Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(put on main page right)
(The subtext)
 
Line 4: Line 4:
  
  
==[[Horror of a unique position|The horror of a non-unique position]]==
+
==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="10" 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
 +
!End of<br>month<br>Tues-<br>day,<br>Oct.<br>1,<br>2019
 +
!Mon-<br>day<br>Oct.<br>7,<br>2019
 +
!Mon-<br>day<br>Oct.<br>14,<br>2019
 +
!Sat-<br>urday<br>Oct.<br>19,<br>2019
 +
!style="border-right:1px solid gray"|Mon-<br>day<br>Oct.<br>28,<br>2019
 +
!Mon-<br>day<br>Nov.<br>4,<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"|20.6%
 +
|align="right"|17.2%
 +
|align="right"|18.0%
 +
|align="right"|16.4%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|19.2%
 +
|align="right"|19.6%
 +
|-
 +
|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"|0.8%
 +
|align="right"|0.9%
 +
|align="right"|0.9%
 +
|align="right"|0.8%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|0.6%
 +
|align="right"|0.6%
 +
|-
 +
|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"|5.1%
 +
|align="right"|5.9%
 +
|align="right"|6.7%
 +
|align="right"|8.3%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|9.8%
 +
|align="right"|14.3%
 +
|-
 +
|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"|1.4%
 +
|align="right"|1.3%
 +
|align="right"|1.2%
 +
|align="right"|1.5%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|1.3%
 +
|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"|4.3%
 +
|align="right"|4.3%
 +
|align="right"|2.6%
 +
|align="right"|3.1%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|1.8%
 +
|align="right"|1.3%
 +
|-
 +
|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"|7.8%
 +
|align="right"|5.6%
 +
|align="right"|4.2%
 +
|align="right"|7.0%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|7.5%
 +
|align="right"|12.1%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Elizabeth Warren]]
 +
|{{invi|War}}
 +
|align="center"|MA
 +
|align="right" style="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"|46.7%
 +
|align="right"|50.6%
 +
|align="right"|51.8%
 +
|align="right"|48.5%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|43.7%
 +
|align="right"|33.1%
 +
|-
 +
|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"|5.7%
 +
|align="right"|5.0%
 +
|align="right"|5.8%
 +
|align="right"|5.1%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|6.1%
 +
|align="right"|5.4%
 +
|-
 +
|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"|4.4%
 +
|align="right"|4.7%
 +
|align="right"|3.9%
 +
|align="right"|3.5%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|3.0%
 +
|align="right"|3.4%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Amy Klobuchar]]
 +
|{{invi|Klo}}
 +
|align="center"|MN
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|1.8%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|0.7%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|0.6%
 +
|align="right"|0.5%
 +
|align="right"|0.4%
 +
|align="right"|0.9%
 +
|align="right"|1.3%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|1.0%
 +
|align="right"|1.5%
 +
|}
  
"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]
+
{| 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;" | 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>July<br>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
 +
!New<br>accts<br>Nov<br>1
 +
|-
 +
|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="right"|+48,000
 +
|-
 +
|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="right"|+16,000
 +
|-
 +
|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="right"|+34,000
 +
|-
 +
|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="right"|+141,000
 +
|-
 +
|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="right"|+48,000
 +
|-
 +
|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"|<s>+4,000</s>
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|<s>+116,000</s>
 +
|align="right"|<s>+30,000</s>
 +
|align="right"|<s>+14,000</s>
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|<s>+24,000</s>
 +
|align="right"|<s>+22,000</s>
 +
|align="right"|<s>+13,000</s>
 +
|-
 +
|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="right"|+146,000
 +
|-
 +
|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="right"|+107,000
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sec'y [[Hillary Clinton]]
 +
|{{invi|Cli}}
 +
|align="center"|NY
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|24.7M:1
 +
|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="right"|+171,000
 +
|-
 +
|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
 +
|align="right"|+39,000
 +
|}
  
GLENDALE, CA—A man was rushed to the hospital yesterday after encountering a slightly different viewpoint than his own Wednesday.
+
==Trump's legitimate ''quid pro quo''==
+
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."
+
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.
  
Four other bystanders were also emotionally injured by the moderately divergent opinion but were not hospitalized.
+
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.
  
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.
+
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 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/]
  
The man who suggested the slightly differing opinion fled the scene. Anyone with information is asked to alert the authorities.
+
:"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)
  
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 03:08, 22 April 2019 (EDT)
+
::Perfect. I hope this clarifies things.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 17:55, 19 October 2019 (EDT)
:I hope they had conservative anti-venom at the hospital. :)
+
:::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)
  
:I forgot how much I love the Babylon Bee.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:01, 22 April 2019 (EDT)
+
==Warren's 3½ month climb comes to an end==
::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)
+
:::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)
+
::::I like [[class warrior]]s. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 17:33, 25 April 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)
+
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!
::::::[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==
+
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)
  
She will test the theory, but, if it's true, how can the equation E=m''c''<sup>2</sup> be true?
+
====Warren's odds plummet 10½%====
  
::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? 
+
Don't say RobS didn't warn you, folks. He didn't even mention Kamala Harris, but she's similar to Hillary too, and the DNC and the donors had been grooming her for the Presidential roleNotwithstanding, she was a precursor to Warren's precipitous plummet, a front-runner having dropped to 2%. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 23:14, 4 November 2019 (EST)
::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.)
+
:Yep. As Harris herself says, those racist and sexist Democrats aren't ready for black woman president.  
::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 scientistsBecause 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)
+
:Things are setting up pretty good for a wildcard, a dark horse, maybe even a third party candidate. Otherwise we're looking a Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg is hard to get excited aboutOTOH, Biden hasn't suffered much, he's holding steady with his black base. It's hard to imagine blacks jumping from Biden to Buttigieg, Warren, or Sanders. Polls show Trump has a 42% approval among black males. If that holds, it won't matter who the Democrats nominate. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:34, 4 November 2019 (EST)
:[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’].
+
::It's bizarre to see Biden leading the pack again.[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html] This is a man with no discernible principles or talent beyond raking in all that dirty money from Ukraine, China, Romania, etc. etc. [https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Jimmy+Dore+biden+president&view=detail&mid=07D9BE56CD19CA8DDFDB07D9BE56CD19CA8DDFDB&FORM=VIRE This video] of Biden forgetting Obama's name has to be seen to be believed: "He's saying that it was President [long pause with blank expression] my boss." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:58, 5 November 2019 (EST)
:[[Barry Setterfield]] vindicated? :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:21, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Blacks are sticking with a moderate they know. It demonstrates that blacks are not particularly excited or happy about the radical left turn the rest of the party has taken. Remember blacks are pro-God, pro-family, pro-entrepreneurial capitalism, pro-gun rights for self defense (after their experience with the KKK and Democrats), anti-crime, anti-bad schools, anti-illegal immigration, and anti-stupidity.  
:::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.
+
:::Blacks who don't support Biden support Trump. [https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/11/04/number-democrats-showing-trump-rallies-stunning/] We're seeing the long awaited break up of the Democratic behemoth.  Blacks know instinctively if they don't stop voting Democrat, it will be another 150 years before a black man is ever elected President after the experience of Obama. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:09, 5 November 2019 (EST)
  
:::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)
+
==Popular government==
::::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 thatFair enough.
+
The United States may not be a democracy, but [[James Madison]] called it a popular governmentHe also said:
  
::::::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)
+
:[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...
:
+
::::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.
+
:
+
::::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)
+
:[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)
::::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 ===
+
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 02:01, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:The word that has crept into the American political vocabulary ''via'' Hillary Clinton no less is [[stakeholder]]. It's still common now in State Department press releases, usually about negotiations with foreign "stakeholders" while ignoring popular sentiment in various countries. Mexico, Egypt, and Turkey are all considered "democratic" in American parlance, while really being governed by "stakeholders", similar to the British House of Lords prior to the 1990s reforms. Brexit and Trumpism are struggles between populism and established "stakeholders", i.e. multinational corporate globalists. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:02, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
  
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)
+
==Response to unimportant remarks==
: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)
+
  
==History is the new intellectual battlefield==
+
Some self-proclaimed watchdogs of truth here are in reality Big Babies for their liberal cause. What is this uproar among the nationsWhy 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."
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)
+
: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 itHopefully 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 sunlight. Is 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 media.  It's been neglected for far too long to be honest. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 23:07, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
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 religionHe also seems completely unaware that it has been that way for over thirty years.
:::::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 reasoningsNo 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 ==
+
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.
  
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)
+
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.
: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 ==
+
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)
  
This is my new name for SJWs.  There 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.
+
==Golden Fleece Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2016 dinner guests==
  
[[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?"
+
[[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]]
  
This line of thinking can also be applied to Hillary's response to the New Zealand atrocity.
+
The White House<br>
 +
Washington D.C.<br>
 +
1:00 pm<br>
 +
Formal attire<br>
 +
RSVP<br>
  
: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."
+
Menu<br>
 +
[it writes itself] Roast Trump
  
:White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.
 
  
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.
+
[[Diane Feinstein]] liked China together with [[Joe Biden]]<br>
 +
[[Sean Misko]] Second whistle-blower, recruited by [[Adam Schiff]], August 2019<br>
 +
[[Abigail Grace]] Schiff employee, recruited February 2019<br>
  
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."
+
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 01:56, 21 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:
+
==[[O’Sullivan’s First Law]]==
  
:"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..."
+
[[File:Pew polls Democrat divergence 1994-2017.jpg|right|275px]]
 +
It's not your imagination.
  
:"The American colonists need to drop their objections to taxation without representation and own up to their Britainophobic prejudices against Tyranny."
+
:Wow, those graphs really illustrate the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:11, 21 October 2019 (EDT)
  
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.
+
==Y'all==
 +
...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)
 +
::::Did the media ever object to any investigation of Trump? The Obama FBI thoroughly investigated him when he was a candidate -- and came up with nothing. At least that's what the NYT reported at the time. Hunter Biden got $83,000 a month from Burisma and never even went to Ukraine. It was probably all because of his unique skill set and had nothing at all to do with the fact that his dad was Obama's "point man" on Ukraine. All the same, I don't see any harm in asking the Ukrainian government to check it out. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:15, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Bill Taylor is a Russian asset. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:10, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
Trump is not only resilient, he is anti-fragile. What do I mean by that? I mean not only are these illegitimate attacks and threats of impeachment not harming Trump, but they are making him stronger. When the Democrates shout impeachment, Trump's reelection team sounds out campaign donation requests and the money is flooding in. Please see: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_qvvyUhMxg Trump's record-breaking cash haul reportedly rattling Dems].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 11:22, 23 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.
+
:''Antifragile?!'' Trump is going to pieces so fast, most of his people have abandoned their posts to avoid the smouldering orange shrapnel. There's no way we would've seen the Syria or Doral disasters if he still had a functioning WH/legal team (or competent Congressional allies) determined to see him through to 2020.  
:
+
"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.
+
:
+
"Australian Christopher Havard, 27, and dual New Zealand - Australian national Daryl Jones were killed by a missile fired by a US drone in November...
+
:
+
"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.
+
:
+
"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...
+
:
+
"Dr Mohammad Alayan, a former senior member of the Christchurch Mosque, said claims of radical Islam in Christchurch were 'not true'.
+
:
+
"The mosque in Christchurch is very against that. Islam is all about peace."
+
:
+
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.
+
:
+
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:
+
  
: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.
+
:This is the ugly twisting in the wind stage while McConnell tries to figure out how to pull the trigger and still save the Senate. Expect Bolton and Romney to play prominent roles, with Pence as the clean-hands conservative for the base to rally round afterwards.  [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 17:00, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::I think we should dig up all your past predictions of Trump's imminent doom. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 17:06, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::You mean the Syrian cease-fire????  (This is my impression of SamHB's unnecessary punctuation manoeuvre, where he tries to stun readers into abandoning rational thought.  Only this time, the question is based on something relevant. And yes, I know I'm replying to JohnZ—SamHB does it too.) [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 17:16, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Knock yourself out, man. It's almost certainly of greater historical utility than chronicling Trump's "achievements". [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 17:39, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Yet, you won't comment on the cease-fire.  <s>Coward</s>. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 17:41, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::The withdrawal / "cease-fire" looks like a rotten deal for the Kurds. It's also hard to see how it advances US interests in the region. See if the Israelis are happy about it. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 17:58, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
[[File:C9Pak4-W0AIldKy (1).jpg|right|350px|thumb|Jake Sullivan to Hillary Clinton, Feb. 12, 2012, "Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria." ''The Guardian'' reported on July 30, 2012, “[Al-Qaida’s] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state.” [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria] ]]
 +
:::::::Yah. Real leadership. First you arm al Qaeda. When al Qaeda morphs into ISIS and starts beheading people, then you arm the Kurds to fight the monster you created. The Kurds take the arms you give them and commit terrorist attacks against a NATO ally.
 +
:::::::Why don't you go die for Obamunism and Clintonism if its such a glorious cause.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:15, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::Man, I love it when you try and do history. You'll never have the stones to admit it, but you were cheering bin Laden, the mujahideen and the CIA every inch of the way when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.
  
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''?
+
::::::::And as far as the current situation in Syria goes, there's a whole bunch of GOP senators who've just witnessed Trump get pantsed by Erdogan and Putin. Bear that in mind when you're running the odds on his Senate trial. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 22:40, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
  
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?
+
:::::::::No, we did not cheer on or, heck, have any involvement in bin Laden or al Qaeda's actions in Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan war. He got his own form of training and supplies. The 9/11 Commission Report made that VERY clear. Now, the mujahideen was in fact backed by us, but on the other hand, the mujahideen also attempted to aid us in taking out Osama bin Laden during the Clinton years (just watch Path to 9/11, or more specifically the deleted footage). As far as GOP senators, give names (besides Mitch McConnell, I mean). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:58, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
  
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)
+
::::::::::Eh? Who's this "we" you're talking about? You weren't even born when the Soviets withdrew. And if you think bin Laden wasn't elbow deep in the wider mujahideen effort - and coordinating extensively with other US-backed proxies - then you've got yourself some serious lernin' to do.  
: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)
+
::::::::::As for GOP senators, there's currently a grand total of [https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/22/republican-senator-ruled-out-impeachment-trump/ ''seven''] who've come out explicitly against impeachment. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 16:12, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
::::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)
+
::::::::::::[https://www.scribd.com/doc/431916070 46 Republican Senators] are on the record condemning the unconstitutional Pelosi/Schiff impeachment process: 1.Graham 2.McConnell 3.Grassley 4.Thune 5.Blunt 6.Shelby 7.Inhofe 8.Roberts 9.Crapo 10.Cornyn 11.Burr 12.Barrasso 13.Wicker 14.Risch 15.Boozman 16.Moran 17.Toomey 18.Rubio 19.Paul 20.Hoeven 21.Lee 22.Johnson 23.Scott (SC) 24.Fischer 25.Cruz 26.Capito 27.Cassidy 28.Lankford 29.Cotton 30.Daines 31.Perdue 32.Ernst 33.Tillis 34.Rounds 35.Sasse 36.Young 37.Kennedy 38.Hyde-Smith 39.Blackburn 40.Cramer 41.McSally 42.Braun 43.Hawley 44.Scott (FL) 45.Portman and 46.Sullivan. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:30, 24 October 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 ==
+
<--- Well, it's much more measured in tone than the Cipollone letter, but it's just as constitutionally illiterate. Trump will get all the rich creamy justice and due process he can handle in his Senate trial. In the meantime, the House gets to set the rules and there's no requirement to hold a vote on starting an impeachment inquiry. Graham and McConnell know this, of course, but they're hoping the rubes and loons in the base will swallow it as a sincere and suitably ''forceful'' act of protest.
  
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)
+
Don Jr. and allies have already condemned it as weak sauce process / precedent bluster (which it obviously is), and apparently want Graham to start holding parallel hearings in the Senate. Lindsey's none too enthusiastic about that, though... [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 21:56, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:This is a tempest in a teapot. Barr/Durham will start raining down the artillery of prosecution on some of the Democrats. The Senate will vote not to impeach Trump. And the exceedingly weak Democratic candidate to Trump in the presidential election will be steamrolled by the 2020 Trumpslide. It will be a brutal campaign, but Trump will once again be the triumphant winner. Because that is what winners do. They win![[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 23:22, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::I think our friend JohnZ doesn't understand the American justice system. Even a homeless bum on the street who's arrested for panhandling understands that he is entitled to [[due process]], which Democrats have ignored and bulldozed under a mountain of garbage. If they want to proceed with this railroad job of burning the Constitution in plain sight of all, it will cost them dearly for generations to come - generations that survive their abortion holocaust and generations of immigrants. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 03:54, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
  
: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)
+
:::Wut? Trump is currently in a far better position than any ordinary poor schmo under criminal investigation. There are '''47''' GOP members of the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees entitled to sit in on the depositions and ask questions, so he's got ''friendly representation'' in what is essentially a grand jury process.
  
==Congress's arrest powers==
+
:::And when that 47 includes partisan cranks-on-wheels like Devin Nunes, Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan, no sane person believes that a) witnesses aren't being subjected to hostile questioning, or that b) Trump isn't getting a blow-by-blow account of proceedings. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 21:49, 26 October 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,
+
::::It's not even worth debating if you are going to pretend to be that ignorant of justice, due process, and the Constitution. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:58, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
:''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]
+
:::::You keeping banging on about the Constitution. It's so silent on the matter, Pelosi could write "abuse of power" on the back of a napkin and put it forward as an article of impeachment for the House to vote on. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 22:31, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
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).
+
::::::You are correct. The House could even vote on and pass it. And it's ''still'' a violation of an American citizens due process rights. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:33, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
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==
+
:::::::Nope. In our hypothetical, a fair trial in the Senate would give Trump his full complement of due process rights. He'd also have his Fifth Amendment grand jury protection prior to this, as Nancy's napkin would have to convince a majority of the House to vote to impeach.
  
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.
+
:::::::If you want to argue otherwise, you'll need to show how being impeached by the House deprives Trump of life, liberty, or property. Best of luck with that. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 12:07, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
  
But to me there are still some unanswered questions.
+
::::::Wrong. Your hypothetical, an impeachment based on bad faith as ''you'' chose to put it, written ''"on a napkin"'' deprives the ''American people'' the due process rights of an election!  Trump is our agent!  And we will not stand for you to deny them, even in the form of insulting hypotheticals! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 21:42, 28 October 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?
+
:::::::Great stuff. Go shake your fist at the Constitution, not me. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 22:15, 28 October 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
+
::::::Your hypothetical contradicts itself, not the constitution! A denial of the rights of the American people through a bad faith impeachment could not [allow Trump to be provided] with procedural due process [by extension] to his grand jury [despite] the fifth amendment rights you assume <s>they</s> would protect [them], because [the results of the denial] would be fruit from a poisonous tree! If I were you, I'd choose my next words very carefully, as you've already chosen words beneath what the dignity of the American people should be obliged to bear! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 23:13, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
::*''The Grand Design'' by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow
+
::*''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.
+
:::::::Go home, Vargas. [https://youtube.com/watch?v=0k9SjMpAxRM You're drunk]. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 23:53, 28 October 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 planeBut the black hole vortex looks more turbulent than one would think the gravity well of Jupiter would be.  So 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.
+
::::::Well, that is a fairly unintelligible responseLet us hope this non-responsive utterance marks a return to an emphasis on learning and a departure from gratuitously insulting Trump—he undeserving of such, as demonstrated by the record of his achievements and accomplishments so comprehensively curated by [[User:1990'sguy]] in the Conservapedia article [[Donald Trump achievements]] and its sub-articles. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 15:39, 29 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.
+
  
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?
+
===Obama bin Biden's jihadis===
::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.
+
:::::::::::"We" as in America, obviously. And while it is true that I wasn't born when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, I can tell you that the [https://web.archive.org/web/20060601201108/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf 9/11 commission report] specifically states on page 56 that, and I quote, "But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States." And the [https://web.archive.org/web/20150307182839/http://www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT-23.pdf footnote] near that even expands upon that by saying, and I quote, "In his memoir,Ayman al Zawahiri contemptuously rejects the claim that the Arab mujahideen were financed (even “one penny”) or trained by the United States. See Zawahiri,“Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner,” Al Sharq al Awsat,Dec.2,2001.CIA officials involved in aiding the Afghan resistance regard Bin Ladin and his “Arab Afghans” as having been militarily insignificant in the war and recall having little to do with him. Gary Schroen interview (Mar.3,2003)."
:::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.
+
:::::::::::And I meant "give names" regarding which GOP senators witnessed Trump being "pantsed". And besides, there are 100 senators in the senate, so I'm pretty sure the Republican Party is the majority party, with 53 Republicans in the Senate. Even if 7 went up against impeachment, you still haven't listed the number of how many explicitly voted for impeachment, either. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:24, 24 October 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 subject?  What is the thing that the "firewall" surrounds?  What are the "event horizon" and "apparent horizon" if neither one of them exists?
+
::::::::::JohnZ, It's a moot point you're arguing about bin laden in the 1980s. Yes, bin Laden single-handedly took down the godless Soviet Union. Then, full of himself, he was going to take down the House of Saud and the United States, as well. And finally, create the Islamic State. You're peeing in the wind, again. Arming bin Laden was [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEsXLNE8tA Zbigniew Brzezinski's idea] after his brilliant "human rights" policy brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power. What's your point? Other than to prove what an ignorant idiot you are? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:51, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::::::::Wut? My point - though you'll never admit it - is you were 100% cheering on Reagan, the CIA, the mujahideen (and by extension, bin Laden) when they were fighting the filthy commies in Afghanistan. So it's pretty funny watching you now play the committed isolationist and parroting Putin's talking points on US interventionism. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 17:29, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
::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)
+
:::::::::::::First of all, while Reagan and the CIA were backing the mujahideen, they did NOT back bin Laden, or al Qaeda. In fact, Ayman al Zawahiri specifically stated that al Qaeda didn't get any backing from the United States, not even one penny, and specifically stated it in his tract ''Knights Under the Prophet's Banner'', which BTW was also sourced in the 9/11 Commission Report. And another thing, who said we're denying our backing Reagan and the CIA? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:51, 24 October 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)
+
:::::::::::"Arming bin Laden was [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEsXLNE8tA Zbigniew Brzezinski's idea] after his brilliant "human rights" policy brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power." Ah, don't you mean "arming the mujahideen" was Brzezinski's idea? Both Gary Schroen and Ayman al Zawahiri specifically denied that the United States supplied much, if any training and financing to al Qaeda, or for that matter to bin Laden, who headed al Qaeda back then as well. There's plenty to blame Brzezinski for, including the disastrous "human rights" policy that resulted in Iran becoming a terror state and the closest thing to a Caliphate, but I'm not sure al Qaeda/bin Laden is one of the tings to blame him for (and believe me, if he did in fact arm them, I most certainly would make sure he's blamed for it). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:16, 24 October 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:
+
::::::::::::Go do some more reading. If, after that, you can't see the historical significance of establishing an Islamist international brigade, then I really can't help you.
::[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===
+
::::::::::::Not sure what to make of your last paragraph (previous post). They all witnessed Trump get pantsed. There's no way to spin it as good for US interests / allies in the region, and this will likely have a bearing on how many of them vote in the Senate trial.  
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 ==
+
::::::::::::None of them have (or will) vote for impeachment. That's the House's job. Are you talking about who I think would vote to convict? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 17:32, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
[[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]  
+
:::::::::::::I gave you the 9/11 Commission Report, and more than that, I even gave you sources cited within that document, in particular ''Knights Under the Prophet's Banner'' written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, and even an interview with Gary Schroen dated March 3, 2003 specifically stating that al Qaeda had minimal, if any funding or backing by the US during the Soviet-Afghan war. Not to mention [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asw8fhpz0wA a deleted scene] for ''Path to 9/11'' specifically had Mujahideen attempting to aid CIA agents in taking out Bin Laden (and only didn't do so because Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton evidently got cold feet, with the Mujahideen evidently having nothing to do with their failure, and if anything the Mujahideen were very adamant in wanting to kill Bin Laden, which can be gleaned from what bits of Path to 9/11 they DIDN'T cut due to Clinton interference.). And you shouldn't have mentioned GOP senators earlier regarding the whole Trump getting "pantsed" thing. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:51, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::::And what is YOUR JOB here on this website, JohnZ?  So far all I've been seeing is a shoveling of your leftist ideology that's at odds with this site and the people in it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 17:37, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::Bin Laden was rich. He didn't need CIA money. he was part of a coalition of the CIA and Saudi Arabia. He spent his own money ferrying jihadis from Saudi Arabia and the Middle East to Pakistan and Afghanistan. He spent most of his time in Pakistan as a cheerleader and motivational speaker for jihadis ("[[community organizer]]" in Marxist terms). He was one of the few leaders who survived the war (1988-89), and returned to Saudi Arabia as a hero and hometown kid who did good.  His falling out with the Saudi ruling klan came in 1991, when his offer to use his Afghan veteran jihadis to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was rejected, and King Fahd invited American military personal into the Islamic Holy Land for the express purpose of killing Muslims.
 +
::::::::::::Bin Laden's crime was being anti-globalist and anti-politically correct (he didn't like the U.S. military which included women, Jews, and Christians who carried the bible and wore the cross). Contemporary communists try to make something out of his anti-communist alliance with the CIA in the 1980s as something hypocritical. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:00, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::IOWs, bin Laden spent his own money to fly jihadis into Pakistan/Afghanistan and remained on the ground as a coach. Once they were there, the CIA armed them. So yes, there is no material assistance provided to bin Laden.
 +
::::::::::::Bin Laden was a supporter of the Saudi monarchy throughout this period.
 +
::::::::::::By 1991, bin Laden and his followers viewed themselves as responsible for the destruction of the Soviet Superpower. Puffed up in their pride, they thought they could take on the U.S., the Saudi ruling klan, and Israel next and establish a Sunni Islamic State, along the lines of the Shia Islamic state established by Brzezinski and the Carter administration in Iran in 1979. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:22, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::It should further be noted, traditional jihadis and Islamists thought bin Laden was nuts, and still do. Since 1948 and the creation of Israel, the saying was that "the road to Jerusalem is through Cairo", meaning a revolution to retake Jerusalem would begin in Cairo (as in 1948, 1967, 1973, etc.). Bin Laden held a minority view that the way to retake Jerusalem, and ultimately Mecca to establish an Islamic State, was through New York and the World Trade Center. Traditional jihadis in Egypt and elsewhere viewed  this dangerous and crazy, which would call down the wrath of the United States on the jihadis all over the globe. They viewed bin Laden's crusade as a personal vendetta between him and the Saudi ruling klan. He remains a controversial figure; while he's appreciated for uniting and inspiring jihadis worldwide, most jihadi strategic thinkers view his strategy as flawed, dangerous, and insane. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:39, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::::So, wait, hold up. How could the CIA have been involved in Bin Laden and al Qaeda during the 1980s when Ayman al-Zawahiri made it very explicit that they never received any funding or training in his memoirs? Or for that matter Gary Schroen in that interview specifically saying that the CIA had very minimal, if any actual backing of Osama bin Laden. I find it hard to believe that Bin Laden's #2 man in al Qaeda would specifically deny and even scoff at the idea of the CIA or America backing al Qaeda, or Osama bin Laden for that matter, if they actually did. Being his #2 guy, he'd know about al Qaeda's history and inner workings, not to mention alliances made between the organization and others, directly or otherwise. That's kind of the entire point of being the #2 guy, to be entrusted with this information and man the inner workings of the group. Even if we were to argue the whole thing about Gary Schroen was CIA misinformation, I fail to see why al-Zawahiri would lie about something like that, especially when by that point, he and al Qaeda were very obviously not part of the CIA and if anything open enemies. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 21:59, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::::First off, let's clear up some basic facts: (1) al qaeda was not formed until the 1990s, ''after'' bin Laden's expulsion from Saudi Arabia and ''after'' his expulsion from the Sudan; (2) Ayman Zawahiri was sitting in an Egyptian jail throughout half the 1980s for his involvement in the assassination of Anwar Sadat; (3) Zawahiri and bi Laden did not formally link up until after both their expulsions from Sudan in the 1990s.
 +
::::::::::::::During the [[Soviet-Afghan War]], the CIA and Saudi regime worked together. The Saudis provided manpower from all all over the Mid East, and bin Laden's personal financial contribution was to provide airfare. He didn't provide material assistance to jihadis once they were flown there - that came from the CIA. And bin Laden was not content to sit home in Saudi Arabia and be just a financial backer - he lived in Pakistan and functioned as (one of several) preachers of jihad, giving moral and spiritual guidance to young jihadis (although he was never trained as an Islamic scholar). When the war ended, [https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Yusuf_Azzam Abdullah Yusuf Azzam] was assassinated under mysterious circumstances. Azzam was considered the spiritual leader the jihad, but bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia claiming the title.
 +
::::::::::::::As cited, traditional jihadis of the Sayyid Qtab and Hassan al Banna stripe, always considered jihad against secular leaders as their main objective, such as Sadat, Mubarak, Assad, Saddam, the Shah, or King Hussein of Jordan. This was the big difference between [https://ctc.usma.edu/harmony-program/zawahiris-letter-to-zarqawi-original-language-2/ Ayman al-Zarqawi] (founder of AQI and ISIL) and bin Laden.  Ayman al-Zawahiri took the Egyptian Islamic Jihad in a different direction, which was and remains controversial. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (or Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) was always focused overtrhowing first Nassar, then Sadat, then Mubarak, now Sisi. Zawahiri got in bed with bin Laden and brought the wrath of the United States down upon the Egyptian Islamic Jihad for his role in the Embassy bombings. Zawahiri remains on the outs of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad homies for making the jihad global and inviting the U.S. to pursue them. Obama sympathized with them by helping overthrow Mubarak, and widened the split between al Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
 +
::::::::::::::IOWs, al Qaeda mostly always was and is a detached branch of Egyptian jihadis in exile at odds with the homies remaining in Egypt. Bin Laden supplied the money. Zawahiri supplied the manpower. I suspect Zawahiri's denials about CIA funding in the 1980s is simply to protect what they consider the first of their great achievements - that a ragtag bunch of jihadis destroyed a Superpower, the Soviet Union. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:07, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
  
In the above picture, Amish residents are waving to President George W. Bush (Lancaster, Pa., August 2006)]]
+
::::::::::::::A word on the material assistance provided by the U.S.: The only American hardware provided (eventually, after any years), were TOW missiles or [[MANPADS]] to shoot down helicopters, which proved decisive. Prior to that, it was all Soviet equipment (trucks, guns, etc) the U.S. acquired from Egypt as a result of the 1979 Camp David Accords when Egypt became a U.S. client state and kicked the Soviets out. Perhaps because Zawahiri saw no American equipment, only Soviet, he denied any U.S. contribution. And bin Laden certainly did not have the resources to ship the volume of equipment from Egypt to Pakistan.
The [[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]]
+
::::::::::::::The reason for using exclusively Soviet equipment in the war zone is the issue of spare parts; for example, if a truck needs a generator, it can be cannibalized off a captured Soviet truck or one partially destroyed in combat. These are lessons learned from the Germans during WWII, at Kursk and North Africa where spare parts became a big issue. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 09:33, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
  
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]
+
====JohnZ's "Kurdish" communist professional victims====
  
[[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]]
+
:::::::::::::Crybaby JohnZ's charity case, the "Kurds", have their counterpart to Insana bin Laden (follow the money):
  
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)
+
:::::::::::::The Kurds' Democratic Union Party (PYD), the Kurds JohnZ are referring to, has a military wing, the People’s Protection Units (YPG) the "international" office of Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the Marxist group at war with Turkey since 1984, causing tens of thousands of deaths and is listed by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization.
  
: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)
+
:::::::::::::The Obama Administration counseled YPG leadership to camouflage the group’s roots in the PKK after getting them to fight ISIS--they were rebranded the Syrian Democratic Forces, being promised U.S. weapons and money, which brought in other Arabs.
==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)
+
:::::::::::::The whole goal right now is to bring the activities of Obama's "foreign legions" to a close, not tally up more to Kurdish communists' killcounts. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 16:05, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
: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 ==
+
::::::::::::::And you have to study the activities of the [https://cryptome.org/ansar-al-islam.htm Kurdish Ansar al-Islam], which merged with Ayman al-Zarqawi]]'s group in 2004 and founded the Islamic State in 2014. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup>
  
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)
+
:::::::::::::::Aye. You've convinced me. What have the Kurds ever done for us, eh? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 21:56, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
: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)
+
::::::::::::::::Well, explain to me why Kurdish [[nationalism]] is suddenly sacred and holy to anti-nationalist globalists right now, other than pure opportunism? I think we've made the case that "The Kurds" are a wide, diverse group. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 04:16, 26 October 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 ==
+
<---The Iraqi Kurds got their spoils of war for fighting alongside the US against Saddam, and later ISIS. It hardly seems unreasonable for the Syrian Kurds to get theirs as well. If Erdogan wants to secure the border to stop traffic between the Turkish and Syrian Kurds, then let him do it on his side of the fence. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 21:49, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:<s>I love it. "Syrian", "traffic".</s> [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 23:38, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::JohnZ, you still don't get it. Abu Musab Zarqawi, founder of the Islamic State, set up a chemical weapons plant in Iraqi Kurdistan, under U.S. protection of the No Fly Zone. Zarqawi merged his organization with the Kurdish Ansar al-Islam. [http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln&us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln_general_topics=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln_al_zarqawi___al_qaeda_in_iraq "The Iraqi Kurds" were co-founders of the Islamic State], if you wanna play stupid with words.
 +
::Saddam didn't have a chemical weapons factory -- the Kurds did, under U.S. protection, along with Zarqawi.
 +
::The [https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-four-as-of-american-policy-failure-in-syria/ Adana Agreement] of 1998 between Turkey and Syria allows the Turks to enter Syria for distance of up to 5 kilometers to beat back the Kurds. It's a legal treaty between the two.  The two have asked the Russians to be there to police the situation.
 +
::I've met brainwashed people by the mainstream media before, but you take the cake. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:39, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::"Saddam didn't have a chemical weapons factory -- the Kurds did, under U.S. protection, along with Zarqawi". Actually, it's more accurate to say both the Kurds and Saddam had chemical weapons factories, since [https://theblacksphere.net/2017/04/leftist-myth-busted-saddam-moved-wmd-from-iraq-to-syria/ several sources, including one of Saddam's top generals and even one of the pilots responsible for transferring the chemical weapons materials, verified that Saddam did in fact have chemical weapons factories, and that they had been relocating since 1991]. Said general, George Sada, even attempted to alert the British news media to Saddam's creation of chemical weapons and supplied proof, but they buried the story, deciding instead to just falsely tarnish Bush and Blair as liars. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:52, 27 October 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...
+
:::(@RobS, for the avoidance of doubt): It's times like this when it's hard to tell whether you're just really bad at basic research, or completely at Trumpian ease with arguing in bad faith to avoid retreating from something stupid you've said previously.
  
All:<br> The more you squandered...the more you get.<br>
+
:::Yes, Ansar al-Islam carved out a bit of territory in Iraqi Kurdistan. No, that was not with the blessing of the Kurdish authorities, nor did the Kurds have the military muscle to dislodge them from the mountains until they received the backing of US special forces and air support in Operation Viking Hammer, March 28–30, 2003.
Let's all pay off student debt!<br>
+
 
 +
:::And I've no idea what point you're trying to make about the Adana Agreement. It appears neither Erdogan or Assad have any intention of honouring it at the moment. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 12:07, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::"Kurdish authorities" HAHAHAHA! Careful. You're revealing you're totalitarian mindset.
 +
 
 +
::::I have a simple question: When are "the Kurds" not "the Kurds"? When they are Shia Kurds armed by Iran? When they are [[Salafi]] Kurds under U.S. protection from Saddam in a No-Fly Zone? When they are Syrian Kurds taking U.S. assistance to stage terror attacks on a NATO ally? When they are Salafi Kurds and co-partners of the U.S.-armed Islamic State? When they are Qawqaz Kurds at war with Russia? When they are [[feminist]] Kurds fighting ISIS? When they are victims of a U.S. Army live fire exercise in Kentucky broadcast on ABC News? When?
 +
::::And why all this globalist promotion of Kurdish nationalism? I thought nationalism was the enemy of globalism?
 +
 
 +
::::And as best as I can determine, to the extent that "Kurdish democratic" forces exist anywhere (Iraq, Syria, Turkey, the Caucasus), they don't want a landlocked independent Kurdish state, knowing that without a NAFTA-style free trade agreement with their neighbors, they couldn't export their oil wealth. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:13, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::You say "and why all this globalist promotion of Kurdish nationalism?" I'll give you an answer. It's because ''some'' globalists, particularly those of the neocon variant, see the creation of a Kurdish state as necessary to achieve their goals. Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria are all opposed to the Saudi-centric regional status quo. That automatically makes them enemies of the petrodollar, and therefore, in the eyes of the neocons, worthy of regime change and/or destabilization. In that case, Kurdish nationalism would be a great tool for the neocons to use. For this reason, at this time, not only do I ''not'' support the creation of a Kurdish state, I actively oppose it.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:10, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::Actually, let me walk that back just a little bit. At this time, I do support Kurdish nationalism, but only in Turkey, and only because Erdogan's regime is still in power and there's very little moral equivalence between that regime and its Saudi counterpart.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:17, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Personally speaking, the only regime change I'd even remotely endorse is if it's changing the Middle East from Muslim-dominated to Christian dominated, whether it be Roman Catholic dominated or, heck, even Coptic Christian dominated. Don't bother switching Sunni for Shia, or Shia to Sunni, or either for Kurd or Kurd for either for that matter. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 23:18, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::There actually was an opportunity for a Kurdish state 10 years ago in Iraq. The Kurds themselves didn't want it. Largely due to two factors: (1) their diversity and/or lack of unity; and most importantly (2) a Kurdish state would be held hostage to tariffs when it tried to ship its oil down the Tigris to Persian Gulf ports for export to the rest of the world. The Kurds of Irbil figured it would serve their best interests to remain within an Iraqi system and Iraqi parliament where they have continuous engagement, rather than having no influence over the Baghdad regime and being at the constant mercy of outside forces. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:34, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Well, then. ''Those'' Kurds are cool with me. They're definitely a lot smarter than their Syrian counterparts. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:48, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::We get little reporting on Kurds in former Soviet republics - Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and elsewhere, as well as Iran. Here again you have secular (on the side of Russia) vs religious (on the side of ISIS) Kurds fighting each other. Then you have Shia Kurds fighting Sunni Kurds (ISIS). These same divisions exist among Kurds in Germany and the U.S.
 +
::::::::For these reasons I'm very skeptical when I hear anyone discussing "the Kurds" (like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcCN0DGvqE0 Bernie Sanders statement] here). I'll go a step further - Media, being fed by the [[intelligence community]], is playing on the deliberate ignorance of the American people, if not even a racial stereotype.  The journalists who use the phrase, "the Kurds" are just ignorant partisans themselves. And this sort of Deep State/media collusion, appealing to what they assume are irrational bigoted stereotypes in the soul of the American people, is how the U.S. has blundered into numerous wars beyond my lifetime. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:20, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::User Masaman on youtube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDlcJslnNqQ is one of the best] at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z26S0XgduYc handling issues like this].  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:34, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
Allow me to say this, plain and simple. The Kurds are not our allies. In fact, they border on being our enemies. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 22:53, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Let me clarify. They border on being our enemies in Iran, <s>Iraq</s>, and Syria.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:17, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::How do you cross out text? I want to cross out "Iraq."--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:48, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::use < s > for strike with a close </ s> <s>like this</s>. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:22, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Thanks. I wish Wiki would allow you to do that with a single highlight-and-quick, but then again we are living in the "learn to code" era.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 13:43, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::@RobS: I'll content myself with noting that, having been called on talking rubbish about Ansar al-Islam being allied with Iraqi Kurdish forces, your response was to try and start a game of ''Well, what's a Kurd anyway?'' Spineless. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 20:40, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::If he's so wrong why do you have to exaggerate to prove it?  I started the topic, he just sustained it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 20:47, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::I was called ''what'' on ''huh?'' Facts:
 +
::::::#Ansar al-Salam, a Kurdish group, harbored Abu Musab al-Zarkawi after his flight from Afghanistan in 2002 when the Americans chased him out;
 +
::::::#Ansar al-Salam and Zarqawi were protected under the American No-Fly Zone in 2002 and 2003;
 +
::::::#Zarqawi and Ansar al-Salem operated a [[WMD]] camp in Iraqi Kurdistan under the protection of the American No-Fly Zone.
 +
::::::#Zarqawi's Organization of Monotheism and Jihad merged with Ansar al-Salm to form AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq);
 +
::::::#AQI became the [[Islamic State]] in 2014.
 +
::::::Where am I in error? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:01, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::::Your error is a product of your usual bad faith in discussion. You appear unable to admit that Ansar al-Islam was engaged in a terrorist campaign ''against'' the  regular Iraqi Kurdish forces, and that those same forces drove them out of the territory they'd seized as soon as they received the necessary US military support. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 21:27, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::Right. Where'd you get that spin? Don Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? Ansar al-Salam merged into Al Qaeda in Iraq, conducted the insurgency, and established the Islamic  State.
 +
::::::::Ok, you got me. Ansar al-Salam changed its name to Ansar al-Sunna, and merged with Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Group of Monotheism and JIhad, Zaqrawi's group).
 +
::::::::''Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad was started by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, other foreigners, and local, mostly Kurdish Islamist sympathizers. ,,,Following the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, it is believed that Zarqawi moved westward into Iraq, where he may have received medical treatment in Baghdad for an injured leg. It is believed that he developed extensive ties in Iraq with Ansar al-Islam ("Partisans of Islam"), a Kurdish Islamist militant group that was based in the extreme northeast of the country. Ansar had alleged ties to Iraqi Intelligence; Saddam Hussein's motivation would have been to use Ansar as a surrogate force to repress the secular Kurds who wanted a "free Kurdistan".'' [http://www.thefullwiki.org/Tawhid_and_Jihad#Origins] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:55, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::::::Some light reading on [https://www.soc.mil/ARSOF_History/articles/v1n1_op_viking_hammer_page_1.html Operation Viking Hammer]. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 22:15, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::::::Ok, that's progress. At least we're back to distinguishing "the Kurds" as between ''pershmerga'' and AQI. That link covers 2005, from Cheney & Rumsfeld's perspective. Now let's pick up the story from [http://www.aymennjawad.org/2015/12/a-complete-history-of-jamaat-ansar-al-islam their own history, translated by Aymenn al-Tamini]:
 +
:::::::::::''the position of general security official in the Dawla [Islamic State] currently [December 2015] and the man is considered the most important after [[Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi]].
 +
:::::::::::''In 2006, a deal was struck in the American prisons for the release of some of the leaders...
 +
:::::::::::''In 2007, the leadership of Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna took a decision to change the name of the group and revert it to the old name of Jamaat Ansar al-Islam....
 +
:::::::::::''When the armed revolution of al-Sham [Syria] began against the Assad regime, Jamaat Ansar al-Islam entered al-Sham and began operating under the name "Jamaat Ansar al-Islam in BIlad al-Sham."
 +
:::::::::::''On the third day of the Mosul events, the Majlis Shura of Jamaat Ansar al-Islam decided to come down and aid the Dawla [ISIS], and this meant the group came down on the left side of the city [east Mosul]''
 +
::::::::::''Indeed most of Jamaat Ansar al-Islam gave allegiance, but a simple and small presence for the group remained in Iraq and the most important of those who gave allegiance feature in the photographed allegiance ceremony. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:47, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::::::::You'll have to help me with the relevance of this. Were there ethnic Kurds in Ansar al-Islam and its successor outfits? Sure. Does their presence have any significant bearing on the development and legitimacy of a reasonably autonomous and functional Iraqi Kurdistan? Absolutely not. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 20:26, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::These guys ("the Kurds" if you will), took part in the capture of Mosul, the resurrection of the Caliph, and were rewarded with the VP spot and head of internal security. They weren't bit players in the Islamic State. These guys killed their fellow Kurds, ''Pershmerga'', Shia Kurds, and anyone who wouldn't submit to the Caliphate.  So when we hear talk about "the Kurds", "abandoning the Kurds", and globalists pushing Kurdish nationalism, it is not unreasonable to ask just what exactly are you talking about.
 +
 
 +
::::::::::::Pardon my thoughtlessnes, I forgot; there are good guy Kurds and bad guy Kurds; the bad guy Kurds are the guys who do beheadings; the good guy Kurds are the guys who take U.S. taxpayer money and kill U.S. NATO allies. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:27, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::::Right now, I consider ''all'' of the Syrian Kurdish factions associated with the SDF to be bad guys, even the non-Communist ones.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 16:53, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
<--- It's kind of fun watching you twist yourself like a pretzel over this, just so you can ultimately argue abandoning the Turkey/Syria border region wasn't an unmitigated disaster. Ansar al-Islam numbered in the hundreds (including Arab and other foreign fighters) when they were driven out in March 2003. Shortly afterwards, ''tens of thousands'' of Iraqi Kurds fought alongside US forces in the invasion of Iraq.
 +
 
 +
Seriously: What. Is. Your. Point? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 23:14, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:He's right, Rob: Kurdistan was ''just'' about to exist for the 30 million Kurds scattered about near Asia—and then Trump came in and caused it ''not'' to happen, because all the Kurds had really been planning it the whole time and were really about to get together and make the nation happen. Really. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 23:39, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Well I thought nationalism was fascism. Now globalist are pushing Kurdxit, MKGA, and the Yellow Turbin movement.
 +
 
 +
::JohnZ, you certainly don't understand anything about jihadism. Your frame of reference comes from your Western Eurocentric colonial imperialist and racist outlook. Jihadi groups appear, disappear, reappear, merge, change their names, and form alliances routinely. Leadership and experience are vital. 40 year old veteran fighters  are more valuable than a 20 year old punk who doesn't know anything. 300 veterans of Ansar al Salam make up the drill sergeants and the equivalent of an officer corps for radicalized punks coming from the EU and elsewhere. They trace their war against Western influences and Shi'ism back several decades at this point. An Arab figurehead was put at the helm - Baghdadi - but the Kurds were in charge of internal security - who gets let into the organization and who may be a risk and needs to be disposed of. None of this is rocket science. Sure, these experienced fighters had sons and kid brothers who came with them, but the organization traces its origins back to the end of Iran-Iraq war in 1988. They were the most experienced fighters in Iraq. From their perspective, their war against secularism, Western influences, and Shi'ism, was finally joined by ''outside'' fighters coming to their aid.
 +
 
 +
::In the meantime, the Hong Kongers can all get squashed by tanks and shipped off to the gulag cause we don't want to upset our Chinese communist trading partners.
 +
 
 +
::And do you have any clue how ridiculous it sounds to say we should defend the Syrian border but not the Rio Grande?  Especially since our Mexican allies, whom we depend on so much for help, just got their butts kicked by [https://time.com/5705358/sinaloa-cartel-mexico-culiacan/ the Sinoloa cartel who took over a town of 800,000.] t[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 02:50, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::Once again: What does the presence of a small number of ethnic Kurds in various jihadi outfits have to do with the development and legitimacy of a reasonably autonomous and functional Iraqi Kurdistan? I've seen estimates of 400-1500 Brits who went to fight for ISIS. We've had our share of eejits who stayed home to maim and kill in the name of their twisted version of Islam. None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy or viability of the British state, or its institutions, or its armed forces.
 +
 
 +
:::It's not like the US is flush with regional success stories for all the blood and treasure it's spent over the past 30-odd years. You've got the liberation of Kuwait, and then you've got Iraqi Kurdistan as far and away the most successful bit of Iraq to date. Not much after that. You'd think a good conservative patriot like yourself would be proud of the US having brought a bit more freedom and self-determination into the world, but hilariously, you can't because that would beg the obvious question re. cutting and running in Syria.
 +
 
 +
:::If memory serves, Rand Paul clapped like a seal, whilst the rest of the GOP senate was aghast. They can't all be neo-con RINOs. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 23:10, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::Just as an FYI, there's actually some evidence that Trump deliberately gave that Syrian withdrawal order specifically to bait a key leader of ISIS to into revealing himself and getting himself at the very least captured, if not killed, and that operation was such a success that you leftists were caught with your pants down due to not even your installed leakers finding out about the op (and we had the bonus of his second in command being taken out as well). To put it another way, Trump played ISIS like Palpatine played the Rebels at Endor in Return of the Jedi. I'll admit I was very unsure about leaving the Kurds behind, mostly because I feared we'd have the same thing as Vietnamization after the end of the Vietnam War where the Democrats exploiting Watergate sold out the South Vietnamese to the Communists. Since we just shattered the vertebrae of ISIS, I don't see any reason to be concerned about our forces staying in Syria right now. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 23:18, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::There's much more evidence which says Trump's withdrawal announcement caught the Pentagon completely off guard, and they had to scramble to launch the operation for fear of losing effective force projection should the withdrawal be fully realised.
 +
 
 +
:::::I'm glad to hear you had qualms about ditching an ally, though. That's the proper response. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 23:26, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::Here's an immediate problem that hasn't been addressed now for two or three decades: the U.S. provided air defense and a No-Fly Zone for a group that set up a WMD lab. When it was discovered, the Deep State deceived the American people when [[Colin Powell]] went to the UN and blamed Saddam for it, when in fact the people we were protecting uder our No Fly Zone had created it. And this idiocy of the Deep State they blamed on Saddam as an excuse to go into Iraq in 2003. People are tired of these lies, and ain't falling for arguments about "the Kurds" and Kurdish nationalism again as an excuse to send troops into a war zone that Congress itself, under two presidents, has refused to pass an authorization for. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:49, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Wait, didn't General Sada as well as one of the guys who flew the chemical weapons stocks to Syria confirm that Saddam WAS in fact making WMDs, and had been doing so since before the Gulf War or something? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:38, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::I'm not arguing whether or not Saddam had WMD, I'm pointing out the historical truth that our friends, "the Kurds" had WMD and Colin Powell lied about it, which was the No.1 fact pushing Obama's candidacy in 2008. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:50, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::You'd think the answer would be easier to know—they spend a billion dollars to find out. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 18:05, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::I've never heard of the Kurds having WMDs. Can you provide a link?--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 16:49, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::"Ditching"?  The PKK succeeded beyond its wildest dreams:  It got a quasi-state in Syria from which to attack Turkey, and is now positioned to receive the "creamy" (your word) concessions from the peace process Erdogan initiated.
 +
:
 +
::::You have no standing in the matter: as a New Zealander (or globalist), you're not encumbered with the difficulty of possibly rewarding a disloyal president, the evidence of which demonstrated by the information that is coming out through Justice Department reports daily, though you probably love that ''we'' are because you share his politics.
 
:
 
:
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 08:42, 4 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::You probably suspect RobS, Pokeria and I may have trouble articulating this sense and hoped your high-tensioned rhetoric would provoke us into being strung along by your series of objections and qualifications, however lengthy[, to Donald Trump's military movements]. If so, you suspected wrongly. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 01:06, 31 October 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 ==
+
:::::@Vargas: Who you calling a Kiwi?
  
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.
+
:::::@RobS: How on earth did we get back to conflating Ansar al-Islam and their weapons plant with the Iraqi Kurds in general? For extra "protected under a no-fly zone" lulz, the [http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln&us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln_general_topics=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln_al_zarqawi___al_qaeda_in_iraq link you shared earlier] clearly states the US was aware of the plant from at least June 2002 onwards. Even better, they rejected an airstrike several times, because ''"...we were so concerned that the chemical cloud from there could devastate the region that we chose to take them by land rather than by smart weapons.”''
  
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.
+
:::::That's according to Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, at least. Much of the rest of your link suggests it was either simple dithering by the Bush administration, or due to worries about appearing too eager for war in the eyes of potential coalition allies.
  
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.
+
:::::And while we're at it, an honourable mention for this quote: ''"...Ansar al-Islam militant group ... controls a '''very small region''' of Kurdish Iraq near the Iranian border"''. (emphasis mine)
  
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.
+
:::::What you reckon, then? One more crack, or have you finally tired of beating this particular dead horse? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 17:06, 2 November 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)
+
== 4 resources which show America has a religious future in the 21st century ==
: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)
+
  
==White nationalist category==
+
I was recently asked about the future of American Christianity.  Below are 4 resources which show America has a religious future in the 21st century.
  
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.
+
Read this material:
  
"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:
+
1. [[United States, irreligion vs. religion and demographics]]
  
:You’re calling P[aul] J[oseph] W[atson], [Alex] Jones, Milo [Yiannopoulos] and [Laura] Loomer white nationalists?
+
2. [http://www.sneps.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/jssr_15101.pdf ''Secularism, Fundamentalism or Catholicism? The Religious Composition of the United States to 2043''], ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion'', vol. 49, no. 2 (June) 2010, Eric Kaufmann, Vegard Skirbekk and Anne Goujon
  
:Please stop clogging my mentions with low-IQ stupidity. Thanks.
+
3. [https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/22/new-harvard-research-says-u-s-christianity-not-shrinking-growing-stronger/ New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger], 2018
  
:—Brittany Pettibone
+
4.  "Among Protestants, Gallup has found weekly churchgoing to be consistent. In 2017, 45 percent attended at least once a week. In 1955, it was 42 percent."[https://factsandtrends.net/2018/04/10/protestant-church-attendance-stable-but-warning-signs-remain/] [[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:59, 23 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 purgeCNN 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.
+
:No. 3 quotes (then debunks): “Meanwhile, a widespread decline in churchgoing and religious affiliation had contributed to a growing anxiety among conservative believers. ''The Atlantic'', January 2018.  This is what passes for journalist leadership these days (''The Atlantic''). It's not a description, it's an instruction for their hostile liberal-reader-wannabe-journalists.
  
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".
+
:And now they have Gallup polls lending a hand, who we're supposed to believe don't know about non-denominational Christians.  They don't even pretend they have something positive to put forward, which makes me even less concerned about conservative believers, who can put their anxieties on the Lord, even if they believe the lies, than sinners of whatever variety camouflaging their sins by diverting attention toward non-existent problems, instead of stopping their behavior. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 15:16, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Ace (the New Zealand atheist), is either a liar, not very bright or stubborn (or a combination of 2 or more of these attributes).  It not that hard to understand. The nominal Catholics and liberal Protestants die out while the more committed Christians with higher birth rates grow. Eventually, there are fewer and fewer nominal Catholics and liberal Protestants to die out.  And among the [[nones]], most are [[theism|theists]] (at least in the USA). By 2043 for the USA (or sooner) and by 2050 in Europe (or as early as 2021), the secular population plateaus followed by a period of decline. In short, atheism has a bleak future. It's not rocket science. If Ace still doesn't understand this matter, it is a matter of willful ignorance.  
  
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.
+
::I think the reason why Ace has a bee in his bonnet and is obsessed with me is because all of my predictions concerning atheists have come true. If Ace wants to deny the [[atheist movement]] is dead, he is free to do so, but unfortunately for him, he will lose what little credibility he may have (see: [[Decline of the atheist movement]]).[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 15:35, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Ace, by the way, I have never said that "atheism is a second rate belief system".  It is far below second rate and we both know this. There is no proof and evidence for atheism. In addition, you have atheists like [[PZ Myers]] and [[Peter Singer]] indicating that bestiality is morally acceptable under certain conditions (see: [[Atheism and bestiality]]). And while the Mormons certainly have their faults and I disagree with their theology, at least they weren't responsible for [[Atheism and Mass Murder|about 100 million deaths in the 20th century]] and at least they don't run an oppressive regime like the Chinese, communist atheists (and most atheists are East Asians with a very large portion of them being Chinese. See: [[Asian atheism]] and [[China and atheism]].  But the good news is that in China, Christianity is seeing explosive growth. See: [[Growth of Christianity in China]]).
  
They were correct—but the only danger was to left-wing political success.
+
:::Ace, I hope this further clarifies matters for you.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 15:58, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
  
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.
+
==Canadian election==
 +
In the recent Canadian election, the Conservative Party got 34 percent of the popular vote while the Liberals got only 33 percent. Yet Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau will continue as prime minister all the same. I hope that puts some perspective on the Electoral College issue. Trump got 46 percent of the popular vote. Not many British or Canadian prime ministers can claim anything like that level of popular support. See "[https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/canadian-federal-election-2019-liberals-justin-trudeau-win All time low share of popular vote is enough for Liberals to win power]." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 14:56, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Yes, this is normal in Canadian/British politics -- parties can win well under 40% of the vote and win a solid parliamentary majority. Look at the UK Labour Party's election results in the 1990s, as an extreme example. The Electoral College still has a good purpose -- to preserve the federal aspect of the U.S. government, one that preserves the importance of state government. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 15:38, 23 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.
+
Our system is more democratic. No head of state is directly elected in a parliamentary system. Trudeau is elected party boss by Members of Parliament, who in this case sit a Electors. The voters of Canada do not have an opportunity to vote for or against Trudeau. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:32, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:IMO, the problem with the Canadian system is that power is concentrated in the hands of the prime minister, who can use said power to implement social engineering schemes aimed at pleasing himself. The one that comes to mind is bilingualism, the pet project of the elder Trudeau. It is quite obviously unsuccessful in the sense that no significant number of Canadians are learning a language because of it. Yet it has created a bilingual elite and disadvantages the monolingual majority. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:07, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
  
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.
+
== Atheists are badly losing. Conservative Christians are victorious! ==
  
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)
+
The big picture of the view of the world which certainly is important given sub-replacement level of fertility in the developed world, the sub-replacement level of births of the irreligious (see: [[Atheism and fertility rates]]) and the fact that religious people often immigrate (see: [[Religion and migration]]):
: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)
+
: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.
+
"By comparison, there were 138 million atheists around the world in mid-2019 – slightly more than the 137 million in 2000 but less than the 165 million in 1970. Atheism’s annual growth (.04 percent) is less than that of the population, and the number of atheists worldwide is projected to decline to 132 million in 2025...
  
I would like to continue a description of the way the ideas, which were picked up and are used by the hysterical today, were introduced. I 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)
+
Among Christian traditions, evangelicalism (2.19 percent) and Pentecostalism/charismatic Christianity (2.26 percent) are growing faster than Protestantism (1.61 percent) and Roman Catholicism (1.02 percent)."[https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/christianity-booming-atheism-declining-around-the-world-report-says.html]
  
: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)
+
And of course, while atheism lacks proof and evidence that is true, Christianity has an abundance of proof and evidence that it is true (see: [[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for Christianity]]).
  
::"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)
+
[[Onward, Christian Soldiers]], marching as to war...[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 16:22, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
:::[[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)
+
::::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]
+
:Wikignome72, I hope you don't mind my wikilinking that song to its lyrics here; I'm thinking it would encourage the troops! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 17:32, 23 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]
+
::I don't mind.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 18:38, 23 October 2019 (EDT)
*[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)
+
:::Say hello to [https://news.grabien.com/story-comey-trump-winning-2020-ill-be-my-new-home-new-zealand New Zealand's newest asylum seeker]], seeking refuge from [[John Durham]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:41, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
  
: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.
+
=="A favorite lie" resurfaces—in Ann Coulter column.==
  
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.
+
Conservative political phenomenon [[Ann Coulter]] ran one of her satirical columns Wednesday, where she poses hypothetical follow-up questions to the Democratic candidates.
  
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)
+
The "favorite lie" I mentioned a few weeks back that appeared in an [[Elizabeth Warren]] debate answer, this time appeared in [[Julián Castro]]'s Twitter feed, a lie which exploited the sad fact of transsexual domestic disharmony or participation in prostitution, together with other non-bias homicides, by falsely portraying it as an epidemic of bigots targeting sexual dysphorics to the magnitude of a Presidential-level crisis, while the actual statistics reduced it to ten people total in comparable statistics in 2018, their cataloguer even noting "Trans homocides are underrepresented compared to non-trans groups."
: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)
+
Ann Coulter's satire of the political exploitation (because you don't know whether to laugh or cry about it), revealed a distinguishing characteristic of the offender of one of the remaining actual hate-crime homicides (which could very well apply to the others), pointing to how it would have been preventable by sane federal policies:
:::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.
+
 
:
+
:Question for Julián Castro (D-Texas):
:::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.
+
 
:
+
:You recently criticized your successor as Housing and Urban Development secretary, [[Ben Carson]], for his remark that “big, hairy men" were trying to gain admittance to women's shelters. You tweeted: “19 Black trans women have been killed this year because comments like Ben Carson's normalize violence against them.”
:::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.
+
 
:
+
:Just a few weeks ago, a black transgender woman, Daniela Calderon, was shot six times in the abdomen, hip and chest in Dallas by a man yelling homophobic and transphobic slurs. The accused shooter is an illegal alien from Mexico, who had been deported in 2010 and was committing a felony by re-entering this country. He was released on bond and has now disappeared.
:::These weren't ever really supposed to be "funny" topics, but when your digging a hole for yourself, go with what you know, I guessAnd 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.
+
 
 +
:Question: Which would you say contributed more to the transphobic attack on Daniela Calderon — Ben Carson’s “comments” or our policy of refusing to control our borders?
 +
 
 +
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 00:42, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Castro is near death and his days are numbered. Look at this chart under [https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election,_2020 Democrat reports]. You can learn a lot about the American presidential election process.
 +
 
 +
:In analyzing this chart, you can see the most marginal candidates have a staff of three who are paid between $1000-$2000 per week, and spend about $10,000 per week which includes flying around the country.
 +
 
 +
:Right now, most of the disbursements go for paid staff. Later, media adverting will dwarf those disbursements. So you have three tiers: those sitting at home doing nothing and trying to rake in donors; those with paid full time staff in Iowa ''or'' New Hampshire; and those with paid full time staff in Iowa, New  Hampshire, and South Carolina. The size of those staffs vary from 2-3 to a dozen or more, hence the variation in disbursements (ranging from $250,000 to $2.5 million per quarter - which includes media advertising).
 +
 
 +
:These paid full time staffers work the campuses, trying to get idiot, unpaid volunteers (that's usually how Democrats work). Hence, much of the media advertising (and debate schedule as well) is targeted at college-age students. The media advertising directed at students is intended to convince students that the candidate has big momentum and to get them to volunteer to be part of something. Steyer is probably the worst offender, and Castro a big failure, demonstrating once again white privilege and the institutional racism of the Democratic party, and  that the 18-25 year old group ain't buying Castro's extremism, which is very telling when you examine his rhetoric on the issues on a point-by-point basis.
 +
 
 +
:Bottom line, "Money talks and BS walks." What I can't figure it is what did John Delaney spend $26 million on (putting him in the same league as Biden, Warren, Buttigieg and Harris, and above O'Rourke, Booker and Klobuchar) and have nothing to show for it - other than the fact that 18-25 year old Democrats are bigots who judge a white man by how much hair he has on his head. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 05:32, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Ahem. Do you ''still'' maintain that the large donors will surround one of the back-bencher Democratic candidates and provide them fuel to blast to the front of the contenders, that is, if they don't crater on the way there like Kamala Harris? ''Skeptical political amateur'', Rodney Bigot (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Hard to say what will happen. Maybe Hillary, Bloomberg, or Kerry will get into the race. Maybe Steyer will rise to the top. It's gonna be a bloodbath when voters have their say. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:16, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::To illustrate the point, Beto has money coming out of his ears (see chart link above), [https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/10/25/beto-for-americas-plea-for-campaign-volunteers-is-making-people-cringe-so-hard-it-hurts/ but can't get any traction for volunteers on campus.] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:14, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::So, what does this mean, the failure of Beto to gain any traction on campus? It means Hope. It means young Progressives understand the meaning of, and the need for, the [[2nd Amendment]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 08:25, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Hillary 2020! Let's get ready to rumble!  ==
 +
 
 +
Clinton Advisor Philippe Reines: Hillary Has Not Closed The Door On 2020.[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/23/clinton_advisor_philippe_reines_hillary_has_not_closed_the_door_on_2020.html]
 +
 
 +
I thought she might run given Biden's weakness as a candidate.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 05:56, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:I think she needs to stop wearing pantsuits though and perhaps given the upcoming rematch, wear something similar to what Apollo Creed wore in Rocky II.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 07:03, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::That is ''not'' funny.  Let me explain why: Hillary was a Senator and a Secretary of State and is a very ''serious'' candidate.  If you don't support her in her quest, it ''proves'' you don't like women.  And if you think women would be in bad shape if she were really the best woman candidate, you're obviously someone who has terrible taste for not agreeing with liberals in general, who are experts on the latest new ideas that always work out.
 +
 
 +
::You also didn't italicize the movie title "Rocky II" in your essay.  More evidence of bad taste!! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 18:49, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::Please tell me you're joking... There are plenty of women politicians, some of whom did a much better job than Hillary. Like, I don't know, [[Karen Handel]]. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:05, 24 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::"There has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill, nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America." - Barack Obama.[https://www.vox.com/2016/8/1/12316646/hillary-clinton-qualified]
 +
 
 +
::::In addition, it's her turn.[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/turn-now-hillary-clinton-makes-case-presidency]
 +
 
 +
::::If it weren't for: the Russians, the terrible shape the DNC was in when she ran, sexism, submissive women voting the way their husband's voted, the mainstream media no longer being able to control the narrative and the electoral college system, she would have won. It wasn't her fault! She needs to be given a second chance!
 +
 
 +
::::The logic is inescapable - Hillary 2020![[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 14:12, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==''New York Times'' floodwall breached==
 +
 
 +
No one spied on Trump--it's good they spied on Trump!  There's no such thing as the Deep State--the Deep State is a good thing!
 +
 
 +
Corollary: Then--How dare you attack our law enforcement community? Now--Justice Department is Trump's lap dog!
 +
 
 +
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 15:12, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Remember a few years ago when the study came out that [https://time.com/3858309/attention-spans-goldfish/ goldfish have a bigger attention span than humans?] ''NYT'' editors predicate everything on that scientific fact. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 04:29, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::This is pertaining to what? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 20:38, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::Ok, ok. You got me. It only took me a few days to figure it out. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:25, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Chuck Grassley caught sending code to RobS==
 +
 
 +
This is obviously some kind of "fist-bump" compromising ''both'' of their appearance of withholding skepticism at suspicious government acts!
 +
 
 +
:All of the delays and excuses why the Horowitz IG FISA report isn’t public yet after several months of anticipation of its issues leads me to the suspicion it’s going to be “deep six” by the deep state (Chuck Grassley, October 21, 2019, 5:59 pm)
 +
 
 +
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 18:18, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:It's probably in excess of 800 pages and won't be out til after Thanksgiving.
 +
 
 +
:More recent developments are:
 +
:#McCabe turned down a plea deal, which means it goes before a grand jury now (Comey and McCabe are already at odds over whether Comey approved the leaks that got McCabe fired);
 +
:#Brennan swore under oath the ''Steele dossier'' had nothing to do with his January 3, 2017 ''Intelligence Community Assessment'' on Russian meddling; Comey has an email telling staff that Brennan insisted they include it.
 +
:#Comey's "I hope you can see your way to let this go" memo alleging Trump was trying to obstruct justice by interfering in the Flynn investigation is BS cause the DOJ cleared Flynn of allegations two weeks earlier.
 +
:#Flynn will walk.
 +
:#Mueller prosecutors may be reprimanded.
 +
:#Clapper's gonads are in a vice over two leaks now, one to Jake Tapper over the news hook to report the pee-pee memo, and secondly okaying the kill shot on Flynn.  Clapper already gave the [[Nuremberg Defense]] on CNN, "I was just following Der Fuhrer Obama's orders."
 +
:#[[Mifsud]] and [[Halper]] have been trying to frame Flynn since 2014, probably on Brennan, Clapper, and Der Fuhrer's orders, cause Flynn knew about Obama's order to Brennan to arm ISIS.
 +
:#FISA abuse had been occurring since June 2012, when Obama was running for re-election, and after they got caught using the IRS to target political opponents.
 +
:#The same names of American citizens (i.e. Republicans and the Trump campaign) were illegally entered over and over and over again in the FISA database to provide real time monitoring between November 2015 (when Mifsud and Halper first started working on Papadopoulos) and May 2016 (when [[Adm. Rogers]] shut it down and Hillary, Obama, and the DNC hired FusionGPS).
 +
:All in all, the break-in at the Watergate Hotel, where the burglars got caught before they planted a wire, looks like a church picnic compared to Obama/DNC spying on the opposition and corruption. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:27, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::The views on this page are going nuts...on a Saturday night.  Imagine that.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 23:23, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::The "wiretapping" not ending until May 2016 was thus during the entire Republican nomination process. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 23:54, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::That's why Fusion GPS took over, cause Adm. Rogers of the NSA cut them off from access to the database. FusionGPS' job was to develop supposed information so they could go to the FISA court and get legal authority to wiretap. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:14, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Lol. Creeps. I had guessed from the incomplete timeline I put together in my head the administration came up with the snooping idea at some point in the campaign, having been startled at some pointNot this continuous series of spying abuses, start to finish.  I guess Obama took the idea he talked about wanting to be Spiderman (being able to use all those hi-tech gadgets Peter Parker came up with) too much to heart (to the point of massive illegality)! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 08:37, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
 
:
 
:
:::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)
+
::::Or: Obama got away with Benghazi, so, he thought, dig deeply enough to stand under Trump and give a big enough push, and any of Trump's center of gravity beyond legality will carry him over the fence into criminality.  Except Trump was clean.  This calls for some crowing, but I'm not going to give Obama's corrupt buddies any more of my clever idea-pictures to rally against! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 08:56, 28 October 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)
+
:::::I think the "Oconus lures" episode ([[Obamagate_timeline_2015#December_2015|December 2015]]) shows the Obama administration was prepared to frame a "Russia collusion hoax" against ''whoever'' the GOP nominee would be (Rubio, Cruz, etc.). They were hoping it would be Trump, cause in everyone's estimation at the time Trump would be the easiest for Hillary to beat. You will recall, it was reported in March 2016 (before primaries ended) that [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html Trump had received $2 billion in free publicity], as he was being heavily promoted by CNN at that time. This implies collusion at a deeper level.  
:::::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)
+
:::::Much of that collusion followed Nixon's model in 1972; Nixon's "ratf*****s" job was to sabotage the campaigns of Nixon's more serious rivals, such as Ed Muskie, and promote a radical fringe candidate - George McGovern. As this fact became known in 1973, deliberate meddling in the opposition parties internal primary process, became more of a public outrage than the actual Watergate breakin, which was actually a failure cause they got busted before a wire could be planted. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:42, 28 October 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)
+
== Why right-wing populism will triumph ==
:::::::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 ==
+
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-behind-the-rise-of-radicalism-here-are-some-theories/2019/10/09/d88f4c62-eac2-11e9-9c6d-436a0df4f31d_story.html What’s behind the rise of radicalism? Here are some theories] By Megan McArdle, ''Washington Post'', Oct. 9, 2019
  
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)
+
*[https://quillette.com/2019/05/27/how-progressivism-enabled-the-rise-of-the-populist-right/ How Progressivism Enabled the Rise of the Populist Right], [[Eric Kaufmann]], ''Quillette'', 2019
  
===Students refuse to be useful idiots for gun control===
+
*[https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045 The Shocking Paper Predicting the End of Democracy], By RICK SHENKMAN, ''Politico'',  September 08, 2019
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 ==
+
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/10/the-rise-of-populism-shouldnt-have-surprised-anyone/ The rise of populism shouldn’t have surprised anyone], ''Washington Post'', 2017
[[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)
+
*[https://www.businessinsider.com/global-recession-could-boost-far-right-populism-in-us-worldwide-2019-8 Trump rode an 'us versus them' populism all the way to the White House. A global recession could take it to dangerous levels], ''Business Insider'', 2019
::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)
+
:::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)
+
::::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.]"''
+
::::[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==
+
*[https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/interview/civic-tech-expert-the-alliance-between-new-media-and-anti-establishment-forces-is-powerful/ Civic tech guru: Trump, Breitbart and populism are ‘the new normal’], 2017
  
The Attorney General has offered to let Democrats view a version of the Mueller Report that is 98.5% unredacted
+
It seems like the media elites are starting to come out of their denialism and are beginning to recognize that right-wing populism is not a temporary blip on the radar.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 14:21, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
  
The only redactions are ones that are required by law
+
:Shouldn't I get a virtual private network before I click these? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 20:28, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
  
Not a single Democrat has viewed the report, yet they are holding AG Barr in contempt for following the law?
+
:Which "right-wing populism" do you speak of? The America-centric version that Trump promotes? The National Globalist version that Putin promotes? Or the version that followers of Ron Paul promote? Those are very different -- and incompatible -- versions. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 11:57, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
  
—Charlie Kirk
+
::"right wing populism" is a pejorative term coined by leftists to mean "proto-fascist". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:09, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
  
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 10:48, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
==Site metrics==
: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.
+
: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 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)
+
:::::::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.
::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.  
+
  
::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.).  
+
:::::::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.
  
::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)
+
:::::::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)
:::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''.
+
 
 +
::::::::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)
 +
::::::::::Yes, this is what they have.  It is super easy to use and see that the total page hits for "Cat" is a little over 12 million.  In the menu over on the left click the Dates/calendar, then click "all time". Done.  That simple.  And two pages can also be compared.  [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Cat]
 +
 
 +
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)
 +
:If we had site metrics, we could target higher traffic pages and bring them even higher to the surface.  As to the two pages you mentioned and in particular Elizabeth Warren, that's less than 3000 per year.  What this suggests(and we can't prove without metrics) is that nobody reads this page without first coming to the Conservapedia home page and browsing around. That page isn't "accidentally" being seen from outside on the interwebs. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 20:16, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Consider this scenario.  The page "Conservative Bible Project" caps the bottom of the most viewed pages.  But what if (for example) prior to one of these final debates the page for Jay Inslee starts surging over a few week period because some phrase in it is catching some search terms.  If that page never eclipses 1.6+ million(which is easily a reality), it will never become known to us.  The surge ends sometime shortly after the debate, it doesn't see new activity here by our contributors, so the end result is that the page never has the opportunity to move out of obscurity in the wider internet when it is surging.  We lose opportunities on a regular basis around here because of this blindness.  The opposite is also true about pages that drop off, considering some of the one-off editors that make their way through here. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 20:26, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Maybe we all need a tutorial: What it is, How does it work, and How do we get it? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:39, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Six years ago I wrote a computer program to enable me to take a snapshot of activity to see which entries were being visited most, without relying on intrusive [[Google]] software. In response to the above I just updated and ran it.  Here are the top 20 entries visited this afternoon on Conservapedia:
 +
:::#Main_Page
 +
:::#Atheism
 +
:::#Clinton_body_count
 +
:::#Obamagate_timeline
 +
:::#Donald_Trump
 +
:::#Alger_Hiss
 +
:::#Katie_Hill
 +
:::#Bernie_Sanders
 +
:::#Barack_Hussein_Obama
 +
:::#Donald_Trump_achievements
 +
:::#Eddie_Rispone
 +
:::#United_States_presidential_election,_2020
 +
:::#Homosexuality
 +
:::#Russiagate_timeline_2017
 +
:::#Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies
 +
:::#Liberal
 +
:::#George_Soros
 +
:::#Muellergate_timeline_2019
 +
:::#Democratic_Party
 +
:::#Liberal_hypocrisy
 +
--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:32, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:It appears as if the Conservapedia [[atheism]] article is the second most popular page on the website. Please see: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3paAT8AO2Gk Viral article deals major blow to atheism] by [[PNN News and Ministry Network]].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 00:17, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Site metrics, continued==
 +
I would like to see this discussion continued.  Andy indicated that he has some ability to put together scripts which can facilitate some of what is needed.  I would like to know how far we can go.  [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:54, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:I like your idea on Conservative media, as well (I think that discussion is now archived). Perhaps we can meld these two projects together. I have quite a bit of free time at the moment (awaiting the FISA abuse report which may take me away for sometime afterwards). But let's get both these projects started. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:49, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Nada==
 +
 
 +
I have to admit I'm been fascinated by emotional dismissals.  But mostly for the humorous (or as the Commonwealth puts it, humourous) component.  Like maybe you blame a poor delivery of a joke you wrote for someone else the audience didn't understand for giving you "nothing" to work with—whether it really happened or not.  This hasn't actually happened to me, but it might have to you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 06:20, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Happens all the time. That's why the search for a universal language (interesting, how the Spanish menu on my TV uses the word 'idioma' for 'language' rather than 'lingua' or 'tongue').
 +
:Trump knows this better than anyone cause his twitter jokes seem to go over the commie media's heads (you'd think they would understand the idioms, having grown up in the ''Saturday Night Live'' school of satire for decades). The guy is enormously hilarious; their constant taking offense is either deliberate ignorance and hypocrisy or symptoms of being plain brain dead. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:54, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Who is the whistleblower? ==
 +
 
 +
Washington's greatest secret revealed: "[https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html How 'Whistleblower' May Be Outed: Ties to Biden, Brennan, Schiff's Staff, Etc.]." His name is Eric Ciaramella (char-a-MEL-ah). He graduated from Yale and worked with Biden on Ukraine in 2015-2016. He was an NSC staffer in 2016-2017 and thus worked closely with Susan Rice, the unmasker in chief. There was a huge problem with leaks early in the Trump administration and Ciaramella was a suspect. So of course he was transferred to the CIA in mid-2017. They don't have any secrets worth keeping over there, apparently. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:29, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Don't forget the other big story - Republicans were blocked from asking Vindman yesterday, ''Did you have any contact with Ciaramella'' after the July 25 phone call? ''Did you have any contact with Schiff's staff?''  
 
:
 
:
:::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)
+
:Other question could have been, ''Did you leak Trump's early 2017 phone calls to the Mexican and Australian presidents?'', which are felonious national security leaks.
 
:
 
:
:::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)
+
:Oh, and Susan Rice dumped all the blame on [[Samantha Power]], who unmasked over 300 names beginning in late 2015. John Bolton unmasked 2 while he was UN Ambassador. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:37, 30 October 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)
+
::Hey Peter, this "secret" was already revealed in [[#Golden Fleece Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2016 dinner guests]].  It turns out they all had a fancy dinner together before the election.
:::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 hey, why didn't we get a report of your role as a military ''attaché'' in Hong Hong on Talk:Main Page?  That is much more interesting than Schiff's two goons.  What are we, chopped liver? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 00:35, 31 October 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)
+
::And RobS, lol! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 01:20, 31 October 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.
+
:::We're linking [[Ciaramella]] to [[Alexandra Chalupa]] right now (in real time), which is gonna blow thiexs thing wide open. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:32, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
:
+
::::Although the conservative media is full of Ciaramella buzz at this point, no one in the mainstream media has even reported on the story. If it wasn't true, somebody would have debunked it by now. It seems that liberal journalists don't believe in reporting the news anymore, at least not news they don't like. I hope Barr makes an example out of this guy and sends him to prison for a good long time. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:25, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
:::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)
+
:::::If and when the minority in Congress ever win any participatory rights, and if the Democrats ever again respect constitutional due process and the rights of the accused, Matt Gaetz is gonna call Adam Schiff as his first witness: ''Did you collude with Eric Ciaramella?'' ''Did you collude with Vindman?'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 08:55, 31 October 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)
+
::::::In fairness to me, Peter Ka is like the Elvis Presley of declassification, only matched by Donald Trump, whose declassification of the picture of the dog who apprehended Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi netted 568K likes. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 09:55, 31 October 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)
+
 
 +
==Conservapedia Talk:Main Page recent wild success==
 +
 
 +
3.6% of the total visits to Talk:Main Page have occured in the last 29 days.
 +
 
 +
Okay, that's it, I don't have any more information! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 01:43, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:So in CP's 144 month existence, that's about 500% above the average; I think the Deep State is spying on us to see what our priorities (and the style of rhetoric used) in preparation for the [[2020 presidential election]].  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 02:15, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Spying?  Perhaps a better description would be "reading the pages that we put on our public web site". The priorities and rhetorical style of the various contributors to this site are out there for all to see. Including all the "atheism and apricots" stuff. I doubt that any of this will influence the 2020 election. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:18, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::What are you talking about, we delivered the one-two knock out punch to [[Katie Hill]] ([[Equality Act]] & [[White Supremacy]]). We made her the poser child for both.  I've seen at least a dozen articles today of her supporters trying to pick up the pieces. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:48, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:@Rob: ''"So in CP's 144 month existence, that's about 500% above the average"'' I'm not so sure: The counter is reset whenever the page is destroyed and recreated - the current version was created on  June 5, 2014 by User:Conservative. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:18, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Don't spoil his fun, man. He's righteously LARPing for Trump, Jesus, and the American way. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 20:59, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Hong Kong elections  ==
 +
 
 +
On VargasMilan's advice above, I will update the [[User:PeterKa#Back_from_Hong_Kong | report on Hong Kong that I wrote a couple of weeks ago]]. The election of the city's 18 district councils is not usually anything to get excited about. But my informants tell me that everyone plans to go to the polls in the next election, scheduled for November 24. In 2015, 55 percent of the vote went to pro-government parties while 40 percent went to the pro-democracy parties. How does that happen? In a low key election, a significant percentage of the vote consists of people who go to the polls simply because their bosses told them to go vote. Public opinion was evenly divided last time around. Since then opinion has shifted dramatically to the pro-democracy side. It's all rigged in the sense that the election judges can disqualify as many candidates as it takes to make sure the pro-government parties get a majority. Those judges are already hard at work, according to today's ''South China Morning Post'': "[https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3035481/blocking-joshua-wong-standing-election-hong-kong-just-driving By blocking Joshua Wong from standing for election, Hong Kong is just driving protesters back to the streets]."<br/>The government has made several concessions to the protestors recently. For example, it was reported that Carrie Lam, the city's hated chief executive, will step down by March. Lam's "local government" is just window dressing and power rests with the Communist Party, or "Liaison Office" as it is called in Hong Kong. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 08:19, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:As an administrative head, she's already a member of the Central Committee, I think. The next step up is the Politburo Standing Committee, as understand it. She can't fail, she can only be promoted out of a job. Time to bring in some fresh blood into a tough job. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 09:08, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::[http://www.xinhuanet.com//english/2017-10/24/c_136702936.htm Here is a list of current Central Committee members]. Lam is not on it. But notice that Wang Zhimin, head of the Liaison Office, is a full member of the Central Committee. Wang reports to Zhang Xiaoming, head of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office. Zhang is also a Central Committee member. None of these people are on the Politburo or the Secretariat, so they may not be all that high ranking in terms of the national party. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 10:02, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Then she must be up for a job on the Central Committee. Either way, she gets promoted. If there is violence and bloodshed, she gets promoted to some mainland position; if peace and order is maintained, she gets promoted. Their system is not unlike the US civil service system. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:56, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Lam's background is in the Hong Kong civil service, not the Communist Party. The Hong Kong Communist Party is an "underground" organization and its membership is secret. So there is no way of knowing if she is a member. But the party doesn't trust anyone who hasn't been trained from college as a party man. After Tung Chee-hwa was ousted as chief executive in 2005, he was appointed vice chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. This is an advisory body whose chairman is on the Politburo Standing Committee. It is a place to park nonmembers of the party, the "fellow travelers" as Trotsky would put it. The conference has 25 vice chairmen, so there is even less to this honor than meets the eye.<br/>If you want to compare the Chinese system to the U.S. federal bureaucracy, you should know that a very high number of people are being purged in China all the time, including quite high-ranking people. This is true both in the army and in the party. The reason usually given is corruption. Since Xi Jinping himself is hugely corrupt, at least according to the Panama Papers, there is obviously more to the story than that. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:49, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::That's the [[Discipline Inspection Commission]]. i started some work on that many years ago either here or in Wikipedia but didn't get far. Didn't Carrie Lam attend some high level Summer camp meeting with mainland CCP bosses just a few months ago? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:02, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
*What do you know? Only Joshua Wong was disqualified as a district council candidate. So the election could end up being more or less democratic this time around. To review thousands of applications and disqualify only Wong suggests spite was a factor.[https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/11/01/hong-kong-election-candidates-survive-political-vetting-one-exception]<br/>Vetting for candidates was introduced in 2016. It was imposed retroactively in order to disqualify six sitting lawmakers, just enough to give the pro-government parties a majority in the legislature. These legislators fell afoul of a rule against advocating "self-determination." "Self-determination of peoples" is enshrined in Article 1 of the United Nations Charter. (President Woodrow Wilson made it part of international law. He was a big fan of the Confederacy.) [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 02:09, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Did you see any protestors take measures to avoid facial recognition?  If so, what were they? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 03:14, 3 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:::Well, they wear masks. Masks have been a symbol of the protests ever since they were banned. It's usually just a piece of cloth. The Guy Fawkes mask is popular as well. They had a masquerade in the Lan Kwai Fong nightclub district for Halloween and the police used tear gas.[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/12/hong-kong-protesters-defy-ban-masks-clashes-with-police] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 01:37, 4 November 2019 (EST)
 +
 
 +
===Side comments===
 +
Organization of the CCP is an important and fascinating topic, for two reasons (1) The immediate necessity of Americans to understand the Chinese system, and (2) to clarify and rectify many misunderstandings Americans have about historic totalitarian regimes, i.e. the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
 +
 
 +
In both the Soviet and Nazi single party systems, neither the Communist party nor the Nazi party fully controlled the military. The armed military in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were the only potential internal threat the existence of [[single party control]]. It was for this reason that both the [[KGB]] and [[SS]] were created, to strong arm the military and protect the party.
 +
 
 +
By contrast, in the Chinese system, (and its progeny, such as Vietnam and Cuba), the party's center of power was formed around the military, and that is the one institution the party continues to dominate and control, and uses to intimate the traditional civil service.  All this has yet to play out to its tragic finish as it did in both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. In the USSR and the Third Reich, there were elements in the Red Army and Wehrmacht that sympathized with the plight of common people living under a totalitarian system; in the Chinese system, its unclear how any kind of armed dissent could arise within the military - which is the same as the communist party in full totalitarian control. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:25, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Unfortunately, we don't understand the party's internal structure very well. I have a book called ''The Party'' by Richard McGregor. So sources do exist. In Deng Xiaoping's time, the "Eight Elders" would meet each summer at Beidaihe and work out upcoming policy announcements for the Central Committee, Politburo, State Council, and so forth. Was this group a power center or just a collection of Deng's buddies? When the Elders started dying off, Deng lost his authority. So it is possible that they were the power behind the throne all along.<br/>Because the party boss was top dog in the Soviet system, many people assume the general secretary runs China like a dictator. In the 1950s, Deng was general secretary, but he was definitely not the top leader. According to the party's constitution, the Politburo sets party policy while the Secretariat implements it. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:49, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
 +
::I don't want to give the impression I'm speaking with knowledge or authority, but rather just personal impressions' It's almost like there is a dual system: (1) A Politburo and a Politburo Standing Committee, then (2) a Party Congress and the Central Committee. The Politburo and Party Congress seem to be formalities and annual events where party policy is adopted, then the standing committees are year-round administrators. There is some minor or modest overlap in personal. The big question is, ''Where does the real power reside?'' Theoretically, the standing committees just implement and administer the policies of the Congress and Politburo, but it could also be the annual formal meetings are just honorary positions that rubber stamp policy decisions and directions adopted by the bureaucrats in the course of the previous year. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:03, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::I read the Congressional Research Service's ''[https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41007.pdf Understanding China’s Political System],'' (45 pages) which is what Members of Congress and people in the USG use. It's revised from time to time, but hasn't been revised in 6 years now. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:20, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Israel vs. Ukraine ==
 +
 
 +
It's useful to note that while Democrats are complaining about "quid pro quo" with Trump and Ukraine, they openly support the same policy with regard to Israel: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/democratic-candidates-debate-using-aid-to-israel-as-leverage-in-policy-disputes-11572519601] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 08:55, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Subtitle in your article: "Bernie Sanders says Israel would have to ‘fundamentally change’ its relationship to Gaza to receive aid if he is elected". 
  
:::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.
+
:A socialist who had a heart attack recently talking about what is going to happen to US/Israel policy if he is elected to be president of the United States. I think Bernie Sanders needs to create greater self-awareness within himself.  "A man has got to know his limitations" - Dirty Harry, Magnum Force[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uki4lrLzRaU][[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 10:11, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
  
:::Today, Ann Coulter reported that the bill had no provisions for the wall or decreasing the number of legal immigrantsHow are Trump's sharks supposed to feed on that? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 23:26, 16 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::Point of fact: there was only ever a ''potential quid pro quo'' between the Ukraine and the Trump AdministrationAnd the phony (Congressional) "House Inquiry" testimony indeed bore out the Ukrainians ''never originated a new policy'' with regard to investigating government or business entities Trump called the president of Ukraine about or even the Bidens, who came later in the conversation. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 10:16, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
  
===John Durham===
+
== Revival of pictures of New York City gaslights ==
[[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.
+
I forgot how pretty these looked!  I like all the funny names of the different brands. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 11:05, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
  
[[Bill Weld]] also figures into the Bulger/Mueller case.
+
[[File:NYT Gaslighting 1970-2018.jpg|float right|625px]]
  
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)
+
:Shame it just shows the frequency relative to the peak so you can't compare each word. It would be interesting if there was a similar graphic showing what percentage of articles contained that word at that time so you could get a better overall picture as well as some more non-woke words. Still fascinating though. [[User:FredericBernard|FredericBernard]] ([[User talk:FredericBernard|talk]])
 +
::Let me remark, I found this upload fascinating. I wish we could find a mainspace to put it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:19, 5 November 2019 (EST)
  
==This is all messed up==
+
== Idea for Main Page Right ==
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.
+
Today is Reformation Day, the 502nd anniversary of Martin Luther's theses on the church door at Wittenberg.  The rest is, to use a cliché, history. We had a very interesting discussion about it today at our interfaith group!
  
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)
+
It goes without saying that the mass media won't mention it. [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] ([[User talk:Rafael|talk]]) 20:39, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
  
#Copypaste  [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act and First Sale Doctrine]] into [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]];
+
==[[Christine Blasey Ford]] had nothing to gain by testifying==
#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)
+
...except non-stop acclamations, awards and receptiveness to her political leadership from multitudes of spiteful liberals (that is, nearly all of them) from that point forward.<ref>Prestigiacomo, Amanda (November 1, 2019). [https://www.dailywire.com/news/christine-blasey-ford-wins-another-award-gives-acceptance-speech "Christine Blasey Ford wins another award, gives acceptance speech"]. Dailywire.com</ref>
 +
:We should subpoena her tax returns and find out how profitable lying, fraud, and subversion is. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:21, 5 November 2019 (EST)
 +
====Reference====
 +
{{reflist}}
  
==Update: Mueller Report says Rosenstein didn't try to persuade Trump to fire Comey==
+
==Shaking my head==
  
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)
+
Fox News reported a Finnish politician is under a 'hate crime investigation' for sharing a Bible verse on Facebook.
  
==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==
+
What a bigot. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 05:53, 7 November 2019 (EST)
  
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.
+
== Is Warren taking a dive? ==
  
But let's focus on Twitter. Reportedly Dorsey makes over a billion dollars from President Trump's accountLoomer was banned from Twitter for posting this question based on undisputedly correct information:
+
After briefly acheiving frontrunner status, Warren's poll numbers dropped dramatically when she proved unable to explain how she will pay for her signature "Medicare for All" proposal. She has also adopted a curious strategy of not responding to criticism. See "[https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/08/elizabeth-warren-campaign-067768 Elizabeth Warren blows up the 'war room']." Obama's people wanted Warren to run against Hillary in 2016. Obama aide Valerie Jarrett leaked the story of Hillary's "homebrew" email server to give her a helping hand. (This is a bit of history the mainstream media has been doing its best to erase lately.)<br/>Warren was apparently afraid of challenging Hillary in 2016. When you think about what happened to Brett Kavanaugh, Don Imus, or others who've crossed the Clintons, she was probably playing it safe. Who thought you could still red bait a Democratic congresswoman like Tulsi Gabbard? It's so old school. Warren can position herself so she can pick up the pieces when Hillary finally realizes that her campaigning days are over.<br/>Or at least that's the way I hope things work out. America has been on the Clintons' enemies list since the 2000 election. Hillary will be in quite a vindictive mood by the time inaugeration rolls around. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:05, 9 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:Michelle Obama is the only one who could reassemble Democratic voters - minus non-aligned and crossovers. Warren can't get blacks onboard, and looks increasingly like she never will if she can't do it right now in the next 3 months. Warren's other problem is Wall Street, which pledged $70 million to fund the DNC convention but now has second thoughts. Hillary wants to run so bad, but she can't win a two-way contest (her 2 Senate wins were virtually unopposed in the general election), never mind a wide field. Dick Morris, no amateur, lays out a scenario where Warren becomes inevitable. And it's like watching a slow train wreck. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:42, 10 November 2019 (EST)
 +
::I hope Bloomberg is testing the waters just out of vanity. Blacks hate him for being pro-police while progressives hate him for being fiscally responsible. That leaves him competing with Gabbard for the white moderate vote. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:31, 10 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:::He's picking up the anti-gun torch from Beto. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:10, 10 November 2019 (EST)
  
: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://[...]
+
== Ciaramella vs. Plame ==
  
calling it "hateful conduct".
+
Throughout the Valerie Plame episode, we were free to say the woman’s name all we liked. It was never established whether she was an undercover agent or not. But her status at the CIA, whatever it was, was treated as blown as soon as Robert Novak’s article was published.<br/>Not so with Eric Ciaramella, or “whistleblower,” as the media lovingly refers to him. Although his name is all over the conservative media, it’s out of bounds as far as our mainstream gatekeepers are concerned. See “[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/facebook-scrubbing-any-and-all-mentions-of-alleged-whistleblowers-name-from-the-platform Facebook scrubbing 'any and all mentions' of alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella].” If there is any precedent for keeping a “secret” this way, I am not aware of it.<br/>The logic for keeping a whistleblower’s name secret is to prevent retaliation at his place of employment. But Ciaramella’s various supervisors presumably know all about him. Are we supposed to imagine that after talking to Adam Schiff on Capital Hill, Ciaramella goes back to Langley, puts in a day’s work as an analyst, and his coworkers are none the wiser?<br/>So why can’t the media tell us anything about the man at the center of the hottest controversy in American politics? Well, if we knew who he was, we could examine his track record and determine if he is a credible source. The smart money says this is another production by the Steele dossier crew. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:24, 10 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:See [[Lawfare group]] -- the same guys who wrote Ciaramella complaint are prosecuting the case. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:12, 10 November 2019 (EST)
 +
::To the extent that the media has tried to justify not disclosing the alleged whistleblower's name, they point to death threats. The way they present the issue of threats is thoroughly dishonest. You don't have to be terribly famous to get death threats. I speak from personal experience here. Furthermore, the media is interested in them only to the extent that they serve an agenda. Anomynity for whistleblowers was not created in order to prevent death threats. If potential threats are the standard, you could justify anomynity for almost anyone. What about people listed in Trump's tax returns? There have been boycotts of businesses just for having links to Trump. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:31, 10 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:::It makes no sense. How can he get death threats if he's not been named? Today [http://themillenniumreport.com/2019/10/whistleblower-ided-ciaramella-eric-ciaramella/ I found this (published a month ago], October 11, 2019) scroll down to see the context:
 +
::::''"Adam Schiff claimed the whistleblower had received ‘death threats’ without saying '''when''' the alleged threats were received. Perhaps he forgot the whistleblower was anonymous; if so, how could they have been threatened?"'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:51, 10 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:::::I didn't realize that Fox News was also protecting this guy: "[https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-contributor-mollie-hemingway-causes-scene-when-she-names-alleged-whistleblower-on-air?ref=scroll Fox News Contributor Causes Scene When She Names Alleged Whistleblower on Air]." Hey, don't say "Ciaramella" or your mother will faint, and your father will fall in a bucket of paint. We need a blimp to go around the country with the message, "Eric Ciaramella is a fraud." Wasn't there a character in Harry Potter whose name you couldn't mention? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:13, 10 November 2019 (EST)
 +
::::::Watch [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K5dmP4ph3A a few minutes of] this [[Tim Pool]] report. Facebook suspended him for mentioning Ciaramella.  It's his first suspension ever anywhere. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 02:05, 11 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:::::What about Sean Misko, the second whistle-blower?  We need to run a test on him, especially since he's an embarrassing wrinkle whom Adam Schiff wants to prevent from testifying altogether! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 04:53, 11 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:::::Misko is a Schiff staffers, isn't he? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 09:34, 11 November 2019 (EST)
 +
::::::I think he knew two of Schiff's staff members and was recruited by Schiff in August 2019.
 +
:::Lol, just found out that Ciaramella's name was already mentioned in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence October 22, 2019 transcripts, published on November 6! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 10:07, 11 November 2019 (EST)
  
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.
+
FLASHBACK October 10, 2019
 +
::Whistle-blower's attorney worked previously as probable soft coup ringleader James Clapper's attorney
 +
::Not only that, but s/he worked for an unnamed 2020 U.S presidential candidate's campaign.
  
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 hours.  Maybe she got a big contributor.  But maybe not.
+
::Not only that, but Intelligence Committee member, allegedly intelligent, Adam Schiff remarked that s/he was receiving death threats. But how is that possible if s/he is anonymous? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 01:45, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
  
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)
+
:::We'll have the answer to that in 2 or 3 years when nobody cares and she's forgotten. This is how Washington works.RobS De Plorabus Unum 06:43, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
: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 ==
+
:::::My take: Hiding the (phony) whistle-blower's name is the (phony) media's way of helping the Democrats have more flexibility in ''staging'' or ''choreographing'' the impeachment drama, to compensate for the fact that there is no ''actual'' drama to the substance of what is left to disclose, in this case releasing the (phony) whistle-blower's name and face in a dramatic "reveal", even though, of course, the transcript was released weeks ago, and his testimony is completely unnecessary. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 16:05, 11 November 2019 (EST)
 +
::::::Coupled with the ongoing Facebook and Youtube censorship, you see how this is also a trial run for how Facebook and Google will handle the Democrats 2020 [[October Surprise]]. This impeachment coup has already been three years in the planning phase. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:49, 11 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:::::::I don't think they planned it this way. When his existance was first announced, Schiff thought Ciaramella would be a great witness. Then something happened that made them think better of that idea. The obvious move for Republicans in the Senate is to call Ciaramella as a witness. I assume he will refuse to testify. I hope the Senate issues a subpoena and puts him in jail. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 18:04, 11 November 2019 (EST)
 +
::::::::Theconsewrvativetreehouse back in December 2018 (before the new Congress was sworn in) outlined House Rules changes, as well as personnel, that were all geared toward impeachment. Among these changes was stripping the minority of any rights in hearings and depositions; striping the minority of the right to be notified that person was being summoned for a deposition; the sharing of information between committee chairs gathered by different committee subpoenas and hearings; the appointment of various Lawfare group attorneys in certain committees, etc. [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/28/pelosis-house-rule-changes-are-key-part-of-articles-of-impeachment-being-drafted-over-next-two-weeks/ Here's a September 2019 recap of the earlier article]. The two week timetable here was delayed, but even McConnell told Senators a few weeks ago to be prepared for a Senate trial before Thanksgiving. The public not catching on and lack of bipartisan support is basically the cause of the delay (so the MSM will continue hammering). The timetable is still before primary season begins (voting on February 3, 2020) cause at least four Senators will be on the road campaigning then.
 +
::::::::The December 2018 articles I could retrieve, but that would take time. Usually Sundance of theconservativetreehouse (who sounds an awfully lot like the team of diGenova and Toensing) will link back to an earlier article or cut an paste into an expanded update. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:45, 11 November 2019 (EST)
  
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)
+
::::::::[https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/01/02/speaker-nancy-pelosi-outlines-new-rules-for-116th-congressional-session-includes-schedule-for-process-of-trump-impeachment/ Speaker Nancy Pelosi Outlines New Rules for 116th Congressional Session – Includes Schedule for Process of Trump Impeachment…] - Posted on January 2, 2019 by sundance
: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)
+
::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)
+
  
== News addition ==
+
== Daily Beast article ==
  
Hi.
+
If you read the article, you'll see the Daily Beast exposes nothing.  It reports what is coming up in a TV show.
  
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)
+
The Anthony Blunt story was explained in great detail back in the 1980s by Chapman Pincher and others. He was protected by the British Secret Service from the early 60s to avoid any further damage to US-UK relations which had already been strained by the Philby affair.
  
:That figures. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 22:37, 16 May 2019 (EDT)
+
If you don't know about the Cambridge Spy Ring, this might seem like a revelation. However, it was extensively covered by the MSM back then and it's in a TV show produced by the MSM now....so why is it on MPR?  Come on guys, you can do better.  [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] ([[User talk:Rafael|talk]]) 11:56, 10 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:Great example! Initially, it was the "The Cambridge 2". Then a hunt for "The Third Man". Then eventually "The Cambridge 3", which lasted for about 2 decades.  By the 1970s the hunt was on for "The Fourth Man", and people were tired of it. They now have settled on "Cambridge 5" (Wikipedia's title). Great example of confusing historigraphy. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:09, 10 November 2019 (EST)
 +
::Despite the fact that real life British intelligence was thoroughly infiltrated like this, the James Bond movies allowed the phrase "British intelligence" to retain quite a cachet. To reiterate what others have already posted, the Cambridge spy ring is a very old story at this point. You could cover the show as news, but what would that headline look like: "Netflix has produced a show about an old British spy scandal."  [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:04, 10 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:::In reply to Rafael above, what the ''Daily Beast'' reports appears to be missing from the Wikipedia entry about the [[Cambridge Five]].  Why am I not surprised?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:43, 10 November 2019 (EST)
 +
::::The fifth man, John Cairncross, was exposed in the 1980s. Like the other four, his duplicity and trwason was known decades earlier.  Again, there's nothing here that is either a) recent news or b) hasn't been extensively covered by the MSM in the past.  I simply fail to see how a web article about a TV show produced by the MSM about something that has already been extensively covered merits MPR status.  The British elections are far more interesting!  [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] ([[User talk:Rafael|talk]]) 16:59, 11 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:::::So Lord Rothschild was the 6th Man? [https://espionagehistoryarchive.com/2018/03/27/victor-rothschild-soviet-spy/] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:35, 11 November 2019 (EST)
  
::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)
+
==MPL Update: 750,000,000 page views==
:::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)
+
[https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics Need an update.] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 11:57, 11 November 2019 (EST)
== 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)
+
==Falsifiability==
  
== Another article relating to the speed of light changing ==
+
Is sexism worse than it was before?  Is racism?  Do the misdeeds and weaknesses we are encouraged to avoid in the Bible through obedience to our faith misrepresent what is right and wrong?
  
"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...  
+
Unless affirmations of these beliefs, and those like them, include conditions under which they can be falsified, it's impossible for them to have any independent validity.  Because then they could be the product of merely emotional leaps (in this case, as often, perhaps to be used as fig leaves or vehicles for revenge) without connection to reality, having gone unexamined.
  
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...
+
These, otherwise, political pseudo-principles do harm, and are in a sense violence, in that when they are promoted, they distort the thinking of free citizens in their pursuit of what is the best interests of themselves and their country. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 05:35, 12 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:Sexism is [[social construct]]. I witnessed it happen. It happened when [[white privilege]]d [[feminist]]s hijacked the [[civil rights movement]]. White privileged feminists do not want equality with blacks. They want power. That's what the "glass ceiling" is all about. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:36, 12 November 2019 (EST)
  
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.
+
::I thought American liberals gave up Marxism after Solzhenitsyn's book as their project and made it women's liberation. At least one administrator here(!) bore the brunt of opposing what really became a liberation to abuse and be abused by divorce and devaluation of family life.
  
“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...
+
::Is it wrong for me to suggest that black immigrants reached the point of hijacking the civil rights movement too as they have reached parity with American descendants of slaves in affirmative action programs?
  
'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)
+
::Women's liberation kept the "sexist" label in reserve, then their successors later used it wherever they could, then instead of just applying it to events and people, they to this day apply the allegation to abstract structures of American life, where suddenly a hidden vein of sexism will have been discovered to have escaped (at best, aided by the research of an agency helped by further allegations of their having a non-political or neutral nature) coincidentally during phases of political processes where there is no leisure to study the evidence. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 09:46, 13 November 2019 (EST)
:[[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 years.  We'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)
+
:::No no no, Solzhenitsyn is an anti-semitic bigot for criticizing communism, haven't you heard? (that's why the Nobel Committee gives awards for climate hoaxers, trying to rehab their reputation with leftists). Women's lib originated as a CIA plot 1957 when the CIA put [[Gloria Steinem]] on the payroll. The theory was that the Cambridge 5 got recruited in college so young people needed an alternative to Marxism to be recruited into, dedicate their lives to, and change the world (since Jesus and the church obviously were failing).
  
:::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>))
+
:::NYT reported the other day 40% of all Ivy League freshmen are immigrants or second generation immigrants; it's probably just a plan to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PRZiFzonUo push wepawations] and encourage immigrants to get professional positions to keep ADOS on the [[Democratic plantation]].
  
:::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)
+
:::In the late 1960s and early 70s, honestly, when women started tossing around the word "sexism", as blacks benefited from affirmative action, housing discrimination laws, and handouts, most people just laughed when they heard or where accused of it. Which of course only became evidence that it was true and existed, as Hollywood, legislators and immigrant foreign rock stars picked up the torch ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5RuCEhHcG4 Woman Is The Nigger Of The World]). As blacks achieved civil rights, the Vietnam war wound down, and Nixon was driven from office, the liberal left needed new causes to keep violent mobs in the street motivated and bound together. Feminism and environmentalism became the issues. Now that women have achieved "progress" (a few dozen Congressional seats, a majority of college degrees, and zero-population growth) environmentalism or climate change comes to the forefront (oh, the gay rights movement hijacked the civil rights movement from blacks and feminists in the 1990s; the trannies' time has now come but with zero population growth and immigration, nobody really cares cause it doesn't really matter in the long run). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 11:28, 13 November 2019 (EST)
::::::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:
+
::::::*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)
+
::::::SamHB, a constant speed of light for the life of the universe is impossible for the same reason a [[perpetual motion machine]] is: both would defy the [[uncertainty]] described in [[quantum mechanics]], and the corresponding increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:33, 19 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]
+
==The plan...==
 +
The plan is to dump Trump by February, install [[Nikki Haley]] as Pence's running mate (that's what her pro-MAGA book tour is all about) and Hillary jump back into the race. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:36, 12 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:Hillary jumping in is just her plan, I assume. If other top tier Democrats thought it was a good idea, she would have done it by now. Doesn't Pence get to pick his running mate? I don't think Hillary and Pence have joined up, at least not yet. Blacks despise Buttigieg and Bloomberg as pro-police. They don't respond to Warren. So I am looking at Sanders at this point. Hillary has a plan to stop Sanders, I'm sure. He went to Moscow for his honeymoon and would presumably be easier to red bait than Gabbard. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:34, 13 November 2019 (EST)
 +
::I thought filing deadlines were coming soon for Iowa and New Hampshire?  Or was this a joke? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 09:48, 13 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:::This go-round (2020) will be a real test of Iowa and New Hampshire; Biden's strength is South Carolina (where blacks are 60% of Democrats) If Biden runs 4th or 5th in Iowa or New Hampshire, the MSM may use it to dispose of him before South Carolina (that's why [[Deval Patrick]] is being pushed now). One theory since the election of Obama is that blacks are more important than Iowa or New Hampshire, and that identity politics is more important than geographic or regional factors. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:56, 13 November 2019 (EST)
  
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.
+
==Hearings==
 +
What a farce. (A) The sanctity of NATO: Ukraine ''is not'' a member of NATO; Turkey, a member of NATO, just purchased a Russian missile defense system (presumably to defend against NATO missiles). NATO is dead. (B) Biden ''is not'' the Democratic nominee. Biden ''is not'' Trump's political opponent in a campaign. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 11:51, 13 November 2019 (EST)
  
Consider the information in these articles:
+
:The [[Treaty of Brest-Litovsk]] awarded the Ukraine to Germany in 1917; Hitler invaded Russia with the idea to make the [http://www.changingthetimes.net/samples/ww2/more_dangerous_hitler5.htm Crimea the "German Riviera"]. Now, after two world wars and 100 years, do you think Putin and the Russians will sit still for EU and Democrats to make the dream of Hitler and the Kaiser come true? Turn Sevastopol into a NATO naval base? Absolutely ludicrous. And We Americans will cede our Constitution, our Constitutional rights, and impeach a president to do so? Absolute insanity these Democrats, globalist/socialist and Trump haters have been overcome with. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:44, 13 November 2019 (EST)
  
*[http://pnis.co/cracked.html 7 Crazy Realities of Scientific Publishing]
+
::Cool story, Rob. While I'm here, what you want for Christmas? The [https://putin-calendar.ru/2020-calendars/wall-calendar-2/ Putin 2020 calendar] or the [https://www.amazon.com/Weby-Putin-Medvede-Bear-Decorative/dp/B0133GF138 Putin on a bear action figure]? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 22:28, 13 November 2019 (EST)
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-intrinsic-unreliability-of-science.html The present scientific community and character issues]
+
:::After all the tear-jerker stories about how vital Ukraine is to U.S. national security, no one asked the Dems' "experts" How many Americans they think will be willing to die for Ukraine? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 22:41, 13 November 2019 (EST)
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-business-of-progressive-science.html The business of progressive science]
+
==The subtext==
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/if-you-hand-us-hammer.html Scientific fraud problem in science community]
+
Mike Cernovich: Evangelical support for Israel is so high (72% or more) that people who claim to be American nationalists and populists while obsessing over Israel don’t want to win elections.
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/10/peer-review-is-joke.html Peer review problems in science]
+
Some of you don’t want to give Israel foreign aid. We get it. And this is such a losing issue.
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/10/science-has-lost-its-way.html Scientific replication problems and current published science articles]
+
@CityBureaucrat: It's not about $. It's about the double standard of the U.S. supporting a nation that controls its borders, protects its citizens w/tariffs & socio-economic entitlements, & guarantees a particular identity & way of life against the market, while denying this to U.S. citizens.
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-adjective-modifies-noun.html 60 percent of "important" social science studies could not be replicated]
+
The Dem & Repub parties want to demonize and even criminalize advocacy of these policies in the U.S. while effusively supporting Israel and its policies. Using our tax dollars to fund them is an additional slap in the face. I'm sure evangelicals would agree.
  
My trust in the work of scientists has definitely taken a hit in recent years.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:00, 19 May 2019 (EDT)
+
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 00:13, 14 November 2019 (EST)
  
== Tax returns ==
+
:These are good observations. I'm speechless.
  
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)
+
:I recall Israel's 30th birthday, when Israel became a man (according to Jewish tradition). That was 40 years ago. If someone dared utter these sentences then in public, print, or broadcast, they would immediately be branded a Nazi. So, in part, it kinda depends on the ''Zeitgeist''.  Today for example scratching your butt without asking the gods of climate change to stave of the apocalypse makes one a Nazi. So I'm really confused and can't give any meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:42, 14 November 2019 (EST)
: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)
+
::This is a reference to Hosea 11:1? "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." (ESV) [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:25, 14 November 2019 (EST)
::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)
+
:::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)
+
:I have a few things to say about this.
 +
::1. Mike Cernovich is a fraud. He recently was exposed by Lee Stranahan to having accepted money from Saudi sources in exchange for spewing propaganda that al-Qaeda and ISIS are rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood, and '''not''' the Muslim World League. This is significant because this means Cernovich is being paid to lie about which countries are the largest sponsors of Islamist terrorism. Iran, Qatar, and Turkey all do sponsor terrorism, but none hold a candle to the Saudi regime. But in Cernovich Land, those three get all the blame and Saudi Arabia can do no wrong. Go ahead and try to bring up the Muslim World League on Cernovich's Twitter. He won't even try to debate you. He'll straight up block you, even if you mention the MWL in good faith.
 +
::2. I personally think Israel is getting too much flak from people like @CityBureaucrat. Yes, it's hypocritical for our politicians to do that, but that's no reason to tear Israel down. If Israel's doing the right thing, then leave it alone. Plain and simple.
 +
::3. That being said, Israel is '''not''' doing the right thing. I'm not talking about its immigration policies. I'm talking about its foreign policy. Many young conservatives like myself are becoming lukewarm or even hostile towards Israel because of Netanyahu's obsession with Iran. This is causing Israel to embrace even worse actors like Saudi Arabia, and covertly endorsing policies that could cause the US to get into an armed conflict with one of our own NATO allies. This is unacceptable and it must be called out for the sake of our national security.
 +
::4. In hindsight, I believe moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a mistake. In doing so, we have essentially rewarded bad behavior. If the location of the embassy is such a hot button issue for Netanyahu, then perhaps we can use it as a leverage. Perhaps we should give him an ultimatum: reverse your recent foreign policy shifts, or we move the embassy back to Tel Aviv. And if you refuse to do so even after we move the embassy back to Tel Aviv, then we will close the embassy and then there will be no embassy at all.
 +
:I rest my case.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 13:02, 14 November 2019 (EST)
 +
::Iran is hardly a benign entity. Should a PM and cabinet ignore reality and practical solutions in favor of theoretical ideals and the way we would like things to be? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:16, 14 November 2019 (EST)
  
::::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)
+
==Confirmed==
:::::::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)
+
To understand the complete Russia collusion hoax and impeachment scheme, [https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/440730-how-the-obama-white-house-engaged-ukraine-to-give-russia-collusion read this John Solomon article from April 25] this year. Solomon states
::::::::I agree with PeterKa on this, and the current push from Democrats to release Trump's tax returns is merely a political action, nothing more. The only people who even care about Trump's tax returns or their contents are leftist hacks on CNN and MSNBC, as well as those gullible enough view those hacks as authoritative. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 02:46, 20 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:''"The January 2016 gathering....brought some of Ukraine’s top corruption prosecutors and investigators face to face with '''members of former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ)....U.S. officials “kept talking about how important it was that all of our anti-corruption efforts be united,” said Andrii Telizhenko, then a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington tasked with organizing the meeting." '''
::::::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)
+
:::::::That's not really the point. Firstly I don't think Obama is bar we should use. Aren't conservatives (at least I think so) supposed to maintain a higher level of integrity than the Obama's of this world? Secondly - you lose all moral authority. You've accepted Trump's lie about releasing his returns and his refusal to now do so. If a Democrat refuses to release his returns, benefits from the presidency the way Trump has in using his own business for presidential business (essentially getting the tax-payer to pay him personally), if a Democrat asks a foreign power to hack his opponents emails the way Trump did then you have to allow the bar to be set there. How can you demand a democrat to have integrity if you let Trump slide? You're either a hypocrite or you've set the bar even lower. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 02:37, 20 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
== Massive deregulation in Idaho ==
+
Eric Ciaramella signed Andrii Telizhenko (spelled Andrey) into the White House on January 19, 2016, ''per'' White House visitor logs obtained by Judicial Watch. ("telizhenko,andriy,g,U67540,100561,VA,1/19/16 10:57,D1101,1/19/16 12:53,,01/19/2016 12:00:00 AM,1/19/16 11:00,1/19/16 23:59,,1,KH,WIN,1/19/16 10:51,KH,Ciaramella,Eric,OEOB,230A,HARTWELL,KYLE,,,04/29/2016 07:00:00 AM +0000",,,," [https://archive.org/download/WHvisitorlogs_2010-16_surname/White-House-visitor-logs6_Sorr-Zyz.csv] [https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-white-house-visitor-logs-detail-meetings-of-eric-ciaramella/ Judicial Watch: White House Visitor Logs Detail Meetings of Eric Ciaramella.])
  
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)
+
Solomon writes in April of this year:  
 +
:''Americans’ objectives included two politically hot investigations: one that touched Vice President Joe Biden’s family and one that involved a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump.''
  
== Australia rejects climate alarmism ==
+
Shut down the Biden case and frame Manafort. It's all right there. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 03:41, 14 November 2019 (EST)
  
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)
+
:Aha! So the Obama Administration was worried about the Biden deal in the Ukraine not very much less, if not in fact, more, than Trump was! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 04:50, 14 November 2019 (EST)
 +
::This is beyond the FBI, DOJ, and John Brennan now. Ukrainian prosecutors were instructed by the Obama White House to clear Hunter Biden (or you're not gettin' the cash) and dig up the old 2014 allegations against Manafort, which the FBI dismissed in 2014, to frame Manafort.
 +
::The Obama White House colluded with a foreign government to interfere in American elections. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 05:44, 14 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:::I guess Mueller's prosecutors were investigating the wrong country. How about that?  Not that it would've mattered; they only bothered to investigate potential Russian collusion with regard to ''Trump''.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 09:54, 14 November 2019 (EST)
 +
:::Soon we'll learn that Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian President was another FISA leak while the FBI inspector general sleeps on. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 09:58, 14 November 2019 (EST)
 +
::::Why is it surprising to learn the Obama White House colluded with a foreign government to meddle in American elections? Globalists don't believe in sovereignty or borders - unless of course it's Ukraine's and not our own. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:58, 14 November 2019 (EST)

Latest revision as of 12:16, 14 November 2019

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

Archive Index


Who will win the Democrat presidential primary?

See also 2020 presidential election
Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee Who will win?
Chance of becoming
Democratic nominee
Candidate CA
ND
.
SO
RT
Home
state
End of
month
June
26
8:57
pm
EDT
End of
month
Mon-
day,
Jul.
29,
2019
End of
month
Mon-
day,
Aug.
26,
2019
End of
month
Tues-
day,
Oct.
1,
2019
Mon-
day
Oct.
7,
2019
Mon-
day
Oct.
14,
2019
Sat-
urday
Oct.
19,
2019
Mon-
day
Oct.
28,
2019
Mon-
day
Nov.
4,
2019
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE 28.5% 20.2% 23.6% 20.6% 17.2% 18.0% 16.4% 19.2% 19.6%
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 1.6% 2.0% 1.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6%
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 11.1% 8.3% 6.1% 5.1% 5.9% 6.7% 8.3% 9.8% 14.3%
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 2.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.5% 1.3% 1.2%
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 12.5% 27.4% 10.8% 4.3% 4.3% 2.6% 3.1% 1.8% 1.3%
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 11.2% 7.5% 13.4% 7.8% 5.6% 4.2% 7.0% 7.5% 12.1%
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 15.9% 21.5% 31.5% 46.7% 50.6% 51.8% 48.5% 43.7% 33.1%
Sec'y Hillary Clinton Cli NY 1.7% 1.5% 2.0% 5.7% 5.0% 5.8% 5.1% 6.1% 5.4%
Andrew Yang Yan NY 5.5% 3.3% 4.0% 4.4% 4.7% 3.9% 3.5% 3.0% 3.4%
Amy Klobuchar Klo MN 1.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.9% 1.3% 1.0% 1.5%
Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee Who will win?
Twitter followers
Candidate CA
ND
.
SO
RT
Home
state
Accts
as of
June
29
New
accts
July
30
New
accts
Aug
26
New
accts
Sep
13
New
accts
Sep
16
New
accts
Oct
1
New
accts
Oct
16
New
accts
Nov
1
V. Pres Joe Biden Bid DE   03.6M:1 +19,000 +64,000 +29,000 +8,000 +45,000 +98,000 +48,000
Sen. Cory Booker Boo NJ 04.4M:2 +28,000 +39,000 +9,000 +3,000 +9,000 +12,000 +16,000
Mayor Pete Buttigieg But IN 01.2M:2 +72,000 +101,000 +32,000 +48,000 +26,000 +30,000 +34,000
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Gab HI 00.6M:2 +34,000 +118,000 +20,000 +5,000 +27,000 +27,000 +141,000
Sen. Kamala Harris Har CA 03.6M:2 +245,000 +119,000 +45,000 +11,000 +48,000 +61,000 +48,000
Rep. Beto O'Rourke O'R TX 01.4M:1 +4,000 +116,000 +30,000 +14,000 +24,000 +22,000 +13,000
Sen. Bernie Sanders San VT 17.8M:2 +134,000 +264,000 +114,000 +22,000 +93,000 +140,000 +146,000
Sen. Elizabeth Warren War MA 07.8M:2 +225,000 +273,000 +110,000 +27,000 +137,000 +182,000 +107,000
Sec'y Hillary Clinton Cli NY 24.7M:1 +316,000 +115,000 +22,000 +123,000 +152,000 +171,000
Andrew Yang Yan NY 00.5M:1 +97,000 +22,000 +48,000 +51,000 +39,000

Trump's legitimate quid pro quo

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

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

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

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

Warren's 3½ month climb comes to an end

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

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

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

Warren's odds plummet 10½%

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

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

Popular government

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

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

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

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

Response to unimportant remarks

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

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

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

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

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

Golden Fleece Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2016 dinner guests

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

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

Menu
[it writes itself] Roast Trump


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

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

O’Sullivan’s First Law

Pew polls Democrat divergence 1994-2017.jpg

It's not your imagination.

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

Y'all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama bin Biden's jihadis

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

JohnZ's "Kurdish" communist professional victims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read this material:

1. United States, irreligion vs. religion and demographics

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

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

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

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

Canadian election

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

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

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

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

Atheists are badly losing. Conservative Christians are victorious!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary 2020! Let's get ready to rumble!

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

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

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

New York Times floodwall breached

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

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

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

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

Chuck Grassley caught sending code to RobS

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

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

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

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

Why right-wing populism will triumph

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

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

Site metrics

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

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

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

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

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

Site metrics, continued

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

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

Nada

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

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

Who is the whistleblower?

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

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

Conservapedia Talk:Main Page recent wild success

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

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

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

Hong Kong elections

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

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

Side comments

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

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

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

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

Israel vs. Ukraine

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

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

Revival of pictures of New York City gaslights

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

float right

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

Idea for Main Page Right

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

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

Christine Blasey Ford had nothing to gain by testifying

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

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

Reference

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

Shaking my head

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

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

Is Warren taking a dive?

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

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

Ciaramella vs. Plame

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

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

FLASHBACK October 10, 2019

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

Daily Beast article

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

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

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

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

MPL Update: 750,000,000 page views

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

Falsifiability

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

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

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

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

The plan...

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

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

Hearings

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

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

The subtext

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

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

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

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

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

These are good observations. I'm speechless.
I recall Israel's 30th birthday, when Israel became a man (according to Jewish tradition). That was 40 years ago. If someone dared utter these sentences then in public, print, or broadcast, they would immediately be branded a Nazi. So, in part, it kinda depends on the Zeitgeist. Today for example scratching your butt without asking the gods of climate change to stave of the apocalypse makes one a Nazi. So I'm really confused and can't give any meaningful response. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 00:42, 14 November 2019 (EST)
This is a reference to Hosea 11:1? "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." (ESV) PeterKa (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2019 (EST)
I have a few things to say about this.
1. Mike Cernovich is a fraud. He recently was exposed by Lee Stranahan to having accepted money from Saudi sources in exchange for spewing propaganda that al-Qaeda and ISIS are rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood, and not the Muslim World League. This is significant because this means Cernovich is being paid to lie about which countries are the largest sponsors of Islamist terrorism. Iran, Qatar, and Turkey all do sponsor terrorism, but none hold a candle to the Saudi regime. But in Cernovich Land, those three get all the blame and Saudi Arabia can do no wrong. Go ahead and try to bring up the Muslim World League on Cernovich's Twitter. He won't even try to debate you. He'll straight up block you, even if you mention the MWL in good faith.
2. I personally think Israel is getting too much flak from people like @CityBureaucrat. Yes, it's hypocritical for our politicians to do that, but that's no reason to tear Israel down. If Israel's doing the right thing, then leave it alone. Plain and simple.
3. That being said, Israel is not doing the right thing. I'm not talking about its immigration policies. I'm talking about its foreign policy. Many young conservatives like myself are becoming lukewarm or even hostile towards Israel because of Netanyahu's obsession with Iran. This is causing Israel to embrace even worse actors like Saudi Arabia, and covertly endorsing policies that could cause the US to get into an armed conflict with one of our own NATO allies. This is unacceptable and it must be called out for the sake of our national security.
4. In hindsight, I believe moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a mistake. In doing so, we have essentially rewarded bad behavior. If the location of the embassy is such a hot button issue for Netanyahu, then perhaps we can use it as a leverage. Perhaps we should give him an ultimatum: reverse your recent foreign policy shifts, or we move the embassy back to Tel Aviv. And if you refuse to do so even after we move the embassy back to Tel Aviv, then we will close the embassy and then there will be no embassy at all.
I rest my case.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2019 (EST)
Iran is hardly a benign entity. Should a PM and cabinet ignore reality and practical solutions in favor of theoretical ideals and the way we would like things to be? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:16, 14 November 2019 (EST)

Confirmed

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

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

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

Solomon writes in April of this year:

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

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

Aha! So the Obama Administration was worried about the Biden deal in the Ukraine not very much less, if not in fact, more, than Trump was! VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 04:50, 14 November 2019 (EST)
This is beyond the FBI, DOJ, and John Brennan now. Ukrainian prosecutors were instructed by the Obama White House to clear Hunter Biden (or you're not gettin' the cash) and dig up the old 2014 allegations against Manafort, which the FBI dismissed in 2014, to frame Manafort.
The Obama White House colluded with a foreign government to interfere in American elections. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 05:44, 14 November 2019 (EST)
I guess Mueller's prosecutors were investigating the wrong country. How about that? Not that it would've mattered; they only bothered to investigate potential Russian collusion with regard to Trump. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 09:54, 14 November 2019 (EST)
Soon we'll learn that Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian President was another FISA leak while the FBI inspector general sleeps on. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 09:58, 14 November 2019 (EST)
Why is it surprising to learn the Obama White House colluded with a foreign government to meddle in American elections? Globalists don't believe in sovereignty or borders - unless of course it's Ukraine's and not our own. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 10:58, 14 November 2019 (EST)