2px black;"|total public debt,<br>trillions
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:solid 1px black; border-top:solid 2px black;"|$10.00
 +
|align="right" style="border-top:solid 2px black;"|$11.90
 +
|align="right" style="border-top:solid 2px black;"|13.55
 +
|align="right" style="border-top:solid 2px black;"|14.80
 +
|align="right" style="border-top:solid 2px black;"|16.05
 +
|align="right" style="border-top:solid 2px black;"|16.75
 +
|align="right" style="border-top:solid 2px black;"|17.80
 +
|align="right" style="border-top:solid 2px black;"|18.15
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black; border-top:2px solid;"|19.55
 +
|align="right" style="border-top:solid 2px black;"|$20.25
 +
|align="right" style="border-top:solid 2px black;"|21.50
 +
|align="right" style="border-top:solid 2px black;"|22.70
 +
|-
 +
!Fed. debt<br>to GDP ratio
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black" |68.0%
 +
|align="right"|82.5%
 +
|align="right"|91.4%
 +
|align="right"|96.0%
 +
|align="right"|100.1%
 +
|align="right"|100.8%
 +
|align="right"|102.8%
 +
|align="right"|100.3%
 +
|style="border-right:1px solid black" align="right"|105.5%
 +
|align="right"|105.0%
 +
|align="right"|105.8%
 +
|align="right"|107.2%
 +
|-
 +
!Bus. ratio
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black" |71.4%
 +
|align="right"|71.2%
 +
|align="right"|67.7%
 +
|align="right"|66.3%
 +
|align="right"|66.4%
 +
|align="right"|67.0%
 +
|align="right"|68.0%
 +
|align="right"|69.5%
 +
|style="border-right:1px solid black" align="right"|71.7%
 +
|align="right"|73.4%
 +
|align="right"|74.1%
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|-
 +
!Hous. ratio
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black" |95.9%
 +
|align="right"|96.8%
 +
|align="right"|92.9%
 +
|align="right"|88.5%
 +
|align="right"|84.7%
 +
|align="right"|82.5%
 +
|align="right"|80.2%
 +
|align="right"|78.0%
 +
|style="border-right:1px solid black" align="right"|78.1%
 +
|align="right"|77.7%
 +
|align="right"|76.1%
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 04:51, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Thank you. Now give us figures for exported wealth to
 +
:*China;
 +
:*the [[EU]] (Germany specifically)
 +
:*Mexico
 +
:i.e. [[Trade Deficit]] figures to give the National debt some context.
 +
:Quick observations: the doubling of "total debt" between 2009 and 2017, from $10.05 to $20.25 is basically [[Obamacare]]; (Sure, some might say "No, that included Stimulus and the [[TARP]] program." While that was true from 2009-2010, it was a one-time cost, whereas Obamacare is a continuing obligation ''ad infinitum''). 
 +
:Overall, the picture looks healthy. While GDP (the ability to produce) has ''increased more than one-third'' from $14.5 to $19.3, the debt to GDP ratio has increased ''less than one-quarter'' (82.5% to 105% = about 22%). And "total debt" is now being offset by "income" from tariffs (similar to "retained earnings" in a corporation).
 +
:IOWs, our ability to produce (thanks to Trump's deregulation) is growing ''faster'' than our debt burden. And the debt burden is being offset  by (a) Chinese tariffs, and (b) rescinding the communist/socialist slave burden of the Obama employer and employee mandates which were a drag on the economy, producing poverty, misery and unemployment. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:39, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Soooo....let's give it some [[MAGAnomic]] context:
 +
:*GDP increased by about $858 billion;
 +
:*[https://tradingeconomics.com/china/balance-of-trade China trade deficit $568 billion];
 +
:*Net retained earnings after subtracting US wealth exported to China, '''$858 - 568 = $290 billion''' (still have to factor in US wealth exported to Mexico and the EU from this $290 billion figure).
 +
:*No wonder multinational globalists invested in "emerging markets" hate Trump.
 +
:*By reducing the export of American wealth, smelly Walmart shoppers no longer have to cling to guns, God, and gays, opioids, suicide, and unemployment. ''Yes We Can!'' ''Hope Renewed!'' ''Hope Restored!'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:37, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::I'd take a second look.
 +
 
 +
:::The debt to GDP ratio is the ''result'' of dividing two real-world observations, not a data point itself.
 +
 
 +
:::If the debt to GDP ratio is ''increasing'' from one year to another, it means debt is growing faster than GDP.  If the debt to GDP ratio is ''decreasing'' from one year to another, in means GDP is growing faster than the debt.
 +
 
 +
:::It also shows our ability to pay it back, where 100% = 1 year, 200% = 2 years.
 +
 
 +
:::And finally the new incomes you explained show up better with the ''total'' debt/total GDP ratio because it allows ''both'' types of observations to determine the ratio, while the yearly changes of the ''new'' debt/GDP ratio is almost entirely determined by the new ''debt'' dividend rather than that dividend being able to share the determination with the total ''GDP'' divisor. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 14:59, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::The debt ratio is the result of two factors: (1) private transactions that will be repaid; and (2) government [[entitlement]] spending which represents [[personal consumption expenditures]] - unfunded government debt rolled forward on future generations. It has to be broken down between public and private debt. In itself the figure can be deceptive and <s>mean nothing</s> misleading.
 +
 
 +
::::Related to this discussion, I'd encourage Europeans to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJmrODCZmmw watch this George Friedman video in its entirety], all 41 minutes, to understand America. It's timely, from December 2018. Few have been able to explain America and the American system '''as it exists today''' as George Friedman does. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:19, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::Lol.  What did you think you were looking at when you saw the debt figures?  Sure, I'll break it down by public and private.  Then you can breathe on it, and it will educate all of us. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 15:51, 8 October 2019 (EDT).  Okay, you corrected yourself somewhat. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 16:07, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::Good! Thanks. Remember, 2018-2019 represents a transitional period from (a) the termination of Obamacare as longterm contributor to the debt ratio; (b) income from tariffs which are only temporary until a larger scale redeployment of capital and resources elsewhere, including some returning to the United States.  No conclusions can be drawn from a transitionary phase, only observations about the direction of change. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:03, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
The point I'm making is, that's why so many people, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservative, often get their panties in a bunch over the [[federal deficit]] (public debt), because of the ''impact'' on the the debt to GDP ratio (which affects interest rates, or the ability of the private sector grow and produce).
 +
 
 +
In macroeconomic theory, Socialists have a habit of discounting the importance of private debt, because they do not recognize private property rights, and look at the debt to GDP ratio as some overriding "data point", to use your term. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:16, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:I guess there's two kinds of trolls: The dumb kind that says Trump's deficits are "up" when the ratio's barely moved and the slightly less dumb kind, Democrats who pose as "budget experts" and use that data to throw off budget scoring when talking to the public, except reluctantly when they are under oath. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 17:06, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::While we can draw conclusions now of the impact of Obamacare (which is somewhat defunct) on the debt to GDP ratio, we can't draw conclusion in a transitionary phase away from widening trade deficits.
 +
::By analogy, look at Reagan's defense spending (public debt) with only marginal cuts in entitlements; it increased the debt to GDP ratio and interest rates, but still didn't limit GDP growth, as Obamacare did. MAGAnomics is all focused on private sector growth with no demands on increasing public debt (unlike Reagan and Obama).
 +
::All the personal income gains in workers paychecks are coming directly from reductions in the trade deficit with China (that, and continuing GDP growth). Only rising interest rates are a threat, but as the period from 1982 - onward shows, the U.S. can have guns and butter, too. And Trump ''is not'' proposing massive increases in the defense budget to keep  the commies at bay, or increases in permanent social entitlement spending like Obamacare. He wants to keep U.S. GDP gains at home in the U.S., rather than exporting U.S. wealth to China, Mexico, and [[NATO]] countries.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:06, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2hi1cdr4jY Greta Thunberg seems to be the only one who would rather have us all die of starvation and disease] by limiting [[economic growth]], rather than wait for the climate apocalypse and fry from rising temperatures, choke on methane, or drown from rising oceans. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:31, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Now, alternatively something like this may happen: raise the interest rate on the purchase of new gas powered vehicles to say, 25% or more (kinda like "targeted sanctions" on foreign leaders rather than full scale war between nations back in the day). The impact on auto manufacturing, fossil fuel, steel industries, jobs, and state budgets might be devastating.  But it could save the planet for climate refugees coming to Europe and America. The service sector will only lose 1.5 to 2.5 jobs for every manufacturing job lost in the developed world, but climate refugees will be made to feel right at home. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:40, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::Doubts about climate refugees: the increased carbon dioxide in our air has caused plants to grow all over the world.  Something like 16% growth.  I've heard that the present carbon dioxide levels are the highest in modern time.  But maybe those plants were hungry for carbon dioxide, and the various plant species are used to having higher levels of it.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 15:29, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::So is there any relationship between the increase in plant life which feed on carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, and the increase in human populations who need oxygen to survive? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:24, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::That's a very good question: in what fraction of the air does oxygen subsist at its optimal level for human life? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 20:00, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Public v. private debt===
 +
Cursory analysis: So we see private debt holding steady at $5 trillion since Obamacare took effect (2013), then begins to increase to $6 trillion after 2017.
 +
 
 +
From 2008 until 2019, private debt increased from $4 trillion to $6 trillion, (it shrank somewhat in 2010 and 2013 due to Stimulus, Tarp, and Obamacare - the "crowding out" effect); meanwhile public debt has tripled from $5 trillion to over $15 trillion (Obamacare, retiring babyboomers, etc.)
 +
 
 +
Here's the flaw in Marxist use of aggregate statistics and misunderstanding of macroeconomic theory: not all debt is evil.
 +
 
 +
Private debt drives the economy, be it business lending or consumer spending. Public debt represents a total consumption of resources.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:08, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Wait a minute.  Are you talking about private debt or household debt, like what the Federal Reserve measures? The Treasury Department calls "private debt" intra-governmental. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 13:40, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::I'd need a link to understand that.
 +
 
 +
::The chart show in 2008, public debt was 50% of all debt; in 2019 it is 75%. We are coming up against the "crowding out" effect, private borrowers "crowded out" of the market due to high interests rates. They can't outbid the government.
 +
 
 +
::Even the Communist Chinese understand this: "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guo_jin_min_tui Guo jin, min tui]"
 +
 
 +
::Private debt, which is homes, cars, consumer goods, business lending, business expansion, business operations and payrolls etc., creates jobs in both the retail and manufacturing sectors. Public debt is Social Security checks spent on government subsidized food products, government subsidized housing, dope, casinos, etc., and does little to create new jobs and new wealth in either manufacturing or the service sector. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:18, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::There must be two meanings of the word "private" [https://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd_debttothepenny.htm (see titles)], because the U.S. Treasury uses it to mean the securities (bonds), held intergovernmentally, that it issues between Departments to run the government.
 +
 
 +
:::Strangely, that shouldn't be too unexpected as in the U.K. they call "public schools" what Americans mean by "private schools". [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 14:43, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::Okay, no one calls intergovernmental debt private except me.  I meant it as privately-held by the U.S. government, like the opposite of publicly held.  So what do you want me to do with the breakdown of the two?  And then I'll do household and business (?) debt. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 15:01, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::Well, the first to understand is that private debt ''fuels'' economic growth, and public debt ''consumes'' economic growth. To the extent that public debt consumes ''all total debt'' is the figure that you need to keep an eye on.
 +
 
 +
:::::Programs such as Obamacare, Medicare for All, and Social Security are [[Direct_spending#Permanent_spending|permanent spending]] programs, meaning the government pledges to spend on them whether or not the private sector is producing at all. Additionally, there is no way to forecast today, accurately at least, demographic trends 10, 20 30, 50 years out, such as population booms or busts, wars, mass death from epidemics and what age group it might affect, the median level or quality of education, the impact of mass immigration or emigration, life expectancy, the ratio of manufacturing to service sector jobs, etc.. These programs are all funded by debt, with the assumption that today's demographics, and younger voters being too stupid to understand, are constants.
 +
 
 +
:::::But in examining these figures you see that a little private sector debt goes a long way. It is the private sector debt that fuels the economy, that makes possible these high-minded vote buying schemes whose cost is ultimately put on future, yet unborn, voters. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:36, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===We may have been working with the wrong figures===
 +
:::::Ok, we may have been working with the wrong figures. But let's not scratch the basic theories outlined, yet.
 +
 
 +
:::::Intragovernmental borrowing is one governmental agency working with another. The General Services Administration, or Government Printing Office, for example, provide fleet vehicles and printing services for all agencies and departments. Everybody has to account for spending, so when the FBI gets a car from the GSA, it doesn't rent it for cash; its accounted for as intergovernmental borrowing. State governments also have reserve funds invested in U.S. Treasury bonds and bills, etc.
 +
 
 +
:::::The National Debt figures presented here I assume is the total amount of Treasury bonds and bills issued every year (it kinda doesn't matter if private holders, foreign holders, or government agencies holding these debt notes for this discussion). What these figures ''do not'' represent, evidently, is private business and consumer debt, and foreign debt (i.e. [[trade balance]]).
 +
 
 +
:::::So we are somewhat straying into Monetary theory, the impact of public debt (the issuance of T-bills and bonds) on private sector borrowing and interest rates. ''Guo jin, min tui'', when public borrowing saps up all funds available for lending (i.e. the national savings rate) it strangles the private sector with high interest rates and the country goes into recession.  Under Keynesian theory, which was applied in the TARP program, you simply enlarge the aggregate base and issue more T-bills and bonds. The Fed then buys theses treasury notes. In the past, the Fed bought them with Federal Reserve Notes and pumped currency onto the streets through the banking network; in the TARP program, the FED bought junk mortgages and pumped T-bills and bonds into the banking network, which all ended up in the stock market on Wall Street. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:46, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::<As an aside, let me tell a funny story: In my town, the Fed and FDIC took possession of building under construction with condos selling for $169,000 a piece that caused a bank in Kansas City to fail. The homeless moved in and striped it all of its copper wire and imported Italian crystal. After two years, the mayor threatened to declare the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as slum landlords and seize the property under its nuisance abatement ordinance. All this, I suppose, moved the building into the category of "intra-governmental borrowing" and off the list as a private sector mortgage.> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:01, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
'''Question:''' By Household, is that total ''accumulated debt'' of just debt ''added'' to Household debt that year? Everybody holds a mortgage, but not everybody ''buys'' a new mortgage every year. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:18, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:It's labelled "debt outstanding".  And I think your commentary deserves a second look if not many [for its positive qualities]. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 19:21, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Well thank you. I still get tangled up when discussing monetary theory and the TARP program; there's much detail there I still don't quite understand. The drastic expansion of the money supply did not resolve itself into cash in people's pockets, which is how the theory has worked since 1935 when Keynes first wrote his ''General Theory''. But the 2009 bailout has buoyed the stock market for 10 years now.
 +
 
 +
::In the global economy the old rules don't apply. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:12, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===New discussion===
 +
Ok, let's clarify: All these figures are in Trillions. For example, GDP would represented as 21.2 and year-over-year growth would be .858; the Chinese trade deficit would be .568. Correct?
 +
 
 +
For space sake we'll have to use this notation. But ordinarily we'd put the decimal point between billions and hundreds of millions. Aggregate GDP growth be 858, and total GDP would 21,200. So a heads up to readers and followers when you have re-translate this all back to what you read from other sources.
 +
 
 +
These figures I call "hard aggregates" or "strong aggregates". Business and Household debt numbers are basically, for the most part, mortgages or long term debt. However the information we're most interested are the growth rates - year over year changes. The chart shows Household debt in recession from 2008 to 2016.
 +
 
 +
Let's not make this a political argument - I'll say it one time, ''The mortgage crisis caused a recession, and Obamacare hindered recovery''. Politicians were smart enough ''not'' to put the cost of recovery on businesses, cause that would destroy  the whole economy's ability to recover. But they did put the cost on households.
 +
 
 +
And let's dispose of one other question: Some people will say, ''Isn't a reduction in Household debt a good thing?'' Without getting into a discussion on morals, in today's consumer society, that TV and car you want, that prosperity you pursue, is funded by debt. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 07:15, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:The trade deficits haven't arrived yet.  I provided the private debt in households and businesses, like you suggested, and kept the split of federal debt between held by public and intergovernmental holdings. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 09:10, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Good. Good. So the overall national recession is defined by a contraction in GDP in 2008-2009 ($14.75 $14.45); in Keynesian theory, public borrowing is required for Stimulus, reflected in chart. The Business cycle contraction, or recession, lasted lasted from 2010-2012 ($10.55  $10.30 10.05 10.20); the consumer or household recession lasted from 2008-2016 ($14.15  $14.00  13.80  13.65  13.60 13.70 13.90 14.10 14.50).
 +
::You can see trickle down theory at work from the expansion of public debt from 2008-2011 ($5.80  $7.55  9.00 10.15) where it nearly doubled, with nary on impact on business expansion ("bailouts"), keeping it stable, but an eventual trickle down to households, which bore the brunt of both the recession ''and'' the Stimulus.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:39, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Trade deficit in relation to GDP growth===
 +
Would it be possible to lay trade deficit beside year-to-year aggregate totals of GDP growth (for example +.858 -.410)? That's the heart and sole of [[MAGAnomics]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:25, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
To illustrate my point: In the recession year of 2009, GDP declined $300 billion ($14.75 - 14.45 = .300); net outflow of U.S. produced wealth to China ''alone'' that same year was $240 billion, which you could ''add'' to the loss of American wealth. Stimulus borrowing ''increased'' $1.75 trillion ($5.80 to $7.55).  IOWs, .24 of 1.75 went directly to China, leaving only $1.51 of the congressional mandated increase in public debt inside the United States to stimulate the economy (unadjusted for payouts to other countries).
 +
 
 +
(These two combined - the loss of GDP and China trade deficit, represent $540 billion in goods and services either not produced or exported directly to China, and morethan a third of the Stimulus).
 +
 
 +
The China trade deficit nearly equaled the loss of GDP. The total trade deficit surpassed it. Not only did Americans lose productivity in 2009 and immediately afterwards, the rest of the planet was sucking us dry while Obamacare hindered household recovery. Our own Congress did this to us. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:20, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
IOWs, the size of Stimulus package is determined by two factors: (1) to keep business expansion at least stable and from contracting, and (2) enough to cover the current account foreign trade deficit. The trade deficit was essentially transferred from consumers to the National Debt, and the cost of salvaging businesses from collapsing further also put on households. Both costs were stretched out over many years.
 +
 
 +
So, some might say (like Trump), ''Why do we need a Stimulus and further expansion of the National Debt, when the stimulus money can be gained by eliminating the trade deficit?'' Instead, Congress chose to further stimulate the Chinese economy (and aid Chinese defense spending) by expanding the National Debt and put the cost on U.S. Households. As Trump said, "Our leaders are stupid." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:10, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:You mean Porkulus; and (3) the amount of pork Democrats could get away with ladling out to their large contributors and crony capitalists (see [[Solyndra]]) through agents of gatekeeper gangster government.  I'm not done seriously thinking about this; I just couldn't resist. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 15:15, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::I hope we've clarified the meaning of [[Rahm Emanuel]]'s immortal words, ''You never want a crisis to go to waste''. Totalitarian fascist Democrats couldn't pass up the opportunity to enslave [[middle class]] households. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:30, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Did you see [[Rand Paul]] yesterday say, "We're borrowing money from China to defend the [[Kurds]]"? That is the same macroeconomic observation that portions of the 2009 Stimulus went to stimulate the Chinese economy and fund the Chinese military, while only floating U.S. business expansion and dumping the cost on U.S. Households. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:31, 14 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Syrian withdrawal==
 +
Let's be frank, time for some serious talking points. Trump just did to the Kurds what Ford did to the South Vietnamese, Carter to the Iranian people, and Obama did to the Iraqis, leaving a former American ally to subjugation, enslavement, and death. The analogy is Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon in February 1984 (which strengthened the Assad regime and Iranian mullahs), or Obama's withdrawal from Iraq in December 2011, to take the issue off the table for the 2020 election and present the withdrawal as an achievement. Of course, we all know another ISIS regime, Cambodian holocaust, or Iranian mullahs will arise in the power vacuum. The idea is kicking the can down the road til after the November 2020 elections which can be done with cruise missiles on an interim basis. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:47, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:I'm 100% onboard with abandoning the Kurds. I stopped supporting them after I learned late last year that they are so desperate for independence, that they are willing to allow the Gulf States to deploy troops onto their territory as part of the larger neocon effort at regime change in Turkey. If these guys had ''any'' understanding of geopolitics, they would know that this latest neocon "adventure" could very well start World War III. The Kurds may have been our allies against ISIS, but they are ''not'' worth starting a world war over.
 +
:That being said, if Turkey does invade Syria, such an act would be a grievous act of aggression, that could and hopefully would prompt a Russo-Iranian military response. I personally find the current Turkish regime to be so rotten that a Russo-Iranian puppet regime would be preferable to the ''status quo''. Meanwhile, let's dissolve NATO, so the US and Europe have no legal obligation to protect Turkey in the event of war with Russia and Iran. If Erdogan wants to start a war, let him start a war he can't possibly win. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 21:03, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::What about the recent Turkish purchase of Russian equipment? And the larger issues seems to be, NATO is only a facade kept alive to bamboozle the American people, feed the [[military industrial complex]], and promote anti-Trump hate. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:15, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::I would not blame Vietnam on Ford. After the peace treaty was signed in January 1973, Nixon gave a speech in which he warned the Communists that he would resume bombing if the treaty was violated. This proposal was hugely unpopular and no one thought Nixon had the political capital to go ahead with it. At the time, the joint chiefs were sure that South Vietnam could not survive without American bombers. Congress reduced aid to South Vietnam just before Ford became president in August 1974. If Nixon couldn't credibly threaten to bomb right after being reelected, what was unelected Ford supposed to do? Despite being abandoned by Washington, the South Vietnamese army held up on the battlefield until Phuoc Long in January 1975. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 12:01, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::The point: It doesn't matter if Gerald Ford or Adolf Hitler withdrew the troops after the Democrat congress cut off funds (in violation of the Peace Agreement that Nixon negotiated); a power vacuum ensued and more than 3 million people were either enslaved or exterminated. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:21, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
Call this, "Learning to think like a Democrat" --> Trump can expect some criticism from Armenian (and Kurdish) voters, but they're a tiny minority so, ''Who cares?'' Democrats will argue, "Republicans don't care '''at all''' about the Kurds. At least we '''pretended to care.'''" [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:31, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Let's just hope Trump at least has a plan in place to ensure the Kurds retain their ability to defend themselves, like Nixon's piece-by-piece, one-by-one plan for the South Vietnamese during what was supposed to be our and South Vietnam's victory before the newly-elected Democrat congress supermajority broke that promise after Watergate, and even forced in that amendment preventing us from supplying arms to anyone outside the country even if they were on our side, because I'm not liking the bit about our essentially leaving them to die at the hands of the Turks. Heck, I'm still wary about our rushing out regardless even if we won, largely because we went out after Afghanistan drove the Soviets out, and they in turn "repaid" us by trying to do terror attacks (though to be fair, al Qaeda was never funded by us, as they received their own funding, but we could have at least done something to ensure the Taliban didn't backstab us like that). I'll still vote for him in the 2020 election, although only because he's pretty much our best shot at ending Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood for good, if not our only shot. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:13, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Well, you won't see helicopters taking off from the roof or re-education camps til ''after'' the November elections. Here's where a Putin-Trump pipeline is vital. Meantime, the U.S. and Russia (with Turkey's newly purchased Russian missile defense system) will have the opportunity to test out in real time under live combat conditions the effectiveness of Russian missile defense systems against U.S. cruise missiles.
 +
 
 +
::The immediate political problem is firing a cruise missile at a NATO ally who just purchased a Russian missile defense system; here Putin plays a big role. He has to convince his new customer for Russian military hardware to find a proxy to attack the Kurds with, like Assad or Iranian militias. This forces Turkey to come to some sort of temporary arrangement with the Assad regime. 
 +
 
 +
::In the end, this further's Putin and Trump's (and [[Gen. Michael Flynn]]'s) overall objective to keep Muslim's killing each other, rather than Christians and Jews.
 +
 
 +
::One further observation: If the above scenario plays out, it's indicative of Trump also coming to terms in a temporary arrangement with his biggest enemies - the military industrial complex. They get their live fire real time combat exercise, requiring more research, development, upgrades, and funding afterwards, and Trump gets the political benefit of being the peace candidate who brought the boys home before the election. (We'll leave aside the re-deployment to Saudi Arabia for upgrades in its missile defense system after the oil refinery attack. Troops are not there for a direct combat role - although a attack on them could happen. They are there to provide upgrades to the Saudi missile defense system. Russia is pouring in their own experts now to gauge the effectiveness of their systems in Turkish hands for an attack from the U.S. which seems inevitable now).  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:27, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::You're all complete [redacted] [redacted]. I hope ISIS finds you before anyone stops them. [[User:KaraYouNeedTherapy|KaraYouNeedTherapy]] ([[User talk:KaraYouNeedTherapy|talk]]) 19:14, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Where's your liberal compassion? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:20, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===What a joke===
 +
To hear communists, Democrats, and the [[MSM]] suddenly concerned about Syrian Christians. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:49, 14 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:No kidding. For goodness sakes, communists have never felt concerned for the well being of any Christians, heck, ANY religious group for that matter, let alone Syrian Christians. It actually would be more in-character if they congratulated Trump in a gloating manner for dooming the Syrian Christians and doing their job for them, sort of like those anti-Ossoff ads where Californians were singing praises for Nancy Pelosi's policies, and by extension Jon Ossoff's policies. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 20:39, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
===Iranian media implies that the Deep State was behind the Syrian withdrawal===
 +
Okay. I don't know if you're familiar with Press TV. It's an Iranian government-controlled news site that is often linked to by activists on both the extreme left and the extreme right. Anything that comes from that site should always be treated with suspicion, but a few days ago it made [https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/10/18/608970/US-Syria-pullout-Daesh a wild claim that should be given some thought].
 +
 
 +
The claim is that the Trump betrayed the Kurds because he wants to create a situation which allows ISIS prisoners to escape and regroup. That way, ISIS can "come back from the dead" and start attacking Iranian-linked forces in Syria and Iraq.
 +
 
 +
''If'' that claim is true (and I certainly hope it isn't), then Trump has given into the Deep State. He is apparently trying to bring back the Obama-era policy of inciting the Sunnis (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, ISIS) to attack the Shiites (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah) to satisfy Deep State interests in the region. Such a policy would require betraying the Kurds, so Turkey would invade Northern Syria and then be forced to make amends with Saudi Arabia as all hopes of an alliance with Iran go up in smoke.
 +
 
 +
However, ''if'' that happens to be the case (and again, I certainly hope it isn't), then the plan is backfiring. Saudi Arabia has condemned the invasion just like Iran has. If Saudi Arabia had any interest in reconciling with Turkey, it wouldn't have done so. Now, Turkey has become a pariah. Almost the entire region has turned against it. The only countries in the region that have not condemned it are the Palestinian territories (which has expressed neutrality) and Qatar (which supports the invasion).
 +
 
 +
But then again, another possibility (that the Press TV article does not explore) is that Trump expected a backlash of this scale to occur, and withdrew troops from northern Syria to set up a trap for Erdogan. In that case, Erdogan has taken the bait, and he's paying for it dearly. Now ''that'' would be a slimy but smart move.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 15:15, 21 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:There are too many assumptions here. The first being that, the withdrawal is permanent. It can be re-imposed the day after election, 13 months from now. Experience being a guide, Turkey would wait til about August, when the American system is paralyzed due to its upcoming election, before beginning any wholesale slaughter. That forces candidates to take stances one way or the other, or forces the incumbent to take most likely an unpopular position of re-engaging troops. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:24, 21 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Take it to the chalkboard==
 +
This is by far the best and most buttoned up presentation about what the Bidens have done in Ukraine.  Of course it goes way beyond that.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuvfYE7ZdL0 [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:07, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:I started watching it twice and fell asleep twice, but agree with it 100%. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:09, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
==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? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 06:43, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::When there is an eclipse of the sun, it can become so dark that the brightest stars can be seen at noon.  Likewise, when Trump is eclipsed by the prospects of impeachment, ''his'' presence  is darkened so much that the brightest stars can be seen.  In Trump's situation, the brightest stars are the prominent details of the case which are the only lights that can guide us through the event.  In such a case every prominent detail comes to the forefront and bears significance beyond what is the natural order, as the constellations play their role to inform, or misinform, the mind.
 +
 
 +
::That doesn't mean it's Trump's fault, but it's like him having a broken arm.[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 08:40, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Nixon and Clinton were impeached in their second terms. Andrew Johnson (like Ford) was never elected and never ran for re-election after impeachment. I guess that's the strategy, impeach Trump and have him exonerated in the Senate, and force Trump to make history as the first impeached President to run for re-election. Even if he's re-elected, divisions in the country would continue in the second term.
 +
 
 +
:::Pelosi's thinking is the GOP impeachment created divisions in 1998, but the Republicans rebounded in 2000 by taking control of "all three branches" of government, House Senate, and White House. Alternatively, the 1998 midterms ''went against history'' when the out of power party ''lost seats'' in the House, and anger toward Democrats could linger beyond a Trump second term.
 +
 
 +
:::If Trump's exonerated in the Senate, then Democrats (like Joy Behar) can complain about how the <u>Senate</u> is "gerrymandered" as an issue in 2020. The smart thing to his delay the vote till after the 2020 conventions, and make a trial in the Senate an issue for a lame duck Congress (like in 1998-99). So again it all comes down to when the House votes.
 +
 
 +
:::Past precedent required 2 votes, one to open an inquiry and empower committees with subpoena power, and secondly to ratify Articles of Impeachment. The strategy thus far was to have only one vote - subpoena the administration with [[phoney subpoena]]s, and then write an Article based on obstructing the alleged "impeachment inquiry" for the full House vote. Trump called their bluff, but they still could go through with it. It's a PR game. Again, it comes down to ''when'' a vote will be held.
 +
 
 +
:::The FISA abuse report is scheduled out a week from Friday, and it will be twice as big as the Mueller report; this whole impeachment nonsense is intended to obscure the facts of Obama administration's, Nixon-style illegal opposition political spying, go on the offensive, and make the Durham, Barr, and Ukrainian investigations appear as politically motivated harassment of innocent, God-fearing, Patriotic Democrats. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:54, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Vargas, I have to tell you something. You were born [redacted], ''and'' your mother dropped you on your head. No wonder you're a flaming [redacted].  She was too ashamed to say it, so I am now. [[User:KaraYouNeedTherapy|KaraYouNeedTherapy]] ([[User talk:KaraYouNeedTherapy|talk]]) 19:16, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Sorry, I had to censor you [[liberal hate speech]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:21, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Whisleblower is a Biden man ==
 +
 
 +
It turns out that the whisleblower worked closely with Biden when he was vice president.[https://www.redstateT.com/bonchie/2019/10/10/breaking-heres-2020-presidential-candidate-whistle-blower-worked/] If the complaint is an effort to advance Biden's campaign, that certainly makes it harder to justify granting anonymity or whistleblower status to the complainant. I had assumed whisleblower was a Warren supporter. It's hard to see how the complaint helps Biden. All the same, Biden is back on top today with his pre-whisleblower 28 percent restored in all it's glory, according to the RCP average. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 10:24, 11 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:RCP polls are meaningless. Biden's in forth place in fundraising and trailing in early primary states. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:50, 11 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::The national polls are taken a lot more often, so the can be used to gauge the effect specific news events. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 08:02, 12 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Some are weekly, some biweekly, some are monthly, some are random and sporadic. It's a flawed statistical method to derive a composite. It more resembles a moving average, although again none follow the same methodology. Many are not even national polls.
 +
 
 +
:::And the big difference is between a poll of "adults", and a poll of "registered voters". Rasmussen is the only company that polls registered voters 24/7/365/ over four years. A poll of registered voters is much more expensive and time consuming. Polls of Adults are unadjusted by participation rates in various states, let alone age and demographic groups. The big name polling companies only poll registered voters when they are commissioned to do so, which only occurs in primary season in limited states, or after September 2020 on a national level.
 +
 
 +
:::IMO, it's fraudulent to promote these polls as having any semblance of validity; when the polling company does not have a commission and is spending its own money to conduct a poll, it's simply a promotional gimmick to keep their name out front and advertise for a buyer to pay them to conduct a poll of qualified registered voters. Polls of adults include felons, illegals, and other unqualified voters.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:20, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===By the way...===
 +
 
 +
The two whistle-blowers knew two members of Schiff's Congressional staff.  Someone (maybe Trump) asked whether the reason they reported it twelve days later was that they needed to run it by Schiff, first. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 07:45, 14 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:None dare call it conspiracy. 10:30, 14 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Jane Fonda arrested==
 +
 
 +
[[Jane Fonda]] and a no-name left-wing spacy climate group she supported were arrested while making noise at our nation's capital.
 +
 
 +
The group of 20 were being a nuisance, and they were all shipped off to jail.  Fonda has vacillated from communist agitation to inaction since the 1960s.  VargasMilan via Drudge Report. Friday, October 11, 2019
 +
:Ok. Now somebody connect the dots how running up a rap sheet at the cop shop stops global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius? If there is any hope for humanity, there has got to be some logical reasoning or argument behind filling up jails with repeat misdemeanor offenders and stopping the oceans from rising. And please, PLEASE, don't say, "calling attention to <u>(''fill in the blank'')</u>". 
 +
 
 +
:First she fought for North Vietnam's right to pollute, now she wants to send  them back to the Stone Age. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:15, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Ann Coulter:  Makes sense.  She couldn't get arrested in Hollywood. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 09:16, 14 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Just deport her back to Hanoi. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:31, 14 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==FISA abuse==
 +
*Report expected out Friday October 18, 2019.
 +
:*It appears the [[Mueller team]] abused the [[FISA]] database between May 17, 2017 and March 2018.
 +
:*This explains the high turnover of Trump administration personal.
 +
:*Will the Mueller team be held accountable for violations of law?
 +
*The [[impeachment inquiry]] is intended to cover up the the facts that:
 +
:*The DNC colluded with the government of Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump;
 +
:*Ukrainian intelligence hackers ([[Fancy Bear]]), which the DNC hired, hacked the DNC. (In fact, they may have been given passwords by [[Alexandra Chalupa]] and Hillary Clinton research staffers who still held State Department security clearances).
 +
::*Also, there was more than one hack, and some WikiLeaks info came from internal whistleblowers who knew of DNC/Ukrainian collusion and efforts to sabotage Bernie Sanders.
 +
:*The Obama administration had been abusing the FISA database since June 2012, during Obama's re-election bid, to harass, intimidate, and destroy its political opponents.
 +
:*The U.S. [[intelligence community]] interfered in the 2016 elections, in violation of the 1947 National Security Act.
 +
[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 11:53, 14 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:[https://twitter.com/MariaBartiromo/status/1183876488422219779 IG Report delayed]; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND40ur07Eyo Anti-Trump riots scheduled for this weekend]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:10, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Adjectives==
 +
 
 +
Identical, same, similar, diverse, different, opposite.  If liberals didn't uphold these adjectives in rigid forms against their enemies and leniently toward their friends, they'd have nothing. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 07:29, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==MPR misspell==
 +
 
 +
Raucus for raucous. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 07:32, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Easy to remember: raucus circus. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 09:02, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::No, don't remember that!  It's wrong! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 10:09, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Fixed mistake on MPR.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 10:12, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Global warming article==
 +
 
 +
I believe elite opinion on anthropogenic global warming goes beyond mere credulity and represents verbal abuse in the form of fraud.
 +
 
 +
And I believe that Jpatt's 2008 clumsy summary he placed in the article goes closer to that than we'd like to think. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 16:18, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
Please.  This [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-qBOyrD0-0 young woman] did a better job than we did in cultivating chief defensive arguments against global warming fakery.  And it's us that should be protecting her! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 18:58, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:They are not the elites. Trump is richer and outsmarted them. He's president and they are not.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 04:41, 16 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::What about the United Nations, Wikignome? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 21:16, 16 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Buttigieg now represents the Democrats center==
 +
Buttigieg role moving forward is to posture as centrist and mainstream, criticizing all the lunatic far left positions beginning with Medicare for All and gun seizure. Gay marriage is no longer far left but rather the centrist and mainstream position of the Democrat party. Warren has become the ''de facto'' establishment pick, albeit not willingly. Biden's refusal to bow out, and obstinacy at staying in, is hurting the party and their chances to win. Biden's reputation and legacy is tired to impeachment outcome, and the longer he stays in, the more damage to party he does.
 +
 
 +
Sanders, God bless him, owes his presence there on the stage to the fossil fuel industry that helped rush him  to the hospital after his recent heart attack, and the pharmaceutical industry which is aiding his recovery.
 +
 
 +
So there you have it. The dysfunctional Democrat family. A gay married, cop hating friend of abortionists with 2,200 skeletons in the closet as the voice of reason and moderation, and a woman who reminds us why medical science used to practice hysterectomies as a fairly routine common procedure. So the two with parry back and forth for the next 6 or 7 months on the merits of socialism vs. communism, with son of [[Antonio Gramsci]] being the voice of moderation and capitalism (after his own [[long march through the institutions]] to get [[gay married]]). With the dominant far left gaining the upper hand over wisdom, moderation, and experience represented by Biden. If the debate remains civil, and Buttigieg can build a sizable following among centrist (the inverse of the 2016 Democrat primaries), Buttigieg could make his way onto the ticket. He afterall, represents the future.
 +
 
 +
That's the Democrat party as of this moment: a dysfunctional family led by a woman who is confused over who she is, and her Gay married son. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:21, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==New Trump obstruction talking points==
 +
 
 +
Trump learned too late that "diversity" means diversity ''from'' starting with common sense American liberty, not ''through'' it.
 +
*Trump conveys indifference about value of strategically-chosen cultural Marxism trends we'd like to emphasize.
 +
*When a rough-edged communicator like him outsmarts us, like he does on Twitter, it makes us look bad.
 +
*If he's not hesitant to criticize us and praise others, he makes it look like we're not all indispensable.
 +
*Everybody's a fascist who's not an international socialist to the rank and file, but we can't tell if Trump rejects international socialism or is just someone who ought to know about it.  Usually, when someone outsmarts us is the time we stop trying to find out.
 +
 
 +
Hey, wait a minute...what wiki is this?  Why is there an American flag? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 09:26, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Sad news==
 +
I read today with sadness that it seems [https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/ our fellow Americans are becoming less and less religious by the day].  It's a shame - just when we should praying more.  --[[User:JanW|JanW]] ([[User talk:JanW|talk]]) 13:02, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Funny how these surveys, even though they are long on analysis, never address the fact that many Christians don't like to call their personal relationship with Jesus Christ a "religion".  Again, if liberals weren't able to equivocate upon the words identical, same, similar, diverse, different and opposite, they would have nothing. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 13:28, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Ouch. Paging Dr. Ben Le Wire ... would Dr. Ben Le Wire please make his way to Talk:Main Page ... we need several thousand words on the inevitable triumph of conservative Christianity, stat! [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 14:42, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::One of Conservapedia's editors, Pokeria, made that specific assertion as an aside, many days before the "Sad news" described in this section was written, in the course of an earlier conversation in which he took part.  What would make you think he wouldn't be able defend that conclusion, other than a possession by you of a chronic case of lazy skepticism that is never directed towards itself nor the comfortable sufferer afflicted with it? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 14:57, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::I move in Christian circles daily, and don't know many at all who would describe themselves as 'religious'. "Religious' has been made like the N-word by the communist media, entertainment industry, and cultural Marxists.
 +
 
 +
::::If you ever want to see a prime example of hate-filled Communist propaganda by mainstream film makers, watch [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/red_state/ Red State]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:28, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::Fun fact: these surveys aren't asking if people describe themselves as "religious". They ask what their religion ''is'', and their frequency of churchgoing. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 15:46, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::So? Many Christians (a) do not believe in religion, and (b) emphatically reject religion.
 +
:::::::''Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.''
 +
::::::Tuff language, and to the point on Jesus' attitude toward religion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:49, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::::It's precisely for such occasions that lolwut? was invented. ''"Hi! I'm a Christian. I don't believe in religion!"'' I know you have an oft-rocky relationship with reality, but seriously...  [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 16:01, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::::Tread carefully, JohnZ, you just got off a one-week block.  Your ridicule of Christianity and Christians and of conservatism and conservatives (and your continued attacks on the other editors and admins here) with your posts, using less-than-credible sources to bolster your argument, doesn't make your case either.  [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 03:03, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::JohnZ, Why did the religious folks string Jesus up on tree? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 06:44, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::Look, I'm not fond of JohnZ by any stretch, especially when it's far too clear he's only hear to try and take down Conservapedia with his edits, but I do disagree with your notion that us Christians don't view Christianity as a religion or hate to be viewed as such. I'm Christian myself, Catholic more specifically, and I have admittedly... disturbing views of God, but even I realize Christianity as a whole (ie, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or even any of the Protestant religions) is a religion (we worship a deity, believe in supernatural powers, and an afterlife, that's a religion last I checked). Besides, you are aware that if Jesus truly had distaste for religion, he wouldn't have even formed Christianity in the first place, right? In fact, if anything, he would have made sure his own followers died like dogs, rather having that than having them inevitably turn out like the Pharisees. If anything, him having distaste for religion yet forming one himself (even telling Peter that the latter will "be the rock that will found my church") would make Jesus himself into an even ''bigger'' hypocrite than even the Pharisees. See the problem with what you're arguing? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:07, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::All my friends are bloodwashed born again Christians. We walk in the spirit. I can't think of a one who considers themselves religious or bound to a religion. We are married to Christ, not religion or a religion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 07:50, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::Except the problem is Jesus would not have founded a church if he didn't want a religion. I know I wouldn't have in his shoes if I didn't want a religion, and if anything I would have just ensured my followers died/ascended into heaven with me without even a trace rather than make ANY attempt at establishing any church at all. That's the whole problem with that line of thinking. And it runs contrary to the Bible, specifically Matthew 16:18, where Jesus specifically says, and I quote, “You are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.” By building his church, he established his religion, it's that simple. And you really need to address that Matthew 16:18 verse to Born Again Christians and see how they respond to that, because I'm doubtful they'll be able to explain that inherent contradiction. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:15, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::Jesus brought salvation. Period. He did not come to start a church or create a religion.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:22, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::If that were truly the case, then why the heck does Matthew 16:18 even exist in the New Testament in the first place, which has Jesus, wait for it, specifically stating he'll have Peter be the foundational rock for his church. If he didn't come to create a religion, he would never have bothered to have that passage written in the first place, and if anything would have slaughtered his followers specifically to ENSURE no religion came about as a result. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:47, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::::Jesus also said, ''Man does not live by bread alone, ''' but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God;''''' the verse you cite some have used as a nullification of Jesus's word, calling it "The Great Commission," and making a man the final arbiter of God's word. "The Great Commission" is a "doctrine of men," Jesus cites In the chapter earlier. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:01, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::::::::::You will recall, the first church was Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:38). And it was a man, Jethro, Moses's father-in-law, who organized it (Captains of hundreds, captains of 50s, captains of 10s). God had nothing to do with that churches organization. In fact, God specifically did not organize it along those lines. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:08, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::::::::::There is no commandment that Christians worship on Sunday - that is entirely church tradition, and a rejection of the religion of the Jews. So also there is no commandment to pray before eating - Deuteronomy in fact commanded to pray ''after'' eating.  Again, we have a rejection of religion by early Christians, which became tradition, which some now call "religion". But early Christians also got many things wrong (see Acts 1:6 for instance; Jesus' most devoted followers still were naive about Christ's mission and purpose, and still viewed God's word through a carnal lens). They also "held everything in common", becoming prodigals. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:17, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::::::::::If that were the case, Matthew 16:18 would ''never'' have happened, and if anything, Jesus would have screamed at Peter that only Jesus and his father alone have any control over humanity, and that Peter and his followers ought to die, not leave behind any legacy, before melting them into nothingness, in fact, act like [https://youtu.be/EMsRL4zoYK4?t=101 Master Albert did] when about to kill Grey in the first phase of the final battle against Albert in Mega Man ZX Advent. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:19, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::::::To make Matt. 16:8 more than what it was is doctrine of men. ''My kingdom is not of this world.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:26, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::::::::::::1. It's pretty clear that Jesus even ALLOWING it into the New Testament in the first place meant he approved of it. If he didn't, he would have slaughtered his own followers. That's what I would have done in Jesus's place, slaughtered all of my followers specifically to ensure no religion is ever created, not wanting a religion made in my image, and even go as far as to completely genocide the entire human race specifically to ensure it, and that my kingdom is not of Earth would have been all the MORE reason to just blow it up with a smile on my face. 2. The Great Commission that you refer to was AFTER that verse, specifically in Matthew 28:16-20:
 +
 
 +
:::::::::::::::"16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”" Last I checked, that points to Jesus authoring the Great Commission, NOT man, and certainly didn't nullify it either (how can Matthew 16:18 nullify it when it occurs before Matthew 28:16-20?). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:31, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::::::''The Good News'' (''Gospel'') is, we are free of dead religion once we are born of the spirit, immersed (or baptized) in the spirit.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:39, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::::::::Then why did Jesus specifically make Peter his rock for the foundation of his church? He would have just killed everyone specifically to ensure that no religion is formed, "freed" all of humanity from "dead religion" by slaughtering them. That's what I would have done in his situation, essentially end all of existence, laughing as I do so, all with my father cheering me on in exterminating the planet and "freeing" humanity. No, he definitely wanted a church created. There would have been no point to that passage even being ALLOWED to exist if Jesus didn't want that, let alone Jesus even commanding Peter to form his church. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:43, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::::::::I don't know; ask God about it. It seems pretty obvious a doctrine of men transferred God's power, authority, and sovereignty from Jesus to men, as you are arguing. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:49, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::::::::::::::So, since we are getting away from Jesus's mission and the doctrine of grace, answer me this: What takes precedence, God's law or Church law? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:54, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
::::::You don't know how the questions were phrased, and Gallup was in no hurry to present that information.  Maybe Gallup is good with ''some'' kind of polling, but there's no use wasting time with a method of theirs that is so out of touch with the American religious scene—or faith scene to some. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 17:22, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::::You can have a lolwut? n' all. From JanW's link: ''"...as part of the demographic battery of questions that ask respondents about their age, race, educational attainment and other background characteristics, each of these political polls also include one basic question about religious identity – “What is your present religion, if any? Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox such as Greek or Russian Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, something else, or nothing in particular?”'' [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 17:41, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::''"Additionally, most of these political polls include a question about religious attendance – “Aside from weddings and funerals, how often do you attend religious services? More than once a week, once a week, once or twice a month, a few times a year, seldom, or never?” Taken together, these two questions (one about religious identity, the other about religious attendance) can help shed light on religious trends in the U.S."'' [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 17:44, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
4 points:
 +
 
 +
1. Church attendance is higher today than in Colonial America.
 +
 
 +
"In 1776, only about 17 percent of the country were church members, compared to about 65 percent today, said Stark, who has tallied church membership as a percentage of the population over the past 250 years using church records and census figures."[https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1995/11/26/the-way-we-werent-religion-in-colonial-america/6cb64903-30f4-435e-a415-6be0f0465bfe/]
 +
 
 +
"Colonial America was not as church-bound and church-moved as he suggests. He does better with the 19th century, when religious practice did take hold not only among Catholic newcomers but also revived Protestants.
 +
 
 +
So how were things in the good old days? A consensus questioned by a few serious scholars – Patricia Bonomi among them – is that fewer than 20 percent of the colonial citizens were active in churches.
 +
 
 +
Change came after 1776, so that, in one common estimate, church participation jumped from 17 percent to 34 percent between 1776 and 1850.
 +
 
 +
A better past, more illuminating for comparison in present concerns, is between the early 1960s, when participation crested, and today."[https://ethicsdaily.com/church-attendance-wasnt-always-robust-in-past-cms-20169/]
 +
 
 +
2. "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."[https://factsandtrends.net/2018/04/10/protestant-church-attendance-stable-but-warning-signs-remain/]
 +
 
 +
3." First of all, religious belief is still very powerful and widespread, and there is nothing inevitable about its decline. In fact, the proportion of people who say they believe in God actually ticked modestly upward, from 86 percent to 89 percent, since Gallup last asked the question in 2014". See: [[American atheism]] for details.
 +
 
 +
4. Even secular scholars admit that the secular population will peak before 2043 in the USA[http://www.sneps.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/jssr_15101.pdf]  and then a period of desecularization will arise in the USA (See: [[United States, irreligion vs. religion and demographics]]).[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 19:16, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Two messages for JohnZ. First, I read the Book of Revelation. We win at the end. 2) Listen to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk THIS] short video.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Attaboy, Ben. No retreat, no surrender. FWIW, Revelation is my favourite bit of the Bible by ''miles'' (though I'm reliably informed John never dared eat mushrooms again). Have some [https://youtube.com/watch?v=1B0OCXr_35A Dennis Brown]. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 21:45, 17 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:This is an amazing bit of rationalization going on.  Or maybe it should be called "moving the goalposts" or perhaps "sour grapes".  A survey says that religion is on the decline, and some people come here and say "Well, the reason for that is that Christians don't call Christianity a religion, or say that they are religious.  Christians are actually on the increase, but Christianity isn't a religion, so that's why the survey came out that way."  Really????  There's a lot of talk about religion on this page, apparently by people who aren't religious.  And spare me the inane youtube videos, both of you.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:00, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::My apologies if Christians don't live up to your bigoted expectations. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:09, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
First off, Conservative is right that God will win and has already won (see Revelation, for example). Christians can be confident because of that. Also, the reason why the number of Christians is declining in the U.S. is really [https://twitter.com/MarkSKrikorian/status/1184847237228175360 that all the nominal Catholics and mainline Protestants have decided it's not worth it identifying as such]. The much smaller subset of Bible-believing, evangelical Christians is still growing, and around the world, it's growing even quicker. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 07:54, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:"So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." - Jesus, Book of Revelation, Rev 3:16.  Those nominal Catholics and [[Liberal Christianity|liberal, mainline Protestants]] didn't leave Christianity. They were never in it! [[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 09:51, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::By 2025 or sooner, not only will the global percentage of atheists be less in the world, but the actual number of atheists in the world will be less too.[https://gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/04/StatusofGlobalChristianity20191.pdf][[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 09:54, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::It's all about the locusts, man. What's not to love about divine retribution being meted out by locusts with *checks notes* men's faces, women's hair, lions' teeth, wearing gold crowns and iron breastplates, and packing scorpion tails to boot?! Go big or go home, that's what I say. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 13:10, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::You're not supposed to understand.  There are extended allegories for those attributes to warn the faithful who study their Old Testament lessons and preparedness even for the faithful who haven't but are willing to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt.  But scoffers won't learn
 +
:::::"Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant,
 +
:::::until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged,
 +
:::::until the {{sc|Lord}} has sent everyone far away and the land is utterly forsaken.
 +
 
 +
:::::And though a tenth remains in the land, it will again be laid waste.
 +
:::::But as the terebinth and oak
 +
::::::leave stumps when they are cut down,
 +
::::::so the holy seed will be the stump in the land.”
 +
::::[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 14:11, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Sounds like a religious argument.
 +
:::::''This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.''
 +
:::::Jesus didn't care much for religion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:30, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::What did he think of seven-headed leopard beasts with bears' paws? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 15:39, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17
 +
 
 +
:::::"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.  Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." Romans 3:19-20
 +
 
 +
::::Scripture pertaining to the Law by itself is helpful to believers, possibly helpful for seekers but not itself necessary for salvation. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 15:58, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::Amen, bro. Now you got. That's how O.J. Simpson can rip his wife's neck out with a knife ('' jealousy is the rage of a man, and he will not spare in the day of vengeance'') and still ask God for forgiveness. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:42, 18 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::::::JohnZ expressed surprise at the hidden Gallup question that he located, but he doesn't seem to realize that its content proved our point rather than supported his. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 17:47, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::Truth is, Jesus was indeed a [[revolution]]ary, and the Spirit of Christ is carried on by revolution against established religion and dead ritual. ''Let the dead bury the dead''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:13, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::Let's go a bit farther: ''Now we are alive in Christ'' (Eph. 2:5). Or Matthew 12:1-7, God created the Sabbath for man's benefit, not God's own. Or Matthew 12:2. And the big kicker, when Jesus purged the temple. Originally, when a man sinned, he was to bring a sheep to the door of the temple. As Israel and Jerusalem became urbanized, city dwellers didn't have flocks. So the priests rented space for a farmers market at the door of the temple. The more the people sinned, the more sheep were sold. Jesus told the religious leaders they had it all wrong, and backwards. Their job was to induce the people to stop sinning, not profit off the people's sin.  It was a specific condemnation of religious leaders and religious practices.  Even the spirit of this teaching from the Gospel has been been twisted by modern religious leaders to condemn the profit motive among people in general, having it exactly wrong, and backward again. (None of this was new, Is. 3:12 ''they which lead you cause you to err''.)
 +
::::::::::We are to serve in newness of spirit, not the oldness of the letter. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:51, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
Here's an interesting tweet thread that shows that evangelical Christianity is remaining stable while the share of nominal Christians is falling: [https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1186276259342540800] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 20:06, 21 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?[[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 09:33, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::So the only way to get single page metrics is a newer version of Wikimedia? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;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.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 13:29, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::::All that information is available at [https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:PopularPages 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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 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. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:16, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:16, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==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.
  
:That figures. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 22:37, 16 May 2019 (EDT)
+
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.
  
::Yeah, pretty disgusting. So, are we going to add it to the news section? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 06:16, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
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. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 17:15, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
:::It looks like bait. probably should go into the [[PBS]] article with some discreet wording. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:45, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:"It was a perfect phone call. Everybody knows it." - Donald Trump.[https://www.wral.com/what-donald-trump-has-already-said-about-ukraine-tells-us-plenty/18652854/]
== China will lose the trade war and will experience economic pain. Very bad news for militant atheists ==
+
  
It appears China is going to be stubborn as far as the USA/China trade war and make the pain they will experience be even worse. Evangelical Christianity, which is the predominant form of Christianity in China, often grows quickly in times of political/economic turmoil.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/05/economics-and-darwinismatheism.html] Since most atheists in the world are East Asian (see: [[Asian atheism]]), these recent economic developments are terrible news for militant atheists - especially since evangelical Christianity is already experiencing explosive growth in China (see: [[Growth of Christianity in China]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:30, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:"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.[https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1177604833538392065?lang=en][[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 17:52, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
  
== Another article relating to the speed of light changing ==
+
::Perfect. I hope this clarifies things.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk: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''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:22, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Yes, it's all of a piece. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 22:20, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
  
"There is something amiss with the expansion of the Universe; the space between galaxies is stretching – scientists are sure about that – but just how fast is it expanding? New research shows that what scientists predict and what they observe are two different things and measurements calculated of today’s expansion rate do not match the rate that was expected based on how the Universe appeared...
+
==Warren's 3½ month climb comes to an end==
  
Indeed, this new research uses the same type of object but utilises a different method to calculate the Hubble Constant. Instead of observing one Cepheid at a time with NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope as it makes its 90-minute orbit around Earth, a team of scientists including Nobel laureate Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland has used Hubble as a "point-and-shoot" camera to snap quick images of the extremely bright pulsating stars...
+
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!
  
But says Reiss, this disparity could not plausibly occur just by chance. "This mismatch has been growing and has now reached a point that is really impossible to dismiss as a fluke. This is not just two experiments disagreeing. We are measuring something fundamentally different. One is a measurement of how fast the universe is expanding today, as we see it. The other is a prediction based on the physics of the early universe and on measurements of how fast it ought to be expanding,” explained Reiss.
+
Never trust the Democrats—they always lose one way or another and leave you holding the bag. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 09:46, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:The parallels between [http://www.dickmorris.com/will-hillary-follow-humphreys-trajectory-history-video/ Humphrey and McGovern, Hillary and Warren, 1972 and 2020] are too powerful to ignore. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 09:50, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
  
“If these values don't agree, there becomes a very strong likelihood that we're missing something in the cosmological model that connects the two eras,” he said...
+
==Popular government==
  
'The ‘tension’ between measurements of the Hubble-Lemaire constant, H0, (which is known to be changing over time) shows that old theories of the Universe are missing something. If H0 was the lower value of 67 km/sec/Mpc, much or all of the so-called acceleration would vanish. The differing values may be explained if the speed of light has changed between the early and late universe,' said Louise Riofrio, an author and scientist who now works at an observatory association in Hawaii." - source: [https://room.eu.com/news/as-mystery-of-the-universes-expansion-rate-widens-a-simple-solution-is-offered As mystery of the Universe’s expansion rate widens, a simple solution is offered].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:41, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
The United States may not be a democracy, but [[James Madison]] called it a popular governmentHe also said:
:[[Conservapedia proven right]], again!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:13, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::The article that all this is taken from is the room.eu.com article, which mentions "dark energy", a scientific mystery that has been known about for a few yearsWe'll have to wait and see how that plays out.
+
  
::I assume the "Conservapedia proven right" item being referred to is the one from May 7, 2007.  Note that the change in "C" referred to in that item involves a time span of 2 billion years. That must be comforting to Young Earth Creationists. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:53, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:[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...
  
:::You said it yourself:  ''c''<sup>2</sup> is equal to the reciprocal of the product of the fundamental constants μ<sub>0</sub>, the permeability of free space and ε<sub>0</sub> the permittivity of free space. (''c''<sup>2</sup> = 1 / (μ<sub>0</sub> * ε<sub>0</sub>))
+
:[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)
  
:::Except how do we know those two "fundamental" constants aren't really variables and change as different places and times in the visible universe change?  If we could detect it, we would be able to solve for ''c'' and get the changed speed of light. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 00:31, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 02:01, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
::::::My relativity sycophancy alarm is ringing very loudly.  You have correctly identified the formula relating &epsilon;<sub>0</sub>, &mu;<sub>0</sub>, and c.  You say that I said it myself.  I don't think I did, but the formula is nevertheless correct.  Since you are claiming that measurement of &epsilon;<sub>0</sub> and &mu;<sub>0</sub> in deep cosmological time might be easier than measuring the speed of light, why don't you demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of these constants by addressing these issues for me:
+
: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:02, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
::::::*What do the constants &epsilon;<sub>0</sub> and &mu;<sub>0</sub> actually mean?
+
::::::*What are the very simple units in which they are calibrated?
+
::::::*How does one measure them in the laboratory?
+
:::::::An aside: I measured them in a physics lab course as an undergraduate, getting 2.5x10^8 m/s for the speed of light.  Not good, but the point of the experiment was not to make accurate measurements, but to show that, with very clever tricks, one can actually measure the speed of light in a laboratory, using a meter stick (well, we used a micrometer too) and a stopwatch.
+
::::::*Approximately when were the first laboratory measurements of these two constants made?
+
::::::*How does one derive the equation relating the speed of light to these two constants?
+
::::::*Who first derived that formula, and when did this happen?
+
::::::*Why is that formula so important?
+
::::::*How would one measure these two constants in deep (billions of years back) cosmological time?
+
::::::*Why is that better than just measuring the speed of light in deep cosmological time?
+
::::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:51, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::Let's back up for a minute. You have a habit of calling information you don't agree with "ridiculous" or "preposterous".  So why do you introduce "scientific" information, like the equation above concerning "fundamental constants" in my opinion you wrote, into Conservapedia articles under a pseudonym?  Is it because you want to avoid acquiring a reputation for contradicting yourself or misdirecting others and thus risk appearing to be lacking in the very science, or high-quality knowledge, you profess to have?  And wouldn't that evasion be a bit "ridiculous" on your part? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 02:08, 19 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::Are you accusing me of writing under a pseudonym?  Are you accusing me of evasion?  We need to back up a little farther.  You wrote at the outset of this section "You said it yourself:  ''c''<sup>2</sup> is equal to the reciprocal of the product ...."  And now you say again "the equation above concerning 'fundamental constants' in my opinion you wrote ..."  I don't believe I wrote that, though I could have written it if I had felt moved to do so, since it's true.
+
::::::I had not intended the authorship to be the focus of the discussion.  But let's go through the evidence carefully.  When I first saw your "You said it yourself" comment, I did a search for the word "permittivity".  It's an obscure word, so that search would have eliminated a lot of chaff.  The hits are
+
::::::*[[Constants]]
+
::::::*[[Gauss's_Law]] (It's an interesting article; I would like to have contributed, but I didn't)
+
::::::*https://www.conservapedia.comDebate:If_the_universe_is_young_and_it_takes_light_millions_of_years_to_reach_us_from_far_off_stars,_how_can_we_see_them%3F
+
::::::*[[Balmer_series]]
+
::::::*[[Bohr_atom]]
+
::::::I do not appear anywhere in the edit histories for any of those articles.
+
::::::Now, about your claim that I have a "habit of calling information you don't agree with 'ridiculous' or 'preposterous'", I only use strong terms like that for egregious cases. Andy's sudden discovery, below, that the second law of thermodynamics causes light to slow down, after having written a lot of material on the subject that, while I thought it was misguided, showed some serious understanding of entropy and thermodynamics, was such a case.
+
::::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:09, 19 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::In reply to SamHB, an invariant speed of light would contradict the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], a law that no one disputes.  Virtually all recognize that the universe wears out as a garment does (see [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#1:11|Hebrews 1:11]]), and that requires a change in the speed of light too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 01:01, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::That is utterly preposterous.  Are you saying that slow-moving photons have more microstates than fast-moving ones?  I don't know of anyone, other than you, who would give a scientific explanation of the Second Law in terms of Hebrews 1:11, and claim that that applied to the speed of light.  Can you cite some scientific papers or articles in support of this?  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:51, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::Scientists tend to maintain silence about new information that contradicts a materialist worldview, even if the information is just a few steps away from common sense. An example of the rejection of this kind of information might be the big-bang theory or [[Louis Pasteur]]'s disproval of spontaneous generation.  It's not preposterous at all, much less utterly, to think that scientists would seek to embargo information pertaining to the corruption of the visible universe. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 02:27, 19 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::You're not generalizing about scientists, are you?  I assume that, by "materialist worldview", you mean "view that the author disagrees with"?  Yes, that happens, whether the view that the person disagrees with is materialist, or acceptance of evolution, or openmindedness about global climate change, or many other things. And it's not just scientists. What you said about the big bang theory and spontaneous generation wasn't very clear, but I think I know what you are getting at. They were both scientific controversies at the time.  If you believe that relativity is a controversy of that scale, I'd suggest you write up your views at a serious scientific forum.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:09, 19 May 2019 (EDT)
+
"According to a 2017 survey, only 35 percent of respondents have “a lot” of trust in scientists; the number of people who do “not at all” trust scientists increased by over 50 percent from a similar poll conducted in December 2013.
+
  
This crumbling of trust in science and academia forms part of a broader pattern, what Tom Nichols called The Death of Expertise in his 2017 book. Growing numbers of people claim their personal opinions hold equal weight to the opinions of experts."[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dis-trust-in-science/?redirect=1]
+
==Response to unimportant remarks==
  
The amount of scientific fraud and politicization of science has put a major dent in people's trust in science. Frankly, many scientists have: poor research/statistics skills, lackluster morals and have oversized egos and fail to understand the [[limitations of science]]. Once the global warming hoax is fully exposed for the farce it is, expect people's trust in scientists to further erode.
+
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 {{sc|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."
  
Consider the information in these articles:
+
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.
  
*[http://pnis.co/cracked.html 7 Crazy Realities of Scientific Publishing]
+
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.
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-intrinsic-unreliability-of-science.html The present scientific community and character issues]
+
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.
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-business-of-progressive-science.html The business of progressive science]
+
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. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 23:35, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/if-you-hand-us-hammer.html Scientific fraud problem in science community]
+
==Golden Fleece Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2016 dinner guests==
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/10/peer-review-is-joke.html Peer review problems in science]
+
[[John Brennan]]<br>
 +
[[Susan Rice]]<br>
 +
[[Eric Ciaramella]] knew John Brennan, Susan Rice, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, was 1st whistle-blower<br>
 +
[[Joe Biden]]<br>
 +
[[Nancy Pelosi]]<br>
 +
[[John Kerry]]<br>
 +
[[Loretta Lynch]]<br>
 +
[[John Podesta]]<br>
 +
[[Tony Podesta]]<br>
 +
[[Valerie Jarrett]]<br>
 +
[[Samantha Power]]<br>
 +
[[Leonardo DiCaprio]]<br>
 +
[[James Clapper]]<br>
 +
[[James Comey]]<br>
 +
[[Matteo Renzi]] helped Brennan, Comey spy on Trump, possible target of Bill Barr and John Durham<br>
 +
[[Charles Kupchan]], [[Eric Ciaramella]]'s boss. Worked at [[NSC]]
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/10/science-has-lost-its-way.html Scientific replication problems and current published science articles]
+
The White House<br>
 +
Washington D.C.<br>
 +
1:00 pm<br>
 +
Formal attire<br>
 +
RSVP<br>
  
My trust in the work of scientists has definitely taken a hit in recent years.22:59, 19 May 2019 (EDT)
+
Menu<br>
 +
[it writes itself] Roast Trump
  
== Tax returns ==
 
  
Why won’t he (Trump) release his tax returns. He lied and said he would before he got elected and now he is going to every effort to block the release. Why doesn’t anyone here have anything to say about it? If it were Obama you’d be frothing over it. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 01:42, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
[[Diane Feinstein]] liked China together with [[Joe Biden]]<br>
:Let's see the tax returns of Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, and the other banking bailout profiteers. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 02:07, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
[[Sean Misko]] Second whistle-blower, recruited by [[Adam Schiff]], August 2019<br>
::Well sure but that doesn't excuse Trump lying about releasing them and now stonewalling. Like I say, if it were Obama Conservapedia would be very focal about it. Why the silence on Trump? [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 02:22, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
[[Abigail Grace]] Schiff employee, recruited February 2019<br>
:::Trump is under audit. Re: releasing tax returns: "Most tax attorneys would typically advise a client against doing so if they're under audit to avoid further scrutiny. Once the tax returns are out, reporters could find something that the IRS missed." -CNN[https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/politics/trump-audit-fact-check/index.html]
+
  
:::““O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible, and hence we can hold the enemy's fate in our hands.” - [[Sun Tzu]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:45, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 01:56, 21 October 2019 (EDT)
  
::::Even if the audit excuse is bogus, Trump has the right to tax privacy. He has been keen on keeping his returns private for many years, so the reasons may not have anything to do with politics. The tradition of presidential candidates releasing their returns did not arise in response to anyone's idea of good government. Nixon's return was leaked by an accountant who joined the IRS just to expose him and then quit before anyone could finger him. Subsequent presidents figured they were better off releasing this material themselves. FDR refused to pay the tax increases he approved for everyone else. This would have been hugely scandalous if his returns had been released while he was still alive.[https://www.history.com/news/6-times-presidential-tax-returns-made-us-go-hmmm] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:13, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
==[[O’Sullivan’s First Law]]==
:::::::Sure there’s no law that says presidents have to release their tax returns but he said he would but is now going to extreme lengths to block their release and I have no doubts the if Obama had done the same Conservapedia (among other media outlets) would be crying foul. Trump needs to do what he promised he would. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 17:16, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::Not at all.  Obama had so lowered the bar in not releasing ''anything'' about his academic records (among other records), that his tax records were the ''least'' of the concerns that conservatives had.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 00:47, 19 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
== Massive deregulation in Idaho ==
+
[[File:Pew polls Democrat divergence 1994-2017.jpg|right|275px]]
 +
It's not your imagination.
  
Some good news in Idaho -- the legislature failed to renew the state's 8,200 pages of regulations, so they'll all expire on July 1: [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/esto-brevis-how-idaho-accidentally-let-all-of-its-regulations-expire] This development won't harm citizens, partially because many of these regulations are unhelpful and partially because the government will seek to enforce a limited number of them. Hopefully, this "accident" will bring long-term regulatory improvement to Idaho. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 09:36, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:Wow, those graphs really illustrate the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:11, 21 October 2019 (EDT)
  
== Australia rejects climate alarmism ==
+
== Y'all... ==
  
Australia's Labour Party went all in on climate nuttery and has gone down to defeat: "[https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/breaking-big-election-upset-in-australia.php Breaking: Big Election Upset in Australia]." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:46, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
...should probably read [https://www.lawfareblog.com/amb-william-taylor-testifies-impeachment-inquiry 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. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 23:15, 22 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>''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: [https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/10/22/fncs-ingraham-who-are-these-deep-state-state-department-types-heading-into-the-hill-to-testify/] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 23:27, 22 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::That's the spirit. Denial's the first stage. Get it all out. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 23:50, 22 October 2019 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 22:50, 22 October 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

Contents

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
Mon-
day,
Sep.
16,
2019
Mon-
day,
Sep.
23,
2019
Tues-
day,
Oct.
1,
2019
Wed-
nes-
Oct.
9,
2019
Mon-
day
Oct.
14,
2019
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE 28.5% 20.2% 23.6% 22.7% 23.0% 20.6% 17.5% 18.0%
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 1.6% 2.0% 1.8% 2.3% 0.5% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9%
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 11.1% 8.3% 6.1% 4.4% 4.6% 5.1% 6.2% 6.7%
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 2.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.0% 1.1% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2%
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 12.5% 27.4% 10.8% 7.4% 5.0% 4.3% 3.9% 2.6%
Rep. Beto O'Rourke O'R TX 4.0% 1.3% 0.5% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 0.7% 0.5%
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 11.2% 7.5% 13.4% 12.5% 9.3% 7.8% 5.0% 4.2%
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 15.9% 21.5% 31.5% 36.6% 40.8% 46.7% 50.1% 51.8%
Sec'y Hillary Clinton Cli NY 1.7% 1.5% 2.0% 3.4% 4.6% 5.7% 7.5% 5.8%
Andrew Yang Yan NY 5.5% 3.3% 4.0% 5.2% 4.8% 4.4% 4.4% 3.9%
Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee Who will win?
Twitter followers
Candidate CA
ND
.
SO
RT
Home
state
Accts
as of
June
29
New
accts
end of
July(30)
New
accts
Aug
26
New
accts
Sep
13
New
accts
Sep
16
New
accts
Oct
1
New
accts
Oct
16
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE   03.6M:1 +19,000 +64,000 +29,000 +8,000 +45,000 +98,000
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 04.4M:2 +28,000 +39,000 +9,000 +3,000 +9,000 +12,000
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 01.2M:2 +72,000 +101,000 +32,000 +48,000 +26,000 +30,000
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 00.6M:2 +34,000 +118,000 +20,000 +5,000 +27,000 +27,000
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 03.6M:2 +245,000 +119,000 +45,000 +11,000 +48,000 +61,000
Rep. Beto O'Rourke O'R TX 01.4M:1 +4,000 +116,000 +30,000 +14,000 +24,000 +22,000
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 17.8M:2 +134,000 +264,000 +114,000 +22,000 +93,000 +140,000
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 07.8M:2 +225,000 +273,000 +110,000 +27,000 +137,000 +182,000
Sec'y Hillary Clinton Cli NY +316,000 +115,000 +22,000 +123,000 +152,000
Andrew Yang Yan NY 00.5M:1 +97,000 +22,000 +48,000 +51,000

We are at a pivotal moment for Black voters

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

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

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

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

A recent Wall Street Journal poll says the far left (whites) are 50% of the Democrat base, while moderates (minorities) are 40%. With Biden mortally wounded by the Biden-Ukraine scandal (the only way to take Trump down by impeachment is to take Biden down, as well, which the dominant far left seems intent on doing), the question remains is Who will blacks gravitate to? Gabbard, a moderate woman of color, seems most likely. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:51, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
Warren is now at the crossroads. The Blacksphere's reaction puts it thusly:
Warren announced that she would look at failed gubernatorial candidate and scandal-laden Andrew Gillum as a potential VP. I consider this (1) pandering, and (2) the remake of Mandingo.
I get it. A black man can be Warren’s #2, even with all his “angry black man toxic masculinity”. Let’s see how the #MeToo movement sees this. As for black men, understand Warren’s message: you will serve your white master’s woman.
Blacks are very adept at coalition building and coalition politics, much more so than their racist, radical, white liberal allies who have done nothing but betray and burn them in the past.
So let's see how Blacks react to Warren bringing in more illegal immigrants that Blacks get pay for their healthcare, versus Trump who created job opportunities for them by tightening the screws on immigration. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:39, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

Proportional representation and the Democratic nomination

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

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

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

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

Andrew Yang should be counted in this group with appeal to Millenials, Gabbard, Buttigieg and Yang. One or two of these could make the Place and Show positions behind Warren (Biden, Sanders, Harris, and Booker all may done as of today). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:26, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

After the recent allegations against Kavanaugh, I find myself adopting a conspiratorial mindset. For the Dems as a party, dragging out the Kavanaugh affair makes no sense. Kavanaugh was the principle author of the Starr report and my pet theory is that the Clintons are determined to get back at him. Think of Jay Leno, Norm McDonald, or Don Imus. They were all huge in their day, but none of them had what it took to fend off a Clinton takedown. In other words, Bernie, you're next. Isn't it odd that only three Democrats ran for president in 2016, even though there was a vacancy that year? The Clinton smear machine is headed by Neera Tanden. The media is always running stories about Warren moving up and overtaking Bernie or someone else even though the RCP average swings back and forth. From a Republican point of view, the Indian wannabe is certainly the Dem who looks the easiest to beat. The liberal media is oddly unconcerned about Warren's general election chances. Instead, they say we should vote for her because of her numerous "programs." It's such an insincere and unconvincing line that it sounds a bit like they've been taken hostage. PeterKa (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Peter, are you counting Bernie? To this day on his Twitter page he brags about being an "independent". VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 11:08, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Dragging out the Kavanaugh allegation is easy: it's based on the Democrat theory that voters are stupid and believe any line of crap CNN feeds them. The DNC & CNN's ability to bring out mobs into the street feeds into this echo chamber.
The parallel here is when the "Hard hats" started beating up on anti-war protesters in 1972 (Hard hats = the not-so Silent Majority). Some people reckon the Proud Boys to the Hard Hats, but it's a bit of stretch; the Hard Hats were construction workers who beat up hippies on their lunch break, whereas the Proud Boys are moreless seen as vigilante troublemakers. In many ways, the situation seems more volatile today than in 1972, which was the most violent period of Americans fighting Americans since the Civil War. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:36, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
I conceive Antifa to be in the business of casting "hecklers' vetos". "Sorry, the situation's gotten too volatile. We're going to have to cancel the event." VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 16:48, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
The Brits don't have access to RobS's knowledge, but they reckon the odds of Warren becoming the nominee to be almost as large as Harris's, Sanders' and Biden's combined. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 11:30, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
You should read this: Britons Still Betting On Hillary Clinton to Win the Democratic Nomination; it shows the wide gulf in understanding between US & UK politics. Hillary;s goose is cooked. even if she wanted to run, it would only divide the party. Brits evidently do not understand the role of money in US politics; it costs over $1 billion to run for president; there's only 400 days remaining. Sh'e have to average $2,500,000 a day in fundraising now to make it, and she's not even trying.
When the FEC filings come out for the Third Quarter ending September 30, you'll see Buttigieg increasing his average, Booker and Harris decreasing, which is the death knell.
The Sarah Palin boom was based on her fundraising ability. Trump rallies are fundraising affairs. The minute the cost of renting a venue to make an appearance exceeds the funds raised, the public appearances cease.
Americans make the same mistake, they confuse media hype and popularity with electability. Most of the money comes from "big money" donors who bet on a winner, but have been burned three times now in the past three years - Hillary, Beto, and Kamala. This is what sets Trump apart - he is not owned by "big money" donors, and threatens to expose and upset the whole corrupt system. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:56, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
It's Warren's to loose right now. The New Hampshire primary will be the first test of the Millenial Generation - the majority age group now - political strength, or will the Brezhnev, Andropov's, and Chernenko's remain in control of the Democrat Politburo.
It may be a bit early to invoke Keith Olbermann's immortal words. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:22, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Did you mean plurality age-group? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 17:19, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Yes, that's right. Here's a Pew Report (can't find the updated one that confirms this). It took a long time for boomers to wrest control from the World War II generation (Papa Bush '92, Dole '96), but there is a more pronounced age resentment every day, or "generation gap" as we used to call it. Climate change vs. nuclear proliferation being the dividing line between voter priorities based on age. So what's the response to this? Medicare for All. Millennials feel no obligation to their seniors, whom they regard as having destroyed the planet, and seniors shouldn't get any special privileges like Medicare.
This is the weakness of the Medicare for All argument: Seniors, with an 85% voter participation rate, understand Medicare for All cuts into their benefits (i.e. healthcare rationing). it's not fair they paid for it all their working lives, only to have younger people get a free ride at their expense when seniors no longer have the ability to work. Kamala Harris got body slammed by an 80 year old lady in a wheelchair on this question. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:23, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Most of those born between 1946 to 1952 or so are already getting Medicare by virtue of the fact that they've already retired. If there's a privilege to be gotten, it would be by Boomers who simply haven't retired yet. Who's going to pass a law to take away Medicare from the older group so as to treat all Boomers equally as far as fairly distributing the punishment of the crimes for which they're blamed? VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 00:50, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
Look, here's the facts of life: There is no way you will convince any sizable percentage of voters 62+, with a participation rate of 85%, consisting of 68 million people (68 x .85 = 57.8 million voters), that Medicare for All will not reduce the quality of the healthcare coverage they paid for, for 40 years, to qualify for. Not happening. The Kamala Harris BS answer, "We're gonna pay for it", won't fly. That crap works with stupid whippersnapper communist Democrat voting punks, but not for a person who's lived their whole life witnessing that kind of communist junk.
Compare 58.7 million to Hillary's 65 million vote tally and Trump's 62 million. And remember, this is the generation that voted for Social Security reform for 40 years, and was always shot down by "the third rail" of politics. It's an insult to Seniors' intelligence to try and even discuss this communist punk nonsense with them. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 01:52, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

Week of Sept. 23

Warren and Yang appear as the two strongest. Sanders is melting away. Biden's support is a "wait and see" approach of moderate, primarily black voters who withstood criticisms of Obama, so this isn't difficult for them, but nowhere near as passionate or emotional. It still signifies the lack of minority support for Warren and others. Yang owes his growing success to Trump who blazed the trail for a businessman who never held elected office.

Warren most importantly represents a healing of the wounds and divisions from the 2016 Hillary/Bernie contest, which will be complete when Bernie drops out. Blacks need to speak up now to regain a leadership role; sticking with a mortally wounded candidate like Biden means DNC leadership has effectively "put them back in their place" after the Obama fiasco. Booker, Harris and Beto are toast. Gabbard is determined to fight despite the media blackout.

And Buttigieg. What can I say? His support and money appears to be growing, but he carries more baggage than Yang. Only blacks could save him in the long run, which isn't likely. This particular segment of psychotic Democrats will ultimately support any line of crap Democrat leadership comes up with eventually, so no tears will be shed when he meets his ultimate destiny. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:36, 24 September 2019 (EDT)

The comedians took Electable Joe to task for the story of his poolside showdown with Corn Pop, He's now 7 points ahead of Warren in the RCP average as opposed to 11 points pre-Corn Pop. I thought the video of Biden struggling to remember Obama's name was even funnier than the image of him chasing a gang member with a pool chain, but that hasn't gone mainstream yet. Biden's support has actually been pretty steady. It's Warren whose support goes up and down. She hasn't been doing anything exciting lately, so I have to wonder why. In contrast, who can keep up with all the Biden news? I didn't even get to Hunter Biden's narrow escape from prosecutor Shokin in Ukraine or the disturbing image of Joe's eye going bloody on stage. PeterKa (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
Warren, Yang, and Buttigieg in that order come February. Should impeachment come to a floor vote, it would be a test of Gabbard's strength. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:41, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
FiveThirtyEight has collected polls that suggest that Warren is everyone's second choice. So as the minor candidates drop out, I expect her to gain. In the last few days, the liberal establishment has turned on Biden, judging from the Corn Pop and Ukraine episodes. An even better indication of establishment thinking is the raft of news stories that claim that Warren has already surged past Biden. (We have one of these stories on MPR.) The RCP averages don't support this claim. My thinking is that the "left-wing lane" in Democratic Party is somewhat larger than Biden's moderate lane. Biden's percentage of the vote will of course rise as the minor candidate drop out. But his current 28 percent could be pretty close to his top. In short, I think Warren will get it in the end, albeit at a more stately pace than the impatient media is demanding. PeterKa (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

A 2fer

Looks like we got a Two-fer this week - Biden and Sanders got knocked out of the race. Looks like next year may be the Millenials year; time to start scrutinizing Yang, Buttigieg, and Booker closer, in that order. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:10, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

It's a five-way tie for third place: Buttigieg, Sanders, Yang, Harris, Clinton. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 20:17, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Before Sanders heart attack and Biden's trial in the U.S. Senate when Dems try to impeach Trump. This would be the perfect time for a Millenial moderate to emerge, but there are none running. Harris is toast. Booker has a shot this very moment, now or never.
If Clinton entered the fray - either as a candidate or through another backdoor deal, you would see such a mass exodus from the democrat party it would look like an immigrant caravan. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:45, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Thank you, you've provided a lot of food for thought for what I am sure is a grateful conservative community. FYI It's been after ten pm in the U.K. for three hours, but some of them are still awake and include Sanders in the tie. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 21:04, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
Bernie could recover in days if it was merely one stent and he had angina and not a heart attack. However, the situation could put a cap on future supporters willing to embrace his candidacy because in politics "perception is reality" is often the case.Wikignome72 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
He's done. He knows it. He can't withstand the rigors of office, let alone campaigning. The warranty has expired. Convention delegates would have a hard time voting for him. In a field of 25, they can't find an alternative to a guy who slipped from 19% to 12%? And Democrats trust his judgement for a successor when they have the opportunity to vote themselves.
The good news is, this put Warren over 50%, unless the Millenial generation stands up now and says enough of this insanity. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:31, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

Bernie will stay in the race until the bitter end. Many of his supporters are very loyal too.

"So, how long does it take to recover after having a stent. The recovery time after having a stent or angioplasty is fast and patients are discharged from the hospital in usually 12-24 hours after the removal of the catheter. In most cases, patients can return to work within a few days to a week after the procedure but never miss on the doctor’s advice on the same."[1].Wikignome72 (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

I think you've counted out Biden too early. Many have experienced his hands-on approach to governance and are the ones moved to admit he has a good feel for the American people. As a candidate he's a little touchy, but one who's known for not hiding his agenda but opening himself up to his team to truly reveal himself as he is. And if you think this is stupid, remember this is the "PG" version. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 07:03, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
He is starting to get tainted by scandal like Hillary. If he campaigns too late in the day, he makes gaffes. Maybe you are right though. Democratic voters may not care too much about scandal and they may want a semi-muddled and gaffe prone candidate who is a more moderate candidate than the lefty alternatives.Wikignome72 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
This is a replay of 2007-2008; you will recall Hillary was "inevitable" in 2007. Then a young upstart nobody ever heard of, Barack Obama, smoked her in Iowa. The scenario is the same: voters were tired of the old regulars and want fresh blood. Booker fits the mold of the Second Coming of the >Messiah Obama. Don't neglect the cultic nature of Democrats over policy positions.
Booker was supposed to fold 3 days ago after the FEC filing deadline; he hasn't yet. Watch to see if Biden and Sanders donors are bailing for Warren, or somebody else. Harris's big money California (Hollywood & Silicon Valley) donors are already bailing (Beto's Hollywood donors jumped ship for Harris months ago). They don't like Gabbard. That leaves Booker, Buttboy, and Yang, in that order at this moment.
Booker should be the obvious choice - less baggage and more DC experience. Democrats aren't ready to follow the Trump precedent and nominate somebody like Yang who never held elective office - that's a prime source of objection to Trump. Trump beats Yang with the experience qualifier among moderate unaffiliated voters. Yang they can paint as "too far left" making Booker appear "centrist". The hicktown mayor Buttigieg also lacks experience, is too controversial, and carries too much baggage. Midwesterners are always at a disadvantage in presidential contests. It increasingly looks like a Warren-Booker contest, with Warren being the oldtime boomer establishment candidate, and Booker being a GenX upstart more appealing to centrists, moderates, and millenials. Gabbard could partner with Weld or Jesse Ventura to lead a Third Party protest vote.
Oh, and remember Bloomberg said he might get back in if Biden folds? He's thinking about it again (meaning he's less than enthusiastic about "the people's choice" Warren). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:52, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
Trying to predict what the Democrats will do is like predicting what a mad man will do next or predicting where a tornado will strike next. There are: competing factions, people with muddled and contradictory thinking and the list goes on.Wikignome72 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
I compared Peter's description of Trump as unpredictable to Henry Adams' description of Napoleon towards Thomas Jefferson here. Those two were much more calculating than the Democratic mob. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 07:07, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Follow the money, not the polls. I've laid out the marketing strategy of Democrat moneymasters in a general election - how to present contrasts with Trump. If age were to be an issue, it'll be put on Trump. Warren has age going against her, and Hillary is rattling her cage now, too. Booker could be the Second, young, clean, African American who speaks English, according to Biden and Harry Reid.
I have a DSA source in San Diego who first alerted me to Booker about 4 years ago, and his and theirs' presidential ambitions with him as an alternative to Hillary and as the Second Coming of Obama (oddly, California radicals have never been enamored to Harris, whose electoral strategy has been to scapegoat 'poor kids' to make herself appear 'centrist' and appealing to California whites). After reading about Booker, I can see why Democratic Socialists and regular Democrats were so excited about him. Booker even has Executive branch experience as a mayor, which Obama did not. In some ways he's smarter than Obama. He just needs to tap into those donor sources who propelled Obama over the aged and decrepit Hillary in 2008, but the money is spread too thin right now among so many candidates. They need to pull together. First they backed Beto. Then Harris. Now they are re-assessing again. But they want a younger candidate, in the mold of JFK, Carter, Clinton, and Obama, who all were at least 10 years younger than their GOP opponent.
Democrats always take youth over experience, Hillary being the exception. They learned from that disaster.
Look at it regionally, as well. Warren, Biden, Sanders, and Booker all hail from the Northeastern radius of about 150 miles. All are popular and respected among their constituents. It's been a competition for rich donors in the Northeastern corridor. The West Coast Hollywood/Silicon Valley donors are 0-2 backing Beto and Harris. They will now put their money on one of the four East Coast liberals. Biden and Sanders are toast. Warren has pee-off the local Wall Street gang. Booker is the obvious choice. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:58, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
An Obama comeback. I can just picture Booker saying: "They're still bitterly clinging to their guns, gods, money and jobs" again. If anything, Obama will have prevented Booker from winning the presidency, unless he wants to make it his full-time job and then maybe ride to the White House on a wave of Obama nostalgia in sixteen years. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 17:49, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Here's Harris summoning the departed spirit of Barack Obama. Translation: "Voters are to stupid to care about issues. They vote on empty slogans." Harris's problem here was, while Biden addressed a serious constitutional issue, Harris appeared drunk. She was reminding him she's available for the VP slot to rally black voters on the trail, after calling him a racist. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:04, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Lol, I asked you if you thought that were possible back on August 6. Took you long enough. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 21:00, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
I had written somewhere earlier, that she got into the race feeling she would get either the one or two spot by default as being black and Obama's heir. When that became obvious, it pretty well doomed her chances at #1 (proven again in the above clip). She's still in the running as #2, but now brings nothing to the table. California will go Democrat with or without her, and everyone knows now she's not really black. Granted, she has more black blood than Warren has Indian, but her "blackness" is more by cultural appropriation than experience.
Blacks fell for this line a rot before with that halfbreed Obama who did nothing for them. Sure, most still take pride in having a black president, but overall there's a feeling of disappointment. He wasn't one of them, and still isn't. Blacks know in their hearts that a vote for Harris or Obama is inherently an anti-white vote, not on the merits of the candidate. And they're ashamed of this. It's always been more of a feeling of "payback time" rather than justice. Obama's legacy is burning down their communities in senseless race riots, and setting back race relations decades. IMO, Booker knows this. Blacks want justice. Neither Harris or Obama ever stood for justice or equality, just more exploitation by white liberal Democrats. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:26, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
I had a dog that I walked around the block, and her usual walkers would never take her down the block over a bridge and then along a kink in the road. She had started pulling that way though over a period of months if not years.
One day I thought I'd give her a treat and let her walk wherever she'd like. At first she didn't know what to do, but she kind of got the hang of the fact that she needed to make a choice. She would also pull and pull when she started her walk, because she wanted to get to the unfamiliar scents further out as quickly as possible, so I made a point of running that day to keep with her and to stop when she stopped.
Well, you can probably guess what happened. She came to that point in her walk, and she turned and ran and ran across the bridge and along that bend in the road as I kept up. (I was pretty young, so I didn't look too ridiculous.)
When we got to the stop sign, we saw a swan on the neighbor's yard, and I unleashed her so she could charge the swan. She had often been tormented by ducks who had flown into the air or the water before she could approach and give them the sniff test seal of approval. I didn't worry about the swan; if our dog had decided she needed to bite someone she'd probably open her mouth and then be confused and not know what to do. This swan flew straight up, then down the street. The swan wasn't homeless; there were miles of roads that surrounded a lake and the swan picked a road parallel to the edge of the lake. But I have to admit I'd never seen a swan travel down the street by flying; it was finally a victory for the dog against the waterfowl.
She thought this intersection was now going to be a good place to hang out with that happy memory associated with it, but I coaxed her turn back, but still letting her lead.
Once we crossed the bridge back to her block, she suddenly turned around and ran all the way back to a few meters behind the stop sign, with me closely following behind. Maybe you can understand why she did this. I thought it was because she figured she had the power to go wherever she wanted but sensed that the power was a temporary granting of her wishes. So the road hadn't changed any, but she was just as happy to go there a second time.
I think another reason was that the event was too perfect, and in the back of her mind wondered if I had caused what happened just to get her to stop pulling to go over the bridge when she got to that place around the block on her walk so I'd never have to take her across there again.
I think a third reason was that she felt like a human would feel if they had found a secret corridor and room in the house that they had lived in a long time without noticing.
But I think the best reason is that she wanted to see if she could count on me to take her wishes seriously if she ever felt she needed to break away from the routine of walking around the block if there were a dog-sized emergent situation, even if she couldn't explain it (an urge to cross the bridge), it seemed arbitrary (going back to the same place), or it looked like a play of the imagination (running back instead of walking).
Maybe blacks, who were made in God's image, voted for a candidate not the best in conventional governance, but whose presence acted to reveal, from the motive of having a lingering apprehension, whether the response to the black civil rights movement was just lip service, or whether blacks would be entrusted with real political power. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 02:43, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
Great analogy. Obama presented a moral dilemma for blacks in 2008, 2012, and now: Is a vote for Obama purely motivated by racism and pride, everything they abhor and in conflict with their sense of justice? I have enough confidence in the moral values and good practical sense of most of my fellow African American Christian brothers and sisters that they will admit, "yes". It doesn't matter if they admit it out loud, only to their own conscience. RobSDe Plorabus Unum
Thank you! VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 15:54, 8 October 2019 (EDT)

Week of Oct. 9

Warren's surge in the twitter following is a default setting and bandwagon effect after the demise of Biden and Sanders, however her steady, uninterrupted, upward trend in other polling is impressive. Sanders surge is a "sympathy vote". Buttigieg has taken a dump in Twitter followers, despite beating Biden in fundraising. Yang can't seem to gain traction. In a Hillary/Biden matchup, Hillary would bloody his other eye and kick him in the groin. A Hillary/Warren cat fight is interesting to contemplate; we'd find out just how much of down and dirty fighter Warren really is. Personally I think Hillary would mall her the way she malled Sanders, but I think forcing democrats to even contemplate a Hillary/Warren contest would create such an anti-Hillary backlash that she couldn't survive. Even blacks would flock to Warren. It maybe Warren's only hope to get blacks on board and solidify their support. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:15, 9 October 2019 (EDT)

To thumbnail it: Biden & Sanders fundraising efforts will dry up in the fourth quarter, make them fight for a showing in early primary states. Warren likely will pick up Sanders financial backers, but her anti-Wall Street rhetoric will keep Biden money backers away. Her challenge is to pick up Biden's black supporters, who see the duplicity of her robbing affirmative action programs to promote her herself. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:57, 11 October 2019 (EDT)

Oct. 14

The only candidate who is "gaining strength" is Buttigieg, albeit pathetically. Warren's lead is slowing, and is by default. Sanders, Yang, and Harris are giving ground. Biden's "bounce back" of half a point is an anti-Trump, pro-impeachment sentiment, reflecting both Biden's weakness and a lack of focus among the pro-impeachment crowd.

All in all, 2020 is shaping up to be a Nixon/McGovern replay, only the misuse of government agencies for illegal political spying is on the Democrat side this go-round. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:43, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

Tonite will be Booty-judge's moment; if he can't pick up the ball and run with it in such a weak field, he's probably headed for the showers sooner or later. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:31, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

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

Biden and Ukraine

How did Hunter Biden get a $50,000 a month job at a Ukrainian natural gas company, despite his lack of energy-related experience or expertise?[2] Was this job offer in any way related to the fact that his dad was supervising American policy toward Ukraine at this time? Not only does the mainstream media think that such questions are out of bounds, they demand that Trump be impeached for asking the government of Ukraine to investigate them. To anyone who can remember the 2016 campaign, the idea that this type of request is taboo strains credulity. Andrew Napolitano reported that the Obama administration asked the British to investigate Trump. The Brits got Napolitano fired from Fox News for this. That's hardly the reaction you would expect if the original report was simply in error. Napolitano was reinstated a few months later, and he has never retracted his claims. Under the "Five Eyes" intelligence cooperation program, the type of cooperation Napolitano was describing should be routine.
According to this Guardian story, the British started passing intelligence about Trump to the U.S. in "late 2015." The article doesn't admit that the U.S. requested anything, but this is around the time that Dem leaders started worrying about Trump as a presidential candidate. Either way, it undermines the Mueller Report's claim that the investigation of Trump started with Papadopoulos and Mifsud.
The Five Eyes program makes it all too easy for a president to evade laws against domestic spying. According to Napolitano's original report: “So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this." The U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have access to the Five Eyes database. All they have to do is ask one of the other nations in the alliance to access the database on their behalf and it becomes international intelligence rather than domestic spying. PeterKa (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2019 (EDT)

See Biden-Ukraine collusion scandal. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:54, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
As the Romans would say, Cui bono, who gains? The answer is Warren, who can leverage this scandal against both Biden and Trump. Ukraine is far from the only country that paid off Biden by making a sweetheart deal with one his sons. The dam has been breached and there is a reservoir of Biden corruption ready to pour out. Real whistleblowers provide first-hand evidence of irregularities. The whistleblower system is not supposed to allow partisan hacks to anonymously dish on the president. This "whistleblower" is obviously connected. If so, he represents the Deep State and he is telling Biden, "Take a hint, buddy."
This incident reminds me of another example of Obamunist skullduggery: The leak of Clinton's irregular email setup to the New York Times by Obama aide Valerie Jarrett. I assume that this hit was intended to take Hillary out of the 2016 race and make Warren the nominee. PeterKa (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
They fake news media has it exactly backwards: The government of Ukraine has been trying to get in touch with the U.S. government for several years to expose the pressure that the Obama administration, and the Clinton campaign, put on the government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 elections. Ukrainian officials have been denied entry visas by the Kiev embassy to visit the United States. An attorney was hired to hand deliver the documentary evidence to the US Justice Department in New York. The evidence was never relayed to Washington.
The new Ukrainian presidential administration took the non-response from their overtures as a sign of a diplomatic crisis - that the US was very angry with the government of Ukraine for colluding with Obama and Hillary to interfere in the 2016 election. Eventually, the U.S. State Department asked Rudy Giuliani to act as an emissary, respond to their overtures, and meet with Ukrainian officials.
When phone call was made, the supposed "whistleblower" was unaware of the background. The alleged "whistleblower" heard of the call by hearsay.
The current IC inspector general is up to his eyeballs in the FISA abuse scandal, as well, having served as chief legal counsel for John Carlin and Mary McCord (DOJ) when the Carter Page FISA application was used to hoax the FISA court. His name in Michael Atkinson, and it was Atkinson who granted "whistleblower" status to a non-witness by hearsay evidence.
We will know more details when the FISA abuse report comes, if Atkinson's name is redacted. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:08, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
The Democrats' accusations against Trump are projection. The Dems have been applying screws to the Ukrainians for a long time. Manafort was forced to resign from the Trump campaign because of material released by a Ukrainian prosecutor. The timing was so convenient for the Dems that it is hard to imagine how this could have happened without White House pressure. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has openly bragged of bullying Ukraine out of cooperating with Trump. This is no doubt why Trump's pestering of Zelensky went nowhere. See "Let's get real: Democrats were first to enlist Ukraine in US elections." PeterKa (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
The argument in defense of Biden is, "Well, people all over the world were complaining about the prosecutor" Well, yah. Soros employs people all over the world with business dealings in Ukraine. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:25, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

Trump to Ukraine president: "I would like you to do us a favor, though..."

A quote for the ages, right there. MAGA! x JohnZ (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

So 'splain to me the difference in nuance between "I'd like you to do us a favor" and "fire that SOB or else"? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:34, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Elizabeth Warren is closing the gap. And the frequently, barely coherent and gaffe prone Sleepy Joe Biden would be ripped to sheds in a debate with Trump. Furthermore, he could not deal with the rigor of full blow presidential campaign in full swing and some of his supporters/advisors suggested not having him speak later in the day when he is more gaffe prone.
Biden is so old news.
And don't forget that Hillary Clinton first brought up the Ukraine/Biden situation to scare Biden out of the race.Wikignome72 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Trump to Ukraine President: "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible."
JohnZ, did you see Robert Mueller during the recent public hearing? Deny that Mueller was incompetent and lose all credibility!Wikignome72 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." - King Solomon, Proverbs 25:2Wikignome72 (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Mueller looked old and tired, for sure. What's your point?
Trump & Rudy have already admitted the substance of this (asking Zelensky for an investigation into Biden). That's impeachable. It's now simply a case of trying to persuade people their motives were pure, and impeachment would therefore be disproportionate.
I obviously wish them the very best of luck with that. JohnZ (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
I don't think you have a clue what your talking about. Rooting out international criminal conspiracies is what both men, and the new Ukrainian parliament, were elected to do. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:10, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
A bunch of Western governments and NGOs had been calling for Shokin's head, and it had nothing to do with Hunter Biden being on the board of Burisma. I'm sure that won't dissuade you from producing thousands of words of nonsense to the contrary, though. JohnZ (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
See above. A bunch of Soros stooges called for Shokin's head, of course.
Wait, wait, wait.....Isn't calling for the firing of a prosecutor obstruction of justice? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:29, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
This guff only flies in the right-wing fever swamps, Rob. Most GOP senators, for all their faults, still have at least one foot in the real world. JohnZ (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
You may be confused from the reporting of events. The first investigation of Trump was to investigate collusion. But collusion is not illegal. So the purpose of the investigation must not have been collusion, but election irregularities and possible election crimes, connected with the collusion.
It was called a "collusion investigation", but we can't prevent news networks from describing it that way. Anyway the Mueller Report was forced to conclude there weren't even any collusion to begin with, much less surrounding criminality.
Now Trump is colluding with the President of the Ukraine. But yet again, collusion isn't illegal. So what are the Democrats going to do? Say we want a second investigation? All the circumstances that might have been illegal surrounding the non-existent collusion have already been investigated.
They've made it so Trump is free to collude all he wants, and even on the surface, we won't hear of a second trial because Democrats have so tarnished the name of collusion that Trump had to sit on his hands throughout the investigation even if there were an opportunity to make use of our allies' support or intelligence in that way.
Now that it was proven to be a fake inquiry [no evidence of collusion to begin with], the rest of us reckon he feels the need to make up for lost time, having for two years lost that particular tool of managing foreign affairs, which is the President's duty. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 12:40, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
You're leaving out some facts; the current chief prosecutor in Ukraine is colluding with AG Barr and John Durham investigating Crowdstrike, who are in possession of the DNC servers allegedly hacked by Putin. Zelenskyy said, "First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:01, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Is the prosecutor the same one whom Biden extorted the Ukraine government into firing? I hope so (payback time!). Of course, if the ongoing collusion is no longer secret, it's doubtful if it be collusion any longer. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 14:57, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
I don't know; but it appears the Barr/Durham team is in contact with the new Ukrainian administration (we'll have to wait for Hunter Biden's extradition request, I guess).
There are two elements Barr/Durham are investigating to find the original probable cause to begin Crossfire Hurricane:
  1. the status of Joseph Mifsud, and
  2. the evidence Crowdstrike claimed to have alleging Russian hacking of the DNC.
CrowdStrike itself has extensive Ukrainian connections - it was founded by a Ukrainian and contracts with the Ukrainian military. CrowdStrike is also an FBI contractor - so there is your foreign collusion right there. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 15:49, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
Just to clarify, when I say collusion isn't illegal, I mean collusion per se. Different actions where collusion plays a part may be unlawful. Some were saying, but really only speculationg, Trump's conversation with the president of Ukraine involved a quid pro quo where information about the Bidens was sought in exchange for maintaining current foreign policy towards Ukraine.
Secretly moving to discontinue U.S. aid by the president to Ukraine would be an attempt to thwart U.S. policy, but the transcript of the phone call where it supposedly happened put the lie to that, as did the public remarks of the Ukrainian president. But no such explanation can be offered for Joe Biden's public admission many years back that he extorted Ukraine to remove a prosecutor from legally pursuing his son. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 15:39, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
  • maintaining current foreign policy towards Ukraine.
The United States does not support corrupt regimes. Judging from the context, Trump "faithfully executing the laws of the United States." RobSDe Plorabus Unum 03:43, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
Yes, but diplomatic relations are being maintained, like with Egypt, in hope for a change (sometimes in increments). VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 07:27, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

JohnZ, you wrote: "Mueller looked old and tired, for sure. What's your point?"

I clearly and strongly implied Mueller looked incompetent during the hearing. Being a secular leftist, it appears your bar is so exceedingly low for competence, that Mueller easily cleared it!Wikignome72 (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

Conservapedia and it ranking for the Google search: "Ukraine collusion"

CP is an authoritative source on this subject, #9 on Google - Ahead of the New York Times and Wikipedia. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:13, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Wow! Go Rob! Ranking for Biden's age was a Pickett's charge, due to very stiff competition and I never should have attempted it. Oh, well. You win some. You lose some. I should have remembered Sun Tzu (Attack weakness and avoid strength).Wikignome72 (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
You see again the importance of early placement in keyword titling. I'd encourage you to begin a page on reorientation therapy with external links if you can imagine the keywords taking shape 6 months or two years down the road. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:37, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
You were insightful about this matter. I think it is because the early web article gathers more inbound links plus mentions on the internet. Wikignome72 (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
It wouldn't surprise me if Google "grandfathers" in, say, the top 20 or 50 to a keyword term, and after that there's competition for rankings. In the case of "Ukrainian collusion", 2 million results were added in the last 24 hours, up from 10 million to 12 million. CP bounces around between #9 and #11, but holds pretty steady at #9 or #10. Today, for a few hours, BBC knocked it down to #11, but its back to #10 now. Lawfareblog, which is leading the Deep State coup 2.0 charge with its ridiculous, definitive, 'Trump-Ukraine conspiracy hoax timeline', was up to #2 or #3 for a few hours, but is back down behind CP right now. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:32, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
Update: there are now 23 million results and CP has fallen back to #13. It is #1 on DuckDuckGo. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:57, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
Update: There are now 42 million results and CP has fallen back to #15; I need one of the SEO checkers to tweak the page. Anybody got a link ? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:44, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
Update: Back into the Top 10, bumping WaPo's timeline and an Andrew McCarthy interview with Fox. They cropped down the number of results from 43 million to 33 million yesterday, but it's back up to 38 million. This version is having an impact. The problem is, right now I could fill it up with much more detail to shape the narrative, but that would overwhelm the specific points that need to be made. Also, introducing new foreign names into the narrative always has its risks, RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:24, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Update. Back up to #9. It fell to 15 two days ago (worst so far). The page is definitive. And There's more to come. I'm loaded for bear against these insurrectionists. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 04:03, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Update. Up to #8, the best since #3 when the story broke. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:36, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
Update: Holding steady at #9; fallen back a bit to #8 on DuckDuckGo. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:04, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
Update: Hanging tuff at #9 with stiff competition. Also, #34 of 78 million under Biden-Ukraine scandal. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:36, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
Update: Holding at #10; Biden Ukraine scandal up to #20 on Google of 80 million. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:10, 11 October 2019 (EDT)
Update: #6 on Google. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:53, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
Update: Back up to #3. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:05, 21 October 2019 (EDT)

Trump to Ukraine president: "I would like you to do us a favor, though..." - continued

  • I must say that Ukraine is an odd hill for the Democrats to plant their flag on. First, off there is a history of the Dems bullying Ukraine on these same issues. That the Ukrainians protect Hunter Biden while backstabbing Paul Manafort shows that they are more afraid of congressional Democrats voting against aid for Ukraine than they are of Trump. Impeachment will go nowhere in the Senate. Poll after poll shows that the idea is unpopular with the public. This incident also publicizes Biden's longstanding practice of using his sons as conduits for foreign money, although Biden's reign as frontrunner was just about up anyway. PeterKa (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
Go nowhere in the Senate? It's going nowhere in the House.
There is not one thing different from today than yesterday, except the optics and new language to help the media hype something that doesn’t exist. Speaker Pelosi did not announce her intent to hold a house vote to authorize an impeachment investigation; she didn’t even mention the word vote at all. In essence what Speaker Pelosi has done is just satiate her base of Democrats with the fancy optics of something that doesn’t exist.

What’s the difference from Nadler’s “impeachment inquiry” yesterday, and Pelosi’s “official impeachment inquiry” today?… Nothing.

The constitution provides for the formal process to initiate articles of impeachment for a sitting president. The constitutional process begins with a vote in the House of Representatives to launch an impeachment investigation by House Committees. However, Pelosi doesn’t want to hold a vote to start the process…. so she’s just modifying the language of the status quo and instead of the House voting to authorize an “impeachment investigation”, Pelosi announces an arbitrary “impeachment inquiry” by fiat.

It’s silly.

It’s the goofiest thing in modern politics....
RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:47, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

BTW, object of the investigation Trump requested of Ukraine—it wasn't Biden's son!

Trump said "do all that you can possibly do". "I would like you to do us a favor, etc."

This had nothing to do with Biden's son. It was about Trump's search for information that caused the Mueller investigation against him to start, and start with no evidence of collusion by the U.S. president in the first place, even though that was the pretext of the investigation. The absence couldn't be hidden because no evidence of collusion turned up during the investigation, either. It was later in the conversation that Trump mentioned Biden's son. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 15:18, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

  • Statement of Viktor Shokin on September 4, 2019; [3] (definitely relevant to the Biden case);
  • “A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said Wednesday (September 25, 2019). [4]
Background: A forgotten article, Politico, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire, January 11, 2017 -- the same day BuzzFeed released the pee-pee memo, i.e. beginning of the "insurance policy" or Deep State coup, to coverup FISA abuse and Ukrainian collusion.
Impeachment 2.0 is an attempt to neutralize:
  1. Information about to come out in the Flynn trial;
  2. Information coming out in the Roger Stone trial;
  3. Information coming out in the Trump declassification order;
  4. Horowitz FISA abuse report;
  5. Durham indictments.
All this will play out up to Election day. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:51, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
As we're awaiting declassification one thing is becoming obvious: William Barr is protecting Rod Rosenstein. There is no doubt that Rosenstein was a willing participant in the coup attempt. However, because Mueller kicked back the decision to prosecute in Book II on the obstruction charge, Barr said he and Rosenstein made the joint decision that there was no obstruction of justice. Therefore, Rosenstein can't go down, cause if he does, that calls into the question the decision on Trump's fate.
This makes sense. McCabe so far appears to be the designated fall guy. Brennan's fate is in Durham's hands. And people in the Obama White House so far are skating. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:36, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

Quid pro quo

Trump has created trouble for himself with his "no quid pro quo" tweets since it seems likely that he did hold up U.S. aid as a way of putting pressure on Ukraine. Foreign policy is all about making deals and quid pro quo, so this is the wrong standard to apply. You can interpret anything that benefits the United States as a benefit to Trump's campaign, so I don't find the "campaign contribution" argument convincing. The question should be, was Trump acting in the wider national interest or for narrow personal gain? John Durham's investigation is an official Department of Justice probe. A treaty concluded in 1999 authorizes cooperation between the U.S. attorney general and the Ukrainian chief prosecutor. Giuliani's involvement has raised eyebrows, but there is a tradition of presidents sending personal friends they can trust to back up official negotiators. The request to investigate Biden is the most problematic part of the affair since it creates a conflict of interest. The president has an obligation under the constitution to "take care that the law be faithfully executed." No one should be able to evade investigation simply by announcing a candidacy. In 2016, numerous Democrats demanded -- and got -- an FBI investigation of Trump. According to the Page-Strzok correspondence, Obama himself met with FBI agents on this matter. PeterKa (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

"Trump has been justly criticized for hiring his daughter and son-in-law at the White House. But at least when he pressures a foreign leader for a favor, it’s to investigate corruption, not to get a prosecutor off his son’s back. Maybe Biden's son was guilty, maybe he was innocent. But it is a fact that Joe Biden held up foreign aid to a desperately needy ally in exchange for their halting prosecution that implicated his son. It's not Trump's fault that Biden is now running for president."—Ann Coulter, September 25, 2019.
Democrats are going to try to re-construct the Mueller investigation as a personal legal issue for Trump instead of 2+ years of abuse and denial of his civil rights, by virtue of his being an office-holder, by the legal system, there being no evidence of the activity that was supposed to have sanctioned it in the first place. Lol, good luck with that. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 16:33, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
NYT: "The Ukrainians weren't made aware that the assistance was being delayed/reviewed until more than one month after the call."
How the impeachment frenzy plays out over the next month can be gauged real easy: watch to see if Biden's slide in polls reverses itself.
If voters say, "A pox on both your houses," What's their alternative? Buttigieg? Warren? Yang? Sanders? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:03, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
Trump has finally turned the tables on Democratic leaders by starting investigations to match theirs, and they have responded with more presidential abuse. Schiff needs to be impeached, and the other ones can’t be removed from office too soon. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 20:01, 12 October 2019 (EDT)
That is incorrect - and a Democrat talking point. Investigations into the criminal activity of Deep Staters and Democrats was ongoing before that bogus "impeachment inquiry" which is a cover to create the illusion that indictments of John Brennan and James Clapper are reprisals and an abuse of power. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 09:56, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
If it prevents that illusion from happening, I'm willing to wait. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 16:08, 13 October 2019 (EDT)

Conservapedia proven right?

Especially in Green's case, the less you study the liberal sludge involved with his office-holding the better (watch them try to skip the full vote to begin the impeachment inquiry) VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:57, 14 September 2019 (EDT)

Did Pelosi skip holding the vote from the whole Congress to start the House impeachment inquiry? Trump is none too pleased regardless:

The conversation with the new and very good Ukraine President, who told the Fake News, at the United Nations, that HE WAS NOT PRESSURED BY ME IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, should by and of itself bring an end to the new and most recent Witch Hunt. Others ended in ashes!
The Whistleblower’s complaint is completely different and at odds from my actual conversation with the new President of Ukraine. The so-called “Whistleblower” knew practically NOTHING in that those ridiculous charges were far more dramatic & wrong, just like Liddle’ Adam Schiff fraudulently and illegally inserted his made up & tweeted words into my call with the Ukrainian President to make it look like I did something very wrong. He then boldly read those words to Congress and millions of people, defaming & libeling me. He must resign from Congress!
The only people that don’t like my conversation with the new Ukrainian President are those that heard Rep. Adam Schiff read a made up and totally fraudulent statement to the House and public, words that I did not say but that he fabricated (& admitted to this fabrication). Sick! —Donald Trump, September 28, 2019.

VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 23:43, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

Word is, Barr is in Italy right now interviewing Mifsud personally. Mifsud is spilling his guts how Brennan roped him into something bigger than he imagined and he's been in hiding, fearing for life, cause he doesn't want to end up on the Clinton body count. Nadler and Pelosi need to take out Barr before they can take out Trump. Barr's gonna be, shall we say, upset, when he returns, cause he's not just investigating the Democrats anti-democratic election interference from 4 years ago, he sitting right in the middle of another Deep State coup.
Trump, as Commander in Chief, can call out the military against these insurrectionists. But Barr also has the U.S. Marshall Service at his disposal, as well. RobSDe Plorabus Unum
The Drudge Report seems to have gone over to the dark side. It's full of headlines that make it sound like Trump is finished. Trump's net approval is at minus 8.[5] That might not sound good, but that's pretty much as high as he has ever been. Biden is toast, according to the betting markets. Black voters don't respond to Warren. So the path is open to Hillary, according to this article. On the eve of a coup, the coup plotters will engineer a crisis. Then the coup can be portrayed as the resolution of the crisis. Maybe it's not about Hillary's triumphant return to head the Democratic Party. The media and left have financial reasons to feel nostalgic for the Mueller investigation. PeterKa (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
(A) The media wants impeachment to drive ratings; (B) Drudge is limited to sources because of Google censorship; (C) it's a rallying call to wake up voters because of the danger of the moment.
IN the Clinton impeachment, I personally worked on several issues for nearly 5 years; Not until after the House Judiciary passed the Articles (the point at witch Nixon resigned) did most Democrats for the first time ever hear the names Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, were enraged, and circled the wagons. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:13, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
Charlie Kirk isn't having any today:
Barack Obama asked Ukraine to investigate his political rival's campaign manager
3 Democrat senators asked Ukraine to investigate Trump
And the DNC solicited Ukraine's help to dig up dirt on Trump
And the media was silent about all of it.
Why is it that Democrats can spend 32 MILLION dollars investigating election meddling, all in an attempt to destroy their political enemy—the President
...But when they accuse him of doing the same thing—investigating meddling & corruption—they want to impeach him?
VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 15:49, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
America, being a two party system, always views foreign policy in black and white, good and evil. For American readers it needs to be presented as two competing factions - one pro-American, one pro-Russian (ignoring the fact Russians do not regard themselves as anti-American). Both these factions are corrupt beyond imagination. Like Dems and Pubs, one faction serves a few years kissing up to America until its driven from power due to corruption; then the other faction serves trying to strike a balance between the U.S. and Russia, until its driven from power due to corruption.
The grave sin committed here was the attempted brainwashing of Americans by Obama and media that Russia and the U.S. are enemies, and Ukraine is caught in the grip of two competing factions, one pro-American, one pro-Russian.
Christopher Steele aligned himself with anti-Russian Ukrainians and cultivated contacts when he worked for UK intelligence in the 1990s. Ironically, Russians view the Ukrainian nationalists as racist, fascist, antisemitic, anti-multicultural, anti-universal order (legacy of the Soviet times) bigots. These are the groups Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, Richard Dearlove, and the DNC chose to align themselves with, taking up their cause wholeheartedly. Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrianian/American citizen and member of the Democratic National Committee (paid $500,000 since 2004) was the linchpin who wanted to trade corrupt Putin puppets who employed Manafort, for corrupt Ukrainian fascists who employed Hunter Biden.
Chúpala fed her dirt to Steele and Isikoff; Isikoff and Steele fed that garbage to Yahoo News and the FBI, which fed it to the FISC. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:32, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
Actually, the John Birch Society and The New American, even Trevor Loudon, makes it very clear that Russians are indeed still communists, let alone bad guys, and those sources are not for Obama either nor do they shill for him. Also, I'm not sure Obama was against the Russians. I definitely recall Obama during the infamous hot-mike incident specifically stating he has one more election to go and then he'll be wide open to making concessions to the Russians. That doesn't sound like someone who's against Russia in the slightest. More likely than not, Obama cynically used Russia as a scapegoat for the hacked DNC servers to push the narrative that Donald Trump was backed by them. Maybe if the Russians completely give up Communism to such an extent that they even obliterate Soviet symbols and replace them with Tsarist symbols, I'll start believing they've truly reformed from Communism. Pokeria1 (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
The Russians are about as communist as the Chicago City Council. Sure, corruption and communism go hand in hand, coupled with greedy, undemocratic leaders who maintain control in a single party system, but the Russians are neither a nuclear threat to the U.S., a conventional military threat to the U.S. or Western Europe, or a threat to the international global trading system. Their entire economy is dependent on access to that international trading system. Exxon keeps both the Russian government, i.e. civil service, and the Russian military, afloat.
(This of course would lead us to a discussion of the use and effectiveness of targeted sanctions, a sort of microsurgery to cut off key individuals and anyone connected to them by monitoring global banking transactions via sophisticated technology. In the old days, the Germans would just send troops into Belgium or Poland; nowadays leaders have to think twice cause they can't expand their business contacts beyond markets using their own currency, and they eventually have trouble maintaining the cost of their country villa. Even Trump now has come around to the idea of targeted sanctions against Iranian mullahs, rather than a cruise missile attack.
The wisdom of this modern approach to addressing international conflicts rather than sending in troops has yet to play out. It would require another thread to fully explore). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 08:00, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Actually, the Russians right now are about as communist as the Seattle City Council. As bad as Chicago is, I don't think they've gone as far as to retain at least one monument to Marxism or even build a new monument as far as I know, while Seattle's rather infamous for having a statue of Vladimir Lenin in its premises. And the comparison is apt since they still have a monument to Karl Marx in the middle of Moscow's public square instead of doing to it what they did to Stalin and Lenin's statues and toppling it, and they still have Vladimir Lenin's tomb open to the public when, had they truly given up on Communism, they would have bulldozed that tomb and, if they were to do anything to Lenin's corpse, it would be either to bury it in an unmarked grave, or otherwise hang him from a streetlamp to set an example as to what happens if anyone dares try to bring Communism back. That's what I would do if I headed the Russian government or were the Russian people. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
Ironically, they keep Lenin's tomb open cause it's a tourist attraction, like the Pyramids. Great Wall, the Louvre, or British Museum. It's a monument to capitalism these days.
We hear much about Russian propaganda and influence in foreign elections, in Europe and America. NBC News worldwide has a budget about three times larger than the Russian Foreign Ministry which dedicates only a fraction of its budget to information and propaganda campaigns. And we haven't counted the impact of CNN, ABC, Fox, etc. yet, either. From the Russian perspective, it's difficult to compete in a world that honors free speech when they are outspent about 60-1 globally. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 08:32, 30 September 2019 (EDT)


You told us a story that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry wanted a photo-op with a rebel leader and a Syrian government official to highlight and secure a peace treaty, and that Putin provided one too and ordered the other killed and secured a peace treaty independently.
To retaliate, Obama broke off diplomatic relations with Russia (or at least at a number of embassies) on some pretext at the end of his administration while staging NATO military exercises at the same time. Trump and Putin were able to secure each other's trust, and nothing came of it except feeding obliquely into the holdover intelligence community's conspiracy to falsely attribute to Trump the pursuit of Russian interests before his own country which failed catastrophically.
Now you're telling us there was an anti-Russian cabal in government that was "aligned" with the Obama administration making things happen.
But the antagonistic tone of the investigation always seemed to be the resentment of the (allegedly intelligent) intelligence community toward a leader not dependent on anyone, and who therefore couldn't be pressured into backing off from scrutinizing their little fiefdom.
How did they think that an anti-Russian sentiment could be evoked from such a clumsy contrivance, when it was clear from the beginning that Obama did not like Russia? I originally thought they were carrying out Obama's sweet revenge, but then I actually believed the Russians were involved, because who would have the mental...inadequacy as to set themselves up for the kind of backlash that would inevitably follow? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 22:44, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
(ec) I don't know where the Kerry reference comes from, but neither Hillary nor Obama had much experience or understanding of foreign policy while in the Senate. True, Hillary had more DC experience in the White House and Senate, but never an indepth interest or understanding of foreign policy until - the formation of the Clinton Foundation.
As Secretary of State, Hillary was more qualified and experienced than Obama, but going back to the Riady's and the Chinagate scandal, their only approach was shaking down international donors for access. Cold War politics and ideology exited American foreign policy with the Clinton's in the 1990s; now it was focused on influence peddling, access to technology, and trade deals.
Ukraine has always been the red-headed stepchild in the Russian sphere, going back to the Czars. The Germans tried to make it part of Germany twice in two World Wars (Hitler was going to make the Crimea the "German Riveria" by extending the autobahn east from Budapest, as the climate is pretty nice there by European standards). Now the Ukrainians want to be part of the EU (i.e. that dream and vision of the Kaisar and Hitler that the rest of the world was adamantly opposed to. Sheesh, the EU can't keep its own house in order right now, let alone expand out to the Black Sea).
So what do the Russians have to say about this 21st Century dream of Hitler and the Kaisers coming true, now?
Then, when you factor in 70 years of multicultural communist integration, making the number of Russians and Ukrainians evenly split at 50%, with halfbreeds of Turks and Slavs everywhere, you think Russia will allow a NATO base at Sevastopol? Will the UK allow a Russian submarine base at Dublin? Will the US allow a Chinese naval base at Acapulco?
I mean, c'mon. Just what have these Democrats been teaching our children the past 40-50 years> RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:26, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
And since I'm asking, why would anti-Russian Hillary negotiate the sale of large amounts of Uranium to Russia? VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 23:11, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
Cashola (a brokers fee for the Clintons). The US was bound by previous trade agreements, mainly the Sakhalin I & II projects negotiated by Rex Tillerson in 1996, which allowed Exon to be part owners of the land and resources where they drilled (unlike the deal with Saudi Aramco in 1926 where the Saudis retained exclusive ownership of all land and reserves below ground). As a quid pro quo, Russia was free to buy land and mineral resources in North America. The deal itself was legal, the $500,000 brokerage fee to paid the Clinton family is not. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 23:32, 29 September 2019 (EDT)

Kerrys and queries

Here is your Kerry reference, Rob:

Trump's moves to take control of the CIA

Trump's authorization to the CIA to expedite drone strikes, that with Pence's statement Julian Assange should be locked up for life, and the firing of Flynn, are the first steps to repair the breach with the Intelligence Community. It is IC's turn to come around, and they can begin by telling McCain & Graham, "False Alarm!" "There's no 'There' there!" RobS (March 14, 2017)

The issuance of authority to CIA for drone strikes without the checkback provisions Obama had is a Win-Win for Trump and the CIA. It gives the CIA authority to do drone strikes on leadership of militias loyal to the Syrian regime while at the same time giving Trump deniability he ordered strikes against Putin and Assad allies.

This is presumably payback for Russian intervention in Syria. In late 2015, John Kerry arranged for Syrian peace talks with Assad and the Russians on one side, and the 'Syrian opposition' and US on the other. However the Russians whacked the 'Syrian opposition leader' the US groomed after talks were agreed on but before the US puppet could get to the table, leaving Assad & Putin in full control and making Kerry & Obama look like the idiots they are. RobS (March 14, 2017)

VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 16:39, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

Ok, thanks for digging it out. It took me a minute to regain context and I just noticed this thread her right now. Sorry for the delay. The question is (referring to the present Ukrainian and Russia collusion schemes, I presume):
How did they think that an anti-Russian sentiment could be evoked from such a clumsy contrivance, when it was clear from the beginning that Obama did not like Russia? I originally thought they were carrying out Obama's sweet revenge, but then I actually believed the Russians were involved, because who would have the mental...inadequacy as to set themselves up for the kind of backlash that would inevitably follow?
"They" being IC conspirators presumably, and "clear from the beginning" only refers to "clear from the be