Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(JohnSelway: Time to stop the sore loserism. Donald Trump and his supporters have won hands down)
(Archived to AUGUST 5, 2019)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
[[Talk:Main Page/Archive index|Archive Index]]
 
[[Talk:Main Page/Archive index|Archive Index]]
 +
==Who will win the Democrat presidential primary? ==
 +
:''See also [[2020 presidential election]]
 +
{| class="wikitable sortable"  style="font-size:98%; margin:left;"
 +
|+Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee
 +
|+Who will win?
 +
|+
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="3" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 5px; background: #efefef;" |
 +
! colspan="8" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 5px; background: #efefef;" | Chance of becoming<br>Democratic nominee
 +
|-
 +
!class=unsortable|Candidate
 +
!<font size="-2">CA<br>ND<br>.<br>SO<br>RT
 +
!class=unsortable|Home<br>state
 +
!style="border-right:1px solid gray"|End of<br>month<br>June<br>26<br>8:57<br>pm<br>EDT
 +
!style="border-right:1px solid gray"|End of<br>month<br>Mon-<br>day,<br>Jul.<br>29,<br>2019
 +
!style="border-right:1px solid gray"|End of<br>month<br>Mon-<br>day,<br>Aug.<br>26,<br>2019
 +
!Fri-<br>day,<br>Sep.<br>13,<br>2019
 +
!Mon-<br>day,<br>Sep.<br>16,<br>2019
 +
!Mon-<br>day,<br>Sep.<br>23,<br>2019
 +
!Tues-<br>day,<br>Oct.<br>1,<br>2019
 +
!Wed-<br>nes-<br>Oct.<br>9,<br>2019
 +
|-
 +
|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"|23.5%
 +
|align="right"|22.7%
 +
|align="right"|23.0%
 +
|align="right"|20.6%
 +
|align="right"|17.5%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Cory Booker]]
 +
|{{invi|Boo}}
 +
|align="center"|NJ
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|1.6%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|2.0%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|1.8%
 +
|align="right"|2.4%
 +
|align="right"|2.3%
 +
|align="right"|0.5%
 +
|align="right"|0.8%
 +
|align="right"|0.9%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Mayor [[Pete Buttigieg]]
 +
|{{invi|But}}
 +
|align="center"|IN
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|11.1%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|8.3%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|6.1%
 +
|align="right"|4.5%
 +
|align="right"|4.4%
 +
|align="right"|4.6%
 +
|align="right"|5.1%
 +
|align="right"|6.2%
 +
|-
 +
|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"|0.8%
 +
|align="right"|1.0%
 +
|align="right"|1.1%
 +
|align="right"|1.4%
 +
|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"|6.6%
 +
|align="right"|7.4%
 +
|align="right"|5.0%
 +
|align="right"|4.3%
 +
|align="right"|3.9%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Rep. [[Beto O'Rourke]]
 +
|{{invi|O'R}}
 +
|align="center"|TX
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|4.0%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|1.3%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|0.5%
 +
|align="right"|1.2%
 +
|align="right"|0.9%
 +
|align="right"|0.9%
 +
|align="right"|1.0%
 +
|align="right"|0.7%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Bernie Sanders]]
 +
|{{invi|San}}
 +
|align="center"|VT
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|11.2%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|7.5%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|13.4%
 +
|align="right"|12.2%
 +
|align="right"|12.5%
 +
|align="right"|9.3%
 +
|align="right"|7.8%
 +
|align="right"|5.0%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Elizabeth Warren]]
 +
|{{invi|War}}
 +
|align="center"|MA
 +
|align="right" sty2le="border-right:1px solid gray"|15.9%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|21.5%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|31.5%
 +
|align="right"|35.2%
 +
|align="right"|36.6%
 +
|align="right"|40.8%
 +
|align="right"|46.7%
 +
|align="right"|50.1%
 +
|-
 +
|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"|3.6%
 +
|align="right"|3.4%
 +
|align="right"|4.6%
 +
|align="right"|5.7%
 +
|align="right"|7.5%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|[[Andrew Yang]]
 +
|{{invi|Yan}}
 +
|align="center"|NY
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|5.5%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|3.3%
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|4.0%
 +
|align="right"|5.4%
 +
|align="right"|5.2%
 +
|align="right"|4.8%
 +
|align="right"|4.4%
 +
|align="right"|4.4%
 +
|}
  
 +
{| class="wikitable sortable"  style="font-size:98%; margin:left;"
 +
|+Candidates for Democratic Presidential Nominee
 +
|+Who will win?
 +
|+
 +
|-
 +
! colspan="3" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 5px; background: #efefef;" |
 +
! colspan="7" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 5px; background: #efefef;" | Twitter followers
 +
|-
 +
!class=unsortable|Candidate
 +
!<font size="-2">CA<br>ND<br>.<br>SO<br>RT
 +
!class=unsortable|Home<br>state
 +
!style="border-right:1px solid gray"|Accts<br>as of<br>June<br>29
 +
!style="border-right:1px solid gray"|New<br>accts<br>end of<br>July(30)
 +
!style="border-right:1px solid gray"|New<br>accts<br>Aug<br>26
 +
!New<br>accts<br>Sep<br>2
 +
!New<br>accts<br>Sep<br>13
 +
!New<br>accts<br>Sep<br>16
 +
!New<br>accts<br>Oct<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"|+64,000
 +
|align="right"|+12,000
 +
|align="right"|+17,000
 +
|align="right"|+8,000
 +
|align="right"|+45,000
 +
|-
 +
|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"|+39,000
 +
|align="right"|+3,000
 +
|align="right"|+6,000
 +
|align="right"|+3,000
 +
|align="right"|+9,000
 +
|-
 +
|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"|+101,000
 +
|align="right"|+9,000
 +
|align="right"|+23,000
 +
|align="right"|+48,000
 +
|align="right"|+26,000
 +
|-
 +
|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"|+118,000
 +
|align="right"|+20,000
 +
|align="right"|+15,000
 +
|align="right"|+5,000
 +
|align="right"|+27,000
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Kamala Harris]]
 +
|{{invi|Har}}
 +
|align="center"|CA
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|03.6M:2
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+245,000
 +
|align="right"|+119,000
 +
|align="right"|+11,000
 +
|align="right"|+25,000
 +
|align="right"|+11,000
 +
|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"|+4,000
 +
|align="right"|+116,000
 +
|align="right"|+51,000
 +
|align="right"|+20,000
 +
|align="right"|+14,000
 +
|align="right"|+24,000
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sen. [[Bernie Sanders]]
 +
|{{invi|San}}
 +
|align="center"|VT
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|17.8M:2
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|+134,000
 +
|align="right"|+264,000
 +
|align="right"|+45,000
 +
|align="right"|+63,000
 +
|align="right"|+22,000
 +
|align="right"|+93,000
 +
|-
 +
|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"|+273,000
 +
|align="right"|+50,000
 +
|align="right"|+65,000
 +
|align="right"|+27,000
 +
|align="right"|+137,000
 +
|-
 +
|align="left"|Sec'y [[Hillary Clinton]]
 +
|{{invi|Cli}}
 +
|align="center"|NY
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid gray"|
 +
|align="right"|+316,000
 +
|align="right"|+20,000
 +
|align="right"|+66,000
 +
|align="right"|+22,000
 +
|align="right"|+123,000
 +
|-
 +
|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"|
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|align="right"|+77,000
 +
|align="right"|+22,000
 +
|align="right"|+48,000
 +
|}
  
==[[Horror of a unique position|The horror of a non-unique position]]==
+
:August 6:  RobS, on July 1, 2019 you wrote:
 +
:::Biden cannot win the enthusiastic support of blacks and progressives. As the far left whackos drop out one-by-one, that leaves Harris, who can re-create the old Obama enthusiasm.
 +
::Since Biden is back in the lead, do you think it's possible for Biden to take Kamala Harris or Cory Booker as a vice president and get the enthusiastic support of blacks through this form of encouragement? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 08:05, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:August 19: Kamala Harris' odds plummet for six straight weeks; Elizabeth Warren's odds soar for nine straight weeks.  Results have proven Peter Ka's theory correct, and we need a new theory from RobS. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 18:17, 19 August 2019 (EDT)
  
"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]
+
===Warren ===
 
+
It's too early to predict who the nominee will be. But I can predict that Warren will be the Next Big Thing. Biden and Sanders are fading. [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html The RCP polling average] shows Warren ahead of Harris. The mainstream media has an article fawning over Warren almost every day. If she can survive the blowback from pushing a bogus DNA test performed by an undisclosed lab, she can survive anything. The urban legend about cockroaches and nuclear war comes to mind.<br/>Biden touts himself as Obama's successor. But I'm pretty sure that Obama doesn't see things that way. In 2016, Obama wanted Warren to get the nomination and asked Biden not to run.<br/>Harris got a boost out of beating up Biden at the debate, but how hard is that? It was also quite a cynical performance. She started off by saying, "I don't think you are a racist." This I-don't-say-it,-but-I-just-said-it stuff is a very old and sleazy rhetorical tactic. The classic example is when Cicero told Catiline, ''The incest with thy sister, I not name.'' [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:26, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
GLENDALE, CA—A man was rushed to the hospital yesterday after encountering a slightly different viewpoint than his own Wednesday.
+
:That's a "good" trick; thanks for sharing that insight.
 
   
 
   
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.  
+
:The RCP polling average uses a rolling average: the worst is yet to come for Warren and surely for Biden after that devastating clash with Harris at that Democratic debate, easy as it might have been for Harris. Someone noted today that they suspect Harris has been scratched off Biden's list of VP picks, so one can imagine her attack coming with the knowledge that she was taking quite a risk, especially with somebody standing above a glass floor like Biden. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 23:21, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Warren is worse than Hillary. Harris has sex appeal. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 02:10, 2 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Men look for strength in their leaders - not sex appeal. Most of the world's leaders are men.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:08, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Most liberal/SJW men are so effete that the former prosecutor Harris actually has more machismo than them![[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:12, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Political attack dog styles: Biden = French poodle. Warren = Labrador Retriever. Harris = German Shepherd. Trump = Dire wolf.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:21, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::Speaking as someone who formerly owned a toy poodle, I'd contest comparing Biden to a French poodle. My poodle if you met him while he was alive was actually very vicious towards strangers and protective of us, to the extent that we have to constantly tell him "friend" to make clear he shouldn't be agitated towards visitors. You'd actually mistake him for a Rottweiler if you had met him. You ought to try Welsh terrier, which barely even reacts to others and is passive. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:41, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
Poodles do have a reputation for biting people, but their bite strength is limited due to their small size/jaws. So while Biden is an ankle biter when it comes to Trump, he is a rather inconsequential one.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:53, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Please see the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZm037jPNgc Dog Attack Styles]. Companies/military don't employ poodles as guard/attack dogs.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:55, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Trump's more like a crow pecking out the eyes and tongue of an enfeebled GOP. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 13:34, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Crows are scavengers. Trump is producer minded. Look at the GNP growth. Look at historic employment levels. The USA also was rated the most competitive economy in the world. The Democrats with their tax/spend philosophy are the scavengers/consumers.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:19, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
  
"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."
+
:What we're looking at is the curious prospect of Harris and Warren being the final 2, a female/female head-to-head match up. Somewhat awkward and undesirable. Warren gets to play the radical leftist Bernie Sanders, and Harris plays the moderate centrist Hillary Clinton. Ultimately a Harris/Castro ticket, with an outside chance of Harris/Buttigieg.
  
Four other bystanders were also emotionally injured by the moderately divergent opinion but were not hospitalized.
+
:An all female final two has its risks; the immediate question is can someone other than Warren, a male, play the role of far leftist in the Democrat party? Casting is open for this role, as it is needed to portray Harris as a level-headed centrist. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 16:34, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
::The boost Harris got from the debates is already fading. Despite the fact that Biden was once again exposed as a doddering fool, his 30 percent of the vote is sticking with him. After all, where else are they going to go? The other candidates are ridiculously woke. (Michael Bennet of Colorado was only one who didn't raise his hand for open borders.) Warren now has the best net favorability. I expect Sanders' support to migrate to Warren leaving Biden and Warren as the final two. [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-kamala-harriss-new-voters-came-from/ FiveThirtyEight] has a statistical breakdown. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 17:24, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::The 30% are machine Democrats who would back Hitler, Mao, or Stalin if they were running. Donors, organizers, and staff are already defecting. Hickenlooper's manager and staff just quit, and they are not going to Biden.  
 +
:::Harris has [[Marc Elias]], the DNC, Hillary Clinton, and John Podesta general counsel. Elias hired [[Christopher Steele]] to write the ''Steele dossier''. Elias is behind the ballot stuffing measures that just won the House in the 2010 midterms. Get real. Read the writing on the wall. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 17:30, 3 July 2019 (EDT)
  
The man is being kept stable on ideology support at St. Francis medical center, surrounded by friends and family who agree with him 100% on every single issue.
+
:At this point, the Democrats have to nominate Harris, cause the black monolith within the Democrat party is about to shatter, [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:34, 7 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
*The prediction I made above is already vindicated. The two latest polls suggest that the nomination is now a two-way race between Biden and Warren.[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html] I say it's time to uncork the fake Indian jokes. All hail Jokeahontas, the chief of the Wannabes! Wow wow wow for ''Powwow Chow''! I hear Warren is on the warpath and she's not burying the hatchet anytime soon! What does warpaint and a bogus DNA test get you? The Democratic nomination! Check out [http://www.kappit.com/img/pics/201501_2154_bghce_sm.jpg this meme] or [http://www.kappit.com/img/pics/201501_2123_fdigg_sm.jpg this one]. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:11, 13 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
::After ''my'' prediction of the worst being yet to come for Warren along with gloomy times ahead for her, she immediately raises her odds of winning and then continues to do so for another five straight weeks! And if I single out a candidate to acknowledge their pulling ahead, like Sen. Kamala Harris, it turns out to be the touch of death for them, and, for their opponents, unbridled success! I think I'll leave the predictions to Peter for a while. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 22:07, 13 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::The latest YouGov poll shows 21 points for Biden, 20 for Warren, and 16 for Sanders.[https://www.mediaite.com/politics/just-in-elizabeth-warren-surges-in-new-national-poll-to-statistical-tie-with-joe-biden/] '''NEW PREDICTION''': Sanders and Warren are too friendly to be rival candidates. Sanders knows he is too old to be president. He will drop out sometime before Iowa and endorse Warren. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 10:02, 20 August 2019 (EDT)
  
The man who suggested the slightly differing opinion fled the scene. Anyone with information is asked to alert the authorities.
+
===We are at a pivotal moment for Black voters===
 +
Everyone agrees Democrats cannot win the presidency without Black voters. This almost guarantees Harris' nomination. Blacks at this moment are waking up to the fact that everything they have ben told about Biden by white Democrats, trusted Black Democrats, the media, and the schools, during Obama's presidency and for the previous 50 years, is a bald face lie. Their trust in the party is contingent on them being in control now, since the election of Obama, even though many are not particularly enamored to Obama, ''especially'' since Biden's racism is now exposed. Another consequence is a rethinking of all the lies Democrats, schools, and media have told about Republicans for a little more than 50 years.  
  
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 03:08, 22 April 2019 (EDT)
+
This is largely a discussion going on among Blacks themselves now. No longer will the automatic reaction to a Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Candace Owens or Kanye West be, "Oh, that's just another Uncle Tom;" They will look at white liberals with a jaundiced eye (the way they look at Sanders, Hillary, or Warren) even more suspiciously than they have in the past. There will be a legitimate debate among Blacks whether slave reparations is just tossing them another bone to ride the back of the buss by house negroes such as Cory Booker, who's not doing so well. Harris's nomination is almost guaranteed right now - just as matter of keeping the Democrat party together - complete with the "Republicans are racists" mantra up to election day November 2020. But truth is, more and more Blacks daily are waking to the fact that this is a lie, and the only hope Black Democrats and their white liberal cracker allies, who they increasingly are disgusted with, have to win.
:I hope they had conservative anti-venom at the hospital. :)
+
  
:I forgot how much I love the Babylon Bee.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:01, 22 April 2019 (EDT)
+
Even if Harris were to win, don't be fooled by the alleged pride Blacks have in her. Many, many of them have little trust in her and don't feel Harris represents their interests or concerns anymore than Bathroom Barry did. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 20:18, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
::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)
+
Blacks are realizing even Obama lied to them. And Obama's failure to speak out now in defense of Biden - condemning Harris for an opportunistic, unjust attack - is proof of this. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 20:24, 9 July 2019 (EDT)
::::::[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==
+
:A recent ''Wall Street Journal'' poll says the far left (whites) are 50% of the Democrat base, while moderates (minorities) are 40%. With Biden mortally wounded by the [[Biden-Ukraine scandal]] (the only way to take Trump down by impeachment is to take Biden down, as well, which the dominant far left seems intent on doing), the question remains is ''Who will blacks gravitate to?'' Gabbard, a moderate woman of color, seems most likely. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:51, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
  
She will test the theory, but, if it's true, how can the equation E=m''c''<sup>2</sup> be true?
+
===O'Rourke, racism, and gun control===
 +
It looks like the presidential leadership and comforting skills that Beto O'Rourke  displayed after the [[El Paso Walmart shooting]] to his constituents and the world at large cost him more than 1 out three voters of his 1.9% base.  I'm sure [[MSM]] who promoted him have taken note, have learned nothing, and will ignore facts again. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 14:45, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
  
::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? 
+
===2020 U. S. Federal Election template===
::And she is using data from '''fossils''' as her source of wisdom?  And she thinks her discovery might lead to Star-Trek-style "warp speed"?  Have you checked her quantitative data on the observed change in the speed of light?  And seen where it fits into the graphs in the [[C decay]] article?  (Disclaimer: mostly written by "expert/shill" SamHB.)
+
::Have you checked her "proof" that a changing speed of light means that E=m''c''<sup>2</sup> can't be true?  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:45, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::I stand corrected, and I apologize. The ACES ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Clock_Ensemble_in_Space Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space]) project is a real thing, planned for launch in 2020.  But I seriously doubt the claims of the ''Daily Star'' article, about fossils, and time travel, and the possibility of overthrowing E=m''c''<sup>2</sup>.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:38, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::The title of this section is the first ''bona fide'' troll I've ever placed on Conservapedia, and minutes ago I revisited the section to guiltily remove it.  The scientist in question didn't "admit" the speed of light is changing, she just said that she believes it to be true.  There is a non-standard sense of "admit" that means "allow as plausible" but it's contrary to common usage.  But the way your response captured you in perfect snobbishness makes me want to try to repeat it somehow now, in spite of myself. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 03:46, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::OK, I've changed it.  The usage struck me as odd when I first saw it.  The word "admit" has two common meanings:  confess to some kind of personal shortcoming (anything from having overstated one's case in a casual conversation to having committed murder), or "allow for the possibility of".  The second meaning is less common, but is clearly what you wanted.  To avoid misleading the reader, I've changed it to "claim".
+
  
If not, "expert/shill" SamHB is proven wrong, and "Best of the Public" Andy Schlafly is right!  It's too bad SamHB has always seemed to be a sycophant/toady to relativity scientists. Because he may be about to slip on his own banana peels that he placed on the floor that would impress them. That is to say, by making it harder for those who believe in the Genesis creation story to spread the gospel after seeing his poor soul desperately try to extract a contradiction where none existsAnd 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)
+
Andy suggested a 2020 U. S. election template, but the idea got waylaid I think through a case of unintentionally hostile indentations near where it was added to the discussionI will be working on that, but please don't let that stop you from coming up with your own ideas. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 15:54, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
:[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’].
+
:[[Barry Setterfield]] vindicated? :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:21, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Not likely.  Setterfield is widely ridiculed even within the creationist community.  See the article [[C decay]].  He postulates two different time scales, "atomic time" and "dynamical time" in order to account for the inconsistencies in his theory.  His graph of C decay has been miraculously fudged in such a way as to (just barely) skirt the error bounds as measurements got more precise through the 20<sup>th</sup> century.  And he still can't stay within the error bounds.
+
  
:::I am constantly amused by the intellectual contortions that creationists go through ("time dilation field", for example) in order to make their young-Earth cosmology seem to fit in with plain observations and plain common sense. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:24, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
===National popular vote===
::::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."
+
The attack on the Electoral College is one of several fronts on which American liberals are on the offensive against constitutional government. The main proposal is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. So far, it has been approved by 15 states plus the District of Columbia. These states control 293 electoral votes. The pact goes into effect when states controlling 270 electoral votes approve. This compact is clearly unconstitutional: "No state shall, without Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another state." (Article I, Section 10). In 2016, we didn't even know who won the popular vote until weeks after the election was held. If a Republican wins the most votes nationally, can Democratic governors be counted on to appoint Republican electors? It's not like there is any way to enforce the compact in court. If no one gets a majority, the democratic solution is a runoff. Instead, the compact proposes a set of rules that would have allowed Hillary to win in 2016. It is all about her supporters being sore losers.[https://spectator.org/the-national-popular-vote-con-job/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 18:10, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
:::::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)
+
:States never would have joined the Union if they knew the Electoral College would be abolished someday. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:14, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
::::2)  Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford University, was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:11, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::Right. If you posit that "special creation" can precisely mimic evolution, then you can't tell the difference, can you?  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:38, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::Precisely mimic? [[Macroevolution]] is impossible! [[Abiogenesis]] alone is impossible and that is merely the first step of the whole proposed scheme (See footnote #2 of [https://creation.com/origin-of-life THIS ARTICLE]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:12, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::::Right.  (I'm being ironic here; you are actually wrong.)  Please don't bore me with more stupid creationism garbage.  In particular, I'm sure you know by now that I never read or look at (1) creationist YouTube videos (YouTube?  Are you serious?  You actually consider Youtube videos to be a source of wisdom?), (2) creationist websites, or religious websites attempting to make scientific statements in clear contradiction of widely known scientific facts, or (3) your very prolific writing on your pet topics, which involve all sorts of interconnected links from one of your pages to another and back again.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:45, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::Vargas, your writing style has almost always left me utterly baffled.  I can't figure out what you are trying to say.  It makes me wonder whether you are simply trying to outdo your [https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/134#The_Blood_Moon "withering patrician disdain"] comment and ascend to new heights of making no sense.  Banana peels?  What?  And I don't try to make "bible thinkers [...] waste time and be at risk to slip on the nearby peels".  I don't consider "bible thinkers", or any other specific group, to be my main audience.  I'm not trying to make anyone slip on any metaphorical banana peels. And being called an "expert/shill", by you, doesn't bother me.  I'm puzzled at being called a "sycophant/toady" toward essentially every high school or college physics textbook written since 1950 or so.  I don't see how one can be a "toady" toward a book. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:51, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Yet, you have repeated the phrase "withering patrician disdain" on nine? different occasions, even ''after'' I explained I had only copied the phrase rather than had custom-designed it to describe your introduction of a set of ideas you had formed about the moon.  Don't you remember?  You seemed disappointed that I had copied it from one of Conservative's quotations and dismissed it as his type of "garbage"!  Please SamHB—end it. The person the phrase was being used for was being a bit pedantic, and then I saw ''you'' being a bit pedantic. The overly-precise description didn't even fit the style of argument of the person it was originally aimed at very well, much less yours. It goes no deeper than that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 03:31, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::OK, I admit I've overused that phrase.  I won't use it anymore.  There are others, like "[https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Parrot#No_Credit_Where_Credit_is_Not_Due SamHB embraces the pseudoscience that leavens science too tightly to be trusted]" and "[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1110822&oldid=1110821 He (SamHB) seems to have no suspicion that any of those he despises could find his stilted pose of indignant rationality merely laughable....  Transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind]".
+
::::Perhaps you could do with a little less florid prose about me personally, and be willing to discuss relativity in a sensible manner, one that doesn't set off my "sycophant/toady" alarm.  You seem to read books and stuff, and that's good.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:51, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::Those last two phrases belonged the ''same'' long quotation of what someone else said that contained the "withering patrician disdain" phrase. You can't count that quotation three times! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 01:10, 13 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::I didn't say I was citing phrases from 3 edits; just 3 phrases.  From 2 edits.  I'll make a deal with you:  If you try to write in straightforward plain English, without all the florid phrases, I'll stop throwing your phrases back at you.  OK?  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::This scientist's new physical theory would vindicate Andy's critique of ''E'' = m''c''<sup>2</sup> in which he asked whether if ''c'' changed it would follow that energy all throughout the universe would change as well—For example (this is my example) the mass defect in molecules would change and increase or decrease the binding energy that holds the molecules together.  And if it didn't, how could we say that the equation ''E'' = m''c''<sup>2</sup> is true?
+
::::::I thought I had adequately debunked, above, "this scientist's new physical theory", the one from the '''Daily Star''' and nowhere else, the one that involves looking at fossils. making a laughable claim of putting an experiment on the International Space Station, and something about the moon. 
+
  
::::::I had asked whether you had seen "this scientist's" "proof" that a changing speed of light means that E=m''c''<sup>2</sup> can't be true?  I guess what you wrote above, involving binding energy and mass defect, is your own "proof" of that.  Fair enough.
+
===Week of Sept, 2===
 +
So Bernie Sanders, Yang, Buttigieg and Biden are flat; Warren's growth has come at the expense of Harris' bubble and one-hit-wonder when she called Biden a racist. These numbers presumable would reflect Warren's growth among blacks, which I don't think is a valid analysis. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:33, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
  
::::::Now I assume you've read the actual proof, the one overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community.  (If you haven't, go to [[Essay:Rebuttal_to_Attempts_to_prove_E%3Dmc²]] and look around.)  What the equation says is basically that "energy (E), right now, is equal to c-squared, right now, times mass (m), right now."  What you refer to above as "mass defect" and "binding energy" is the same thing.  So if the speed of light changed from one era to the next, either energy or mass would have to change.  We have these fundamental laws called "conservation of mass" and "conservation of energy".  So "this scientist" (Louise Riofrio, by the way) is saying that one or both of these principles must not hold.  And she uses fossils, and publicly available data about laser reflections from the moon, to validate this?  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:Now, Harris' bubble after calling Biden a racist may have come from aged white babyboomer hippies and other assorted leftisits; what is interesting to note is that Biden has never really recovered from it (it caused people to look closer at him, where gaffes and health issues intervened). While the race baiters attacks hurt the target (the race baitee), the gains have not re-downed to the race baiter, rather to others. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:36, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
:
+
::::And consequently, assuming that change in the speed of light, since a constant speed of light is what Einstein presupposed in his 1905 paper about relativity, removing that principle would cause the rational basis of Einstein's relativity rehash to topple and fall.
+
:
+
::::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)
+
===Wizard of Oz===
::::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 ===
+
Kamala may not have known it, but "the little guy behind the curtain" was supposed to symbolize Franklin Roosevelt, who used the machinations of the presidency (like the alphabet agencies) to portray the government as involved in vigorous action to boost the economy for the sake of commanding the economy past the Great Depression, just like the guy behind the curtain used the wizard apparition as a trick to bolster the authoritativeness of the commands the little guy was issuing to try to save Oz.
  
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)
+
Although once discovered, the wizard did his best to help his guests with the gifts he gave them, but a command economy doesn't work in the long run (The movie was 6 years into Roosevelt's presidency and still in the Great Depression).
: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==
+
Hence, he thanked the group for their appreciation, but pointedly admitted, "I just don't make a very good wizard". [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 01:20, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
Just wanted to ask, what are we doing to defend history?  More importantly, to advance it and restore it?  Anybody have ideas?  [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:36, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:(I thought it pre-dated FDR) I go for the throat -- If Kamala exposed the Wizard, what does that make her, Todo? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 04:10, 13 September 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)
+
::The book the movie is based on was published in 1900. The movie is full of references to the election of 1896. "Follow the yellow brick road" is a reference to the gold standard as advocated by President William McKinley. "Oz" is an abbreviation for ounces, as in troy ounces of gold. Dorothy represents the naive American people, nearly led astray by the wizard, who represents William Jennings Bryan, McKinley's Democratic opponent. The Wizard rules an "Emerald City." This is a city based on the fraud of greenback notes that only appear to have value. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:50, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
::I left it ambiguous on purpose to get some thoughts, but my point is that if "each generation has to discover history for itself", how can we change this problem and overcome it, or in the least minimize it?  Hopefully to reverse it. Our enemies aren't sitting back waiting for "each generation to discover history for itself". [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 20:21, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::And the fraud of Big Gubmint Progressivism; the government can't give you a brain, only a diploma; it can't give you heart, only a timepiece; it can't give you courage, only pin a medal on your chest; and it can't give you a home. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 06:04, 13 September 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)
+
::::1896 was when the modern U.S. party structure emerged. That is to say, it was the first election fought over liberal versus conservative economic principles. The Republicans adopted free market economics while the Dems came under the spell of socialist something-for-nothing "populism," as it was called at the time. This is history that today's liberals have some problems with since the populists were the original segregationists. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:36, 13 September 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)
+
:::::I read 1976 Libertarian presidential candidate Roger McBride's book, ''[https://www.amazon.com/New-Dawn-America-Libertarian-Challenge/dp/0916054063 A New Dawn for America: The Libertarian Challenge]'' in 1976. The book is dedicated to Todo, with an explanatory introduction. Excellent book, but I voted for Ford anyway (that communist POS [[John Brennan]] voted for [[Gus Hall]] while [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG0T_hVMqLs&feature=youtu.be all this was going on])[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:46, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
::::This will come across contentious and for that I apologize, but those all sound like policy ideas. In other words, those are "something someone else can do" kinds of things. I was thinking a little closer to home. What can we do. Not what can they do. The idea that I came up with, and this was some time ago, was that of recording audiobooks and bringing things that progressives don't want to be seen back into the disinfecting sunlightIs it a requirement conservatives must either be running some sort of blog/vlog, on talk radio or on TV?
+
  
::::No, it is not. Non-commercial open source/public domain audiobooks are a valid form of conservative 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)
+
=== Third Democratic debate ===
:::::If we did that, immature hecklers would use the recordings of our voices and reattach them in ways that would make it seem as if were saying non-conservative things, or supporting our conservative arguments with foolish reasonings. No thank you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 01:21, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
The third Democratic debate was held in Houston on Thursday. This time, there were "only" ten candidates. Sadly, neither of the two most interesting candidates, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson, made the cut.<br/>Former Vice President Joe Biden was the only debater who showed any awareness that the constitution limits the authority of a president. No one else objected to U.S. Senator Kamala Harris's proposed gun grabbing executive order, an idea that certainly got the crowd excited. Stock up on ammo, folks. The Dems are gung ho for a civil war. The people who think stop and frisk is racist draw the line at legal gun ownership.<br/>For whatever reason, Biden decided it was high time to tell blacks how to improve their parenting: “Play the radio, make sure the television—excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the—make sure that kids hear words, a kid coming from a very poor school, a very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time we get there.” Hey, that's good old Electable Joe talking there. He was given a chance to explain, but wisely chose to ramble on about Venezuela instead. [https://theweek.com/articles/864766/why-media-gaslighting-everyone-about-joe-biden This article] makes a stab at trying to figure out what he might have meant.<br/>The media is convinced that "Running Joke" Warren won the debate. From a Republican point of view, it all sounds too good to be true. Jimmy Dore explains the problem in "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFNlLNuB_Wc&t=1173s Why Elizabeth Warren Would Lose To Trump]." Aside from not actually being an American Indian, Warren's greatest weakest is her "Aren't we progressives are so smart?" shtick. It doesn't go over well with blacks or moderates, at least not if Warren's election results in Massachusetts are anything to go by. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 18:50, 13 September 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)
+
:I like Joe Biden's policies better than the other Democrats, but Andrew Yang is the most likeable. Biden's age is going to be his achilles' heel. Trump (and his surrogates) would likely scuttle Biden just like they did with Jeb "low energy" Bush. If I was forced to decide at this point, it will be be Trump vs. Warren.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:05, 13 September 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)
+
::Trump v. Warren is basically a Trump v. Hillary rematch. Same demographics. Same organisations. Hillary already is Warren's chief advisor. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 22:25, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Biden's awareness of limited government, while a disadvantage to his ability to promise federal government largesse last night, was offset by his announcement of a new, generous policy of leniency toward criminal offenders:
  
== Biden the tongue tied ==
+
::::“Nobody should be in jail for a non-violent crime." - Joe Biden
  
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)
+
:::[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 22:30, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
:Trump sounds like English is his second language. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 03:18, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
::::Yep. He wants to open the jail cells of all the car thieves and home burglars, so they can support their dope habits, for which they can's be jailed. Makes perfect sense, and earns Biden the label 'socialist'. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:08, 13 September 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)
+
:::::I thought about it more. Joe Biden has been through 3 debates and he is still the leader. He is more likeable to most Democrats as a whole than all the other candidates. He is also more moderate. It will probably be a Trump vs. Biden race. And age is a very delicate issue. Julian Castro found out that the hard way. Trump gets away with bringing up Biden's age because he is older himself and his is known as a brawler/mud wrestler in his rhetoric. It is just Trump being Trump. Many people are amused by it.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:19, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
:::Excredible. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 09:22, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::I don't see his health holding up. At the appropriate moment, Biden and Sanders will step aside. This theoretically will unite both the Clinton and Sanders factions of 2016. Warren may not have offended minorities yet, to the extent Hillary did; but minorities see her as the fraud that she is. None are enthusiastic about her (her rhetoric is meaningless). She wants to bribe them with free stuff, which more and more young minority voters see as an insult. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:03, 14 September 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)
+
:::::::As I see it, the race will eventually narrow to a moderate (Biden) and a leftist (Warren). Since the party has more leftists than moderates, Warren will emerge as the nominee. She is a fake from head to toe, and not only with respect to ancestry. She was a conservative Republican until she was 47 years old. At that point, she flipped left for cynical career reasons. The best refutation of her current political philosophy can be found in her own book, ''The Two-Income Trap.'' [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 02:19, 14 September 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)
+
::::::::In an election year, the saying is "People start paying attention after Labor Day". That's a full year off. Voters will have their say in New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina. Polls, media hype, etc. are meaningless at this stage (especially national polls). It's all about money right now, the ability to fundraise, and put on a good showing in New Hampshire and after. Those whose donors dry up, drop out. Those who make it to the New Hampshire top three, move on. Debate performance and polls right now mean nothing.
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)
+
::::::::Liz Warren is 69 years old. The idea that people will vote for Warren cause she's only 69, but Biden's 76 and Bernie is 78 is ludicrous. Look for voters, young and old voters alike to, jump on Gabbard or Buttigieg, maybe even Booker. At least one will emerge. Gabbard and Booker seem sane and likable, at least. Buttigieg's youth is all he's got going for him, the rest is too risky. Harris, like Buttigieg, is a weak candidate but has a powerful machine. it's all about holding onto the donors and increasing fundraising right now. The FEC reports mean more than polls. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 04:52, 14 September 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)
+
:::::::[Smacks head] Gabbard doesn't have any money, good odds and she wasn't even allowed to debate!  And the Democratic voters are just now ''finally'' catching on that Booker is a phony!  And I wouldn't even have bothered doing any statistics or analysis at all this summer had somebody told me there would be someone whose odds would grow ''every week''! Does the tortoise and the hare ring a bell? That's a pretty hard strategy to miss! I think RobS ''wishes'' Elizabeth Warren weren't popular, but instead throws a contrarian curve ball just so he doesn't have to talk about her! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 09:12, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::Iowa is on Febuary 3. That's less than five months away. If we go by the polls, there is a top tier of candidates that consists of Biden, Sanders, and Warren.[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html]<br/>Rob is taking the also rans too seriously. That schoolgirl giggling at Obama's "Yes, we can" slogan isn't going to help Harris break out. Gabbard is the best looking candidate, sharp as a tack, and certainly my favorite. But she is not factor in the race. Apparently, you have to be an abortion enthusiast to be taken seriously in the Democratic Party these days. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 09:35, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::Look at two factors: social media and minorities. (1) minorities are the moderates in the Democrat party. Warren is ''both'' Hillary Clinton ''and'' Bernie Sanders in one body. ''Neither'' Bernie Sanders ''nor'' Hillary Clinton were beloved by moderate Democrats, i.e minorities. Biden is afloat right now by moderates, i.e. minority voters. But that is tepid (more evidence minorities are still not enamored by Liz Warren ''or'' Bernie Sanders). Combining the Sanders/Warren vote together gives you a commanding 37-40%. These are aged hippies and activist college student votes. When Biden folds, the Democrat minority vote will melt away in three directions: (a) to the Warren/Sanders faction; (b) to Donald Trump; and (c) apathy.
 +
:::::::::(2) Social media and internet now is the principle medium voters use to gather information. While television media (CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc.) and their print media aligned polls (ABC/Washington Post, NBC/Wall Street Journal etc.) still try to manipulate the outcome, mistrust and disgust in both Big Media and polling organizations is at a universal, bi-partisan all time high. Social media dominates. And fundraising off of social media is the so-called "lower tier"'s only hope for a genuine grassroots movement. Revolution is afoot. Don't count Gabbard, Buttigieg, or Booker out when common, ordinary people finally have their say in February. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:24, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren begins to pivot a month before in January 2020 and has the experience as a Republican to appeal to those elusive moderates as a cynical centrist, and Hillary's internal polls will tell her whether to enter the race in December, like Gary Hart did in 1987. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 17:58, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
<--
 +
Warren is the product of a coalition built in the 1970s by Reps. [[Ron Dellums]] and [[Patsy Schroeder]] of middle class suburban white women and the black [[civil rights movement]]. Many blacks then, and now, feel Dellums betrayed the civil rights movement by allowing it to be hijacked by white [[feminist]]s (we see the same resentments today among blacks and feminists who believe the civil rights movement has been hijacked by gays). Others argue (the dominant faction now) that it's all about [[coalition]] building ([[identity politics]]). Warren, no political neophyte, is aware of these divisions and resentments. She is pursuing the time-worn remedy of offering free stuff, as Lyndon Johnson did, to buy votes and loyalty. However African Americans have come a long way since the 1960s; they themselves have mastered coalition building and coalition politics. 2008 was a sea change, in that they trust no coalition leaders unless they are in the drivers seat. They are not going back to the days of Johnson, Carter, Mondale, Bill Clinton or any other who makes promises, and relegates them to back of the bus upon election.
  
== Slacker Party Freaks ==
+
There is now an educated, professional, moderate, black middle class. Accepting 'free stuff' they regard as an insult, if not openly racist slap that blacks are too stupid to fend for themselves. Having come of age now, and seeing themselves in the drivers seat of the Democrat party, anything less than full control they view as a step backwards. Yes, there is a division among blacks which they hide well; but there also is an emerging consensus among blacks that promises of free stuff is racist, and you see it in the lack of black support for Sanders, Warren, Yang, or Harris. The only support for 'free stuff' comes from the liberal [[white privilege]]d middle class.
  
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.
+
Let's look at two: student debt forgiveness - rich whites will benefit disproportionately; internet access for rural red state America, targeting white Trump voters. Either way, if you promise blacks free stuff you insult them by saying they are lazy and incompetent, and when you promise white voters free stuff from the public treasury you discriminate against blacks. Blacks themselves see this and understand this.  
  
[[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?"
+
A third: a $200 monthly pay increase, disproportionately for retired white seniors, whose cost burden will be imposed on minority youth.  
  
This line of thinking can also be applied to Hillary's response to the New Zealand atrocity.
+
All of Warren's promises and rhetoric is racially divisive. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup>
  
: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."
+
===Missing in action===
  
:White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.
+
:Has anyone noticed what has been missing from all of the Democrat debates so far?
  
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.
+
:There has not been a single American flag on stage for all three debates
  
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."
+
:Not in Detroit
  
"...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:
+
:Not in Miami
  
:"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..."
+
:And not last night in Houston
  
:"The American colonists need to drop their objections to taxation without representation and own up to their Britainophobic prejudices against Tyranny."
+
:What country are they trying to represent?
  
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.
+
:[chin holding, pondering emoji] —Charlie Kirk
  
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.
+
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 08:58, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
:
+
::The only people watching debates are college aged activists. All the hard left rhetoric is geared toward them. It is a competition for 18 -25 year old activist volunteers, not even a competition for moderate, middle of the road Democrat voters, let alone American voters. Professor Liz Warren, who speaks their language, has a natural advantage. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:56, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
"ChristChurch's Muslim leaders say they are shocked and 'disturbed' by claims two men killed in a drone strike in Yemen were introduced to radical Islam at their mosque.
+
:
+
"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.
+
=== Proportional representation and the Democratic nomination ===
 +
I had assumed that Sanders would drop out and endorse Warren at some point, but [https://theweek.com/articles/865176/either-warren-sanders-need-drop-defeat-biden-not-fast this article] argues that the proportional representation system used by the Democratic Party makes that less likely. Under the current rules, a candidate keeps earning delegates as long as he is getting at least 15 percent of the vote. In other words, Biden, Sanders, and Warren can all go to the convention and horse trade once they get there. Despite the 2016 reforms, the superdelegates would loom larger than ever. After so many rounds of voting reform, the Dems may find themselves with a 19th-century-style brokered convention. Many Warren and Sanders supporters give Biden as their second choice. So if either of them were to drop out during the primaries, Biden's chances would improve. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 17:54, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:It's all about money right now. Let's look at three candidates:
 +
:*Kamala Harris has enough reserve funds to make it through the opening primaries, with staff organizations in those states. However, Kamala's big money donors are bailing. She's seen as another Beto O'Rourke, well funded but basically incapable of jumpstarting her campaign. Her decision now is, ''Do I stay in the race and continue getting embarrassed, or drop out and convert the funds over to my next Senate campaign committee?'' She's running for VP anyway.
 +
:*Pete Buttigieg, enjoys the exact opposite of Kamala. He's well funded and the donations are increasing. So all the money gets poured into building campaign organizations in early primary states.
 +
:*Tulsi Gabbard: Has enough money to make it to New Hampshire (February 2, 2020?). All her money is going into New Hampshire, where she is doing well in polls. If she does well there on primary day, say into the top three, the money can pour in real fast. Millions can pour in overnight.
 +
Sanders doesn't expect to be the nominee. He's running to shape the agenda and narrative, and make sure whoever it will be isn't another so-called centrist.
  
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''?
+
So you have Biden (the supposed centrist) and Warren (Hillary in Sanders clothing), and a third younger contender whom Millenials are expected to gravitate to come the early primaries, likely Buttigieg or Gabbard. Sanders knows Warren is a fraud, so he's not ready to back out. Buttigieg more resembles the Sanders platform. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:23, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
  
It's worse than you imaginedNot 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?
+
Andrew Yang should be counted in this group with appeal to Millenials, Gabbard, Buttigieg and Yang. One or two of these could make the Place and Show positions behind Warren (Biden, Sanders, Harris, and Booker all may done as of today). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 03:26, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:After the recent allegations against Kavanaugh, I find myself adopting a conspiratorial mindset. For the Dems as a party, dragging out the Kavanaugh affair makes no sense. Kavanaugh was the principle author of the Starr report and my pet theory is that the Clintons are determined to get back at him. Think of Jay Leno, Norm McDonald, or Don Imus. They were all huge in their day, but none of them had what it took to fend off a Clinton takedown. In other words, Bernie, you're next. Isn't it odd that only three Democrats ran for president in 2016, even though there was a vacancy that year? The Clinton smear machine is headed by Neera Tanden. The media is always running stories about Warren moving up and overtaking Bernie or someone else even though the RCP average swings back and forth. From a Republican point of view, the Indian wannabe is certainly the Dem who looks the easiest to beat. The liberal media is oddly unconcerned about Warren's general election chances. Instead, they say we should vote for her because of her numerous "programs." It's such an insincere and unconvincing line that it sounds a bit like they've been taken hostage. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 08:14, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Peter, are you counting Bernie? To this day on his Twitter page he brags about being an "independent". [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 11:08, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Dragging out the Kavanaugh allegation is easy: it's based on the Democrat theory that voters are stupid and believe any line of crap CNN feeds them. The DNC & CNN's ability to bring out mobs into the street feeds into this echo chamber.
 +
:::The parallel here is when the "Hard hats" started beating up on anti-war protesters in 1972 (Hard hats = the not-so Silent Majority). Some people reckon the Proud Boys to the Hard Hats, but it's a bit of stretch; the Hard Hats were construction workers who beat up hippies on their lunch break, whereas the Proud Boys are moreless seen as vigilante troublemakers. In many ways, the situation seems more volatile today than in 1972, which was the most violent period of Americans fighting Americans since the Civil War. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:36, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::I conceive Antifa to be in the business of casting "hecklers' vetos". "Sorry, the situation's gotten too volatile.  We're going to have to cancel the event." [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 16:48, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::The Brits don't have access to RobS's knowledge, but they reckon the odds of Warren becoming the nominee to be almost as large as Harris's, Sanders' and Biden's ''combined''. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 11:30, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::You should read this: ''[https://saraacarter.com/britons-still-betting-on-hillary-clinton-to-win-the-democratic-nomination/ Britons Still Betting On Hillary Clinton to Win the Democratic Nomination]''; it shows the wide gulf in understanding between US & UK politics. Hillary;s goose is cooked. even if she wanted to run, it would only divide the party. Brits evidently do not understand the role of money in US politics; it costs over $1 billion to run for president; there's only 400 days remaining. Sh'e have to average $2,500,000 a day in fundraising now to make it, and she's not even trying.
 +
::::When the [[FEC]] filings come out for the Third Quarter ending September 30, you'll see Buttigieg ''increasing'' his average, Booker and Harris ''decreasing'', which is the death knell.
 +
::::The [[Sarah Palin]] boom was based on her fundraising ability. Trump rallies are fundraising affairs. The minute the cost of renting a venue to make an appearance exceeds the funds raised, the public appearances cease.
 +
::::Americans make the same mistake, they confuse media hype and popularity with electability. Most of the money comes from "big money" donors who bet on a winner, but have been burned three times now in the past three years - Hillary, Beto, and Kamala.  This is what sets Trump apart - he is not owned by "big money" donors, and threatens to expose and upset the whole corrupt system. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:56, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
  
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)
+
:::It's Warren's to loose right now. The New Hampshire primary will be the first test of the Millenial Generation - the majority age group now - political strength, or will the Brezhnev, Andropov's, and [[Chernenko]]'s remain in control of the Democrat [[Politburo]].  
:My estimation, Hillary has a fan base of radical feminist women over 50 who vote Democrat, less than 8% of the population at best. The rest are MSM journalists and a few under 50 feminists or loyal liberals just humoring her. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Millennials, Blacks, and Republicans have either lost patience with her or hate her guts. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 03:07, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
::Secretary Clinton is patient zero of my self-defined SPF syndrome, but just a carrier, that is, and not among the infected. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 03:32, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Why Hillary Clinton is hated by her former friends/allies. After General Robert E. Lee lost the Battle of Gettysburg, he said, "It's all my fault". Hillary is such a narcissist she essentially said, "It was mostly other people's fault". In short, excuseitus and blaming other people. She isn't a great leader. Great leaders take responsibility.
+
  
:::At its heart, SJWism is an excuse for underachievement. Hillary's vain excuse making partly involved SJWism (America wasn't willing to elect a woman she said), but it was mostly a reflection of liberal, baby boomer narcissism.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:31, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::It may be a bit early to invoke [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1MOOIjs_HE Keith Olbermann's immortal words]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:22, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
::::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)
+
::::Did you mean ''plurality'' age-group? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 17:19, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
When will the SJW fad end?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:54, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::Yes, that's right. [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/ Here's a Pew Report] (can't find the updated one that confirms this). It took a long time for boomers to wrest control from the World War II generation (Papa Bush '92, Dole '96), but there is a more pronounced age resentment every day, or "generation gap" as we used to call it. Climate change vs. nuclear proliferation being the dividing line between voter priorities based on age. So what's the response to this? [[Medicare for All]]. Millennials feel no obligation to their seniors, whom they regard as having destroyed the planet, and seniors shouldn't get any special privileges like Medicare.  
: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 ==
+
:::::This is the weakness of the Medicare for All argument: Seniors, with an 85% voter participation rate, understand Medicare for All cuts into their benefits (i.e. healthcare rationing). it's not fair they paid for it all their working lives, only to have younger people get a free ride at their expense when seniors no longer have the ability to work. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGO41ZiU-kc Kamala Harris got body slammed by an 80 year old lady in a wheelchair] on this question. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:23, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Most of those born between 1946 to 1952 or so are ''already getting'' Medicare by virtue of the fact that they've already retired. If there's a ''privilege'' to be gotten, it would be by Boomers who simply haven't retired yet.  Who's going to pass a law to take away Medicare from the older group so as to treat all Boomers equally as far as fairly distributing the punishment  of the crimes for which they're blamed? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 00:50, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Look, here's the facts of life: There is no way you will convince any sizable percentage of voters 62+, with a participation rate of 85%, consisting of 68 million people (68 x .85 = 57.8 million voters), that Medicare for All  '''''will not''''' reduce the quality of the healthcare coverage they paid for, for 40 years, to qualify for. Not happening. The Kamala Harris BS answer, "We're gonna pay for it", won't fly. That crap works with stupid whippersnapper communist Democrat voting punks, but not for a person who's lived their whole life witnessing that kind of communist junk.
  
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)
+
:::::Compare 58.7 million to Hillary's 65 million vote tally and Trump's 62 million. And remember, this is the generation that voted for [[Social Security]] reform for 40 years, and was always shot down by "the third rail" of politics. It's an insult to Seniors' intelligence to try and even discuss this communist punk nonsense with them. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:52, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
  
: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)
+
===Week of Sept. 23===
 +
Warren and Yang appear as the two strongest. Sanders is melting away. Biden's support is a "wait and see" approach of moderate, primarily black voters who withstood criticisms of Obama, so this isn't difficult for them, but nowhere near as passionate or emotional. It still signifies the lack of minority support for Warren and others. Yang owes his growing success to Trump who blazed the trail for a businessman who never held elected office.
  
==Congress's arrest powers==
+
Warren most importantly represents a healing of the wounds and divisions from the 2016 Hillary/Bernie contest, which will be complete when Bernie drops out. Blacks need to speak up now to regain a leadership role; sticking with a mortally wounded candidate like Biden means DNC leadership has effectively "put them back in their place" after the Obama fiasco. Booker, Harris and Beto are toast. Gabbard is determined to fight despite the media blackout.  
[[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,
+
:''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]
+
As I understand it, a court ruling says Congress can't use Inherent contempt in a fishing expedition, but does have the right to arrest and try an individual for obstructing Congress's primary function of legislating (I think that's how it's interpreted).
+
Anyways, it looks like we're set up for the remainder of this term for a series of court battles over Congresses reviving it's powers of subpoena and arrest. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 23:19, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:Congress's inherent arrest power could not extend beyond its [[Capitol Hill]] grounds, and probably not there either simply for defying a subpoena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:25, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
::The House dusted off inherent contempt to use against Treasury officials who refused to give up Trump's tax returns,etc. Looks like Nadler just fast-forwarded the strategy to use against Barr. Barr (and all cabinet secretaries) are compelled to testify every 30 days to the Senate. The CRS report is probably worth reading - it's a roadmap for some of the upcoming legal issues. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 23:31, 30 April 2019 (EDT)
+
:::In 2012, the House held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to turn over documents related to Fast and Furious. The Dems didn't even brother to justify withholding these documents. They simply bashed the vote as "a transparently political stunt" (Pfeiffer) and "a crass effort and a grave disservice to the American people" (Holder).[https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988] This wasn't "inherent contempt," so the sergeant-at-arms wasn't involved. The FBI was supposed to arrest Holder. If Nadler goes ahead with his scheme, Trump can dust off this old warrant and arrest Holder. Make the House vote to release this corrupt doofus or cancel his old citation. Holder is a poster boy for corruption in the Obama administration. He was attorney general during the banking bailout, arrested nobody, and then took a cushy job in the financial industry. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:29, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::It would be refreshing if Trump talked about arresting liberal officials in response to their talk about arresting his advisers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:51, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::Point of fact: the money the government used to bail out the banks was, taken together, paid back in full.  Except for one company, the crisis seemed to be a crisis of confidence among clients rather than real incompetence in lending practices. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 01:19, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
===Legitimate legislative purpose===
+
::::To win in court, Nadler and House Democrats have to argue that the subpoenas of Barr and for Trump's tax returns are related to some pending legislation. Ultimately, it's likely to fail. But this will be the political theater in coming months - that Trump is defying Congress and therefore needs to be impeached, etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 01:36, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::IOWs, Congressional arrest powers must serve a "legislative purpose," as  Asst. Attorney General [https://www.scribd.com/document/408455007/Boyd-Letter-to-Nadler Stephan Boyd relates here]. This is the language used in the Supreme Court ruling cited in the CRS report linked above. Oversight is differentiated from "legislative purposes." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 18:45, 4 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::Why Nadler will loose in court: the subpoena of Barr does not serve "[https://twitter.com/RepDougCollins/status/1125469294521999365 legitimate legislative activities]". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:48, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::Again, Mnuchin refuses to turn over Trump tax returns because the request lacks a [https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/mnuchin-rejects-neals-request-trump-tax-returns"legitimate legislative purpose."] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 18:43, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::Another CRS report released today contains this language outlining some of the pitfalls facing Congress:
+
:::::''[https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/LSB10275.pdf the provision can probably be viewed as a statutory delegation of Congress’ investigative and oversight powers to the tax committees, exercise of the authority granted by Section 6103(f) arguably is subject to the same legal limitations that generally attach to Congress’use of other compulsory investigative tools. Notably, the inquiry must further a “legislative purpose” and not otherwise breach relevant constitutional rights or privileges.'']
+
::::Its followed by a discussion on Legislative Purpose. The report is only six pages. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:03, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
==Black holes redux==
+
And Buttigieg. What can I say? His support and money appears to be growing, but he carries more baggage than Yang. Only blacks could save him in the long run, which isn't likely. This particular segment of psychotic Democrats will ultimately support any line of crap Democrat leadership comes up with eventually, so no tears will be shed when he meets his ultimate destiny.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 09:36, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:The comedians took Electable Joe to task for the story of his poolside showdown with Corn Pop, He's now 7 points ahead of Warren in the RCP average as opposed to 11 points pre-Corn Pop. I thought the video of Biden struggling to remember Obama's name was even funnier than the image of him chasing a gang member with a pool chain, but that hasn't gone mainstream yet. Biden's support has actually been pretty steady. It's Warren whose support goes up and down. She hasn't been doing anything exciting lately, so I have to wonder why. In contrast, who can keep up with all the Biden news? I didn't even get to Hunter Biden's narrow escape from prosecutor Shokin in Ukraine or the disturbing image of Joe's eye going bloody on stage. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:37, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Warren, Yang, and Buttigieg in that order come February. Should impeachment come to a floor vote, it would be a test of Gabbard's strength. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:41, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::FiveThirtyEight has collected polls that suggest that Warren is everyone's second choice. So as the minor candidates drop out, I expect her to gain. In the last few days, the liberal establishment has turned on Biden, judging from the Corn Pop and Ukraine episodes. An even better indication of establishment thinking is the raft of news stories that claim that Warren has already surged past Biden. (We have one of these stories on MPR.) The RCP averages don't support this claim. My thinking is that the "left-wing lane" in Democratic Party is somewhat larger than Biden's moderate lane. Biden's percentage of the vote will of course rise as the minor candidate drop out. But his current 28 percent could be pretty close to his top. In short, I think Warren will get it in the end, albeit at a more stately pace than the impatient media is demanding. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 04:33, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
  
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.
+
===A 2fer===
 +
Looks like we got a Two-fer this week - Biden and Sanders got knocked out of the race. Looks like next year may be the Millenials year; time to start scrutinizing Yang, Buttigieg, and Booker closer, in that order. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:10, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:It's a five-way tie for third place:  Buttigieg, Sanders, Yang, Harris, Clinton. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 20:17, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Before Sanders heart attack and Biden's trial in the U.S. Senate when Dems try to impeach Trump. This would be the perfect time for a Millenial moderate to emerge, but there are none running. Harris is toast. Booker has a shot this very moment, now or never.  
  
But to me there are still some unanswered questions.
+
::If Clinton entered the fray - either as a candidate or through another backdoor deal, you would see such a mass exodus from the democrat party it would look like an immigrant caravan. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:45, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
  
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?
+
:::Thank you, you've provided a lot of food for thought for what I am sure is a grateful conservative community.  FYI It's been after ten pm in the U.K. for three hours, but some of them are still awake and include Sanders in the tie. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 21:04, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Bernie could recover in days if it was merely one stent and he had angina and not a heart attack. However, the situation could put a cap on future supporters willing to embrace his candidacy because in politics "perception is reality" is often the case.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 01:47, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::He's done. He knows it. He can't withstand the rigors of office, let alone campaigning. The warranty has expired. Convention delegates would have a hard time voting for him. In a field of 25, they can't find an alternative to a guy who slipped from 19% to 12%? And Democrats trust his judgement for a successor when they have the opportunity to vote themselves.
 +
:::::The good news is, this put Warren over 50%, unless the Millenial generation stands up now and says enough of this insanity. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 04:31, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
Bernie will stay in the race until the bitter end.  Many of his supporters are very loyal too.
  
::It's good that you have read the Hawking bookA few other books I can recommend that give good layman's-level explanations of these topics are
+
"So, how long does it take to recover after having a stent. The recovery time after having a stent or angioplasty is fast and patients are discharged from the hospital in usually 12-24 hours after the removal of the catheter. In most cases, patients can return to work within a few days to a week after the procedure but never miss on the doctor’s advice on the same."[https://www.epainassist.com/test-and-procedures/how-long-does-it-take-to-recover-after-having-a-stent].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 05:54, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
::*''The Grand Design'' by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow
+
:I think you've counted out Biden too early.  Many have experienced his hands-on approach to governance and are the ones moved to admit he has a good feel for the American peopleAs a candidate he's a little touchy, but one who's known for not hiding his agenda but opening himself up to his team to truly reveal himself as he is.  And if you think this is stupid, remember this is the "PG" version. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 07:03, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
::*''The Hidden Reality'' by Brian Greene
+
::He is starting to get tainted by scandal like Hillary. If he campaigns too late in the day, he makes gaffes. Maybe you are right though. Democratic voters may not care too much about scandal and they may want a semi-muddled and gaffe prone candidate who is a more moderate candidate than the lefty alternatives.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 20:08, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
::*''The Elegant Universe'' by Brian Greene
+
:::This is a replay of 2007-2008; you will recall Hillary was "inevitable" in 2007. Then a young upstart nobody ever heard of, Barack Obama, smoked her in Iowa. The scenario is the same: voters were tired of the old regulars and want fresh blood. Booker fits the mold of the Second Coming of <s>the >Messiah</s> Obama. Don't neglect the [[cult]]ic nature of Democrats over policy positions.
::*''Welcome to the Universe'' by Neil deGrasse Tyson
+
:::Booker was supposed to fold 3 days ago after the [[FEC]] filing deadline; he hasn't yet. Watch to see if Biden and Sanders donors are bailing for Warren, or somebody else. Harris's big money California (Hollywood & Silicon Valley) donors are already bailing (Beto's Hollywood donors jumped ship for Harris months ago). They don't like Gabbard. That leaves Booker, Buttboy, and Yang, in that order at this moment.
::*''Astrophysics for People in a Hurry'' by Neil deGrasse Tyson
+
:::Booker should be the obvious choice - less baggage and more DC experience. Democrats aren't ready to follow the Trump precedent and nominate somebody like Yang who never held elective office - that's a prime source of objection to Trump. Trump beats Yang with the experience qualifier among moderate unaffiliated voters. Yang  they can paint as "too far left" making Booker appear "centrist". The hicktown mayor Buttigieg also lacks experience, is too controversial, and carries too much baggage. Midwesterners are always at a disadvantage in presidential contests. It increasingly looks like a Warren-Booker contest, with Warren being the oldtime boomer establishment candidate, and Booker being a GenX upstart more appealing to centrists, moderates, and millenials. Gabbard could partner with Weld or [[Jesse Ventura]] to lead a Third Party protest vote.
 +
:::Oh, and remember Bloomberg said he might get back in if Biden folds? He's thinking about it again (meaning he's less than enthusiastic about "the people's choice" Warren). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:52, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Trying to predict what the Democrats will do is like predicting what a mad man will do next or predicting where a tornado will strike next. There are: competing factions, people with muddled and contradictory thinking and the list goes on.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 04:54, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::I compared Peter's description of Trump as unpredictable to Henry Adams' description of Napoleon towards Thomas Jefferson [[#What_does_Trump_want.3F|here.]] Those two were much more calculating than the Democratic mob. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 07:07, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::Follow the money, not the polls. I've laid out the marketing strategy of Democrat moneymasters in a general election - how to present contrasts with Trump. If age were to be an issue, it'll be put on Trump. Warren has age going against her, and Hillary is rattling her cage now, too.  Booker could be the Second, young, clean, African American who speaks English, according to Biden and Harry Reid.
 +
::::::I have a [[DSA]] source in San Diego who first alerted me to Booker about 4 years ago, and his and theirs' presidential ambitions with him as an alternative to Hillary and as the Second Coming of Obama (oddly, California radicals have never been enamored to Harris, whose electoral strategy has been to scapegoat 'poor kids' to make herself appear 'centrist' and appealing to California whites). After reading about Booker, I can see why Democratic Socialists and regular Democrats were so excited about him. Booker even has Executive branch experience as a mayor, which Obama did not. In some ways he's smarter than Obama. He just needs to tap into those donor sources who propelled Obama over the aged and decrepit Hillary in 2008, but the money is spread too thin right now among so many candidates. They need to pull together. First they backed Beto. Then Harris. Now they are re-assessing again. But they want a younger candidate, in the mold of JFK, Carter, Clinton, and Obama, who all were at least 10 years younger than their GOP opponent.
 +
::::::Democrats always take youth over experience, Hillary being the exception. They learned from that disaster.
 +
::::::Look at it regionally, as well. Warren, Biden, Sanders, and Booker all hail from the Northeastern radius of about 150 miles. All are popular and respected among their constituents. It's been a competition for rich donors in the Northeastern corridor. The West Coast Hollywood/Silicon Valley donors are 0-2 backing Beto and Harris. They will now put their money on one of the four East Coast liberals. Biden and Sanders are toast. Warren has pee-off the local Wall Street gang. Booker is the obvious choice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:58, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::An Obama comeback.  I can just picture Booker saying: "They're still bitterly clinging to their guns, gods, money and jobs" again.  If anything, Obama will have prevented Booker from  winning the presidency, unless he wants to make it his full-time job and then maybe ride to the White House on a wave of Obama nostalgia in sixteen years. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 17:49, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::Here's [https://www.politico.com/video/2019/09/12/kamala-biden-2020-debate-068789 Harris summoning the departed spirit of Barack Obama.] Translation: "Voters are to stupid to care about issues. They vote on empty slogans." Harris's problem here was, while Biden addressed a serious constitutional issue, Harris appeared drunk. She was reminding him she's available for the VP slot to rally black voters on the trail, after calling him a racist. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:04, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Lol, I asked you if you thought that were possible back on August 6.  Took you long enough. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 21:00, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::I had written somewhere earlier, that she got into the race feeling she would get either the one or two spot by default as being black and Obama's heir. When that became obvious, it pretty well doomed her chances at #1 (proven again in the above clip). She's still in the running as #2, but now brings nothing to the table. California will go Democrat with or without her, and everyone knows now she's ''not'' really black. Granted, she has more black blood than Warren has Indian, but her "blackness" is more by cultural appropriation than experience.
  
::The reason the "black hole" appears black is that the Hawking radiation is incredibly faintYou touched on that below.
+
::::::Blacks fell for this line a rot before with that halfbreed Obama who did nothing for them. Sure, most still take pride in having a black president, but overall there's a feeling of disappointment. He wasn't one of them, and still isn't. Blacks know in their hearts that a vote for Harris or Obama is inherently an anti-white vote, not on the merits of the candidate. And they're ashamed of this. It's always been more of a feeling of "payback time" rather than justice. Obama's legacy is burning down their communities in senseless race riots, and setting back race relations decades. IMO, Booker knows this. Blacks want justice. Neither Harris or Obama ever stood for justice or equality, just more exploitation by white liberal Democrats. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:26, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::I had a dog that I walked around the block, and her usual walkers would never take her down the block over a bridge and then along a kink in the roadShe had started pulling that way though over a period of months if not years.
  
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 itSo why should a three-dimensional vortex only swallow in matter and energy along a two-dimensional plane?  I understand that there is two-dimensional motion in the case with Jupiter, where its rings fall along a plane.  But the black hole vortex looks more turbulent than one would think the gravity well of Jupiter would 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.
+
:::::::One day I thought I'd give her a treat and let her walk wherever she'd likeAt first she didn't know what to do, but she kind of got the hang of the fact that she needed to make a choice.  She would also pull and pull when she started her walk, because she wanted to get to the unfamiliar scents further out as quickly as possible, so I made a point of running that day to keep with her and to stop when she stopped.
::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?
+
:::::::Well, you can probably guess what happenedShe came to that point in her walk, and she turned and ran and ran across the bridge and along that bend in the road as I kept up. (I was pretty young, so I didn't look ''too'' ridiculous.)
::I don't think anyone said they don't exist, after the discovery of Cygnus X1 some time ago.  The idea that the "don't exist" comes from the more recent (but still some time ago) theory that they aren't ''completely'' black, because of Hawhing radiation.  But this is just a childishly rigid interpretation of language.  I have a pair of "black" shoes that aren't completely black.  People use "black" to refer to a color, characterized by nearly no reflection or radiation.  People accept a significant amount of leeway in the way they use language.  As another example, the active substance in a "lead pencil", or a replacement "lead" for a mechanical pencil, isn't lead.  It's a clay/graphite mixture.  Everyone accepts that imprecise language.  It's the same with black holes.  When people say (as they have been saying for over 200 years) that "no light can escape" they weren't saying that no advance in quantum mechanics could ever allow for a single photon ever to appear to be coming out of a black hole.
+
:::No, this announcement that conditions weren't right for black holes to exist in the universe came long after the published ideas about Hawking radiation came out, I think sometime in the last 15 years.  Hawking himself agreed, so it's not something you'd forgetAnd 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 tinyBut we already know that the conflict between gravity and quantum mechanics occurs over a distance of the Planck lengthAt anything resembling normal distances, there is no conflict, and General Relativity is correct.
+
:::::::When we got to the stop sign, we saw a swan on the neighbor's yard, and I unleashed her so she could charge the swan.  She had often been tormented by ducks who had flown into the air or the water before she could approach and give them the sniff test seal of approval.  I didn't worry about the swan; if our dog had decided she needed to bite someone she'd probably open her mouth and then be confused and not know what to do.  This swan flew straight up, then down the streetThe swan wasn't homeless; there were miles of roads that surrounded a lake and the swan picked a road parallel to the edge of the lakeBut I have to admit I'd never seen a swan travel down the street by flying; it was finally a victory for the dog against the waterfowl.
  
::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?
+
:::::::She thought this intersection was now going to be a good place to hang out with that happy memory associated with it, but I coaxed her turn back, but still letting her lead.
+
::If you approached a black hole to within a few times the Planck length, what you would see is what Einstein and Schwarzschild predicted long ago. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:18, 4 May 2019 (EDT)
+
John Selway said it was due to change of opinion.  But isn't opinion the ''opposite'' of science: weakly-supported knowledge ''versus'' highly-supported knowledge?  Someone might answer, they're disputed questions.  But if so, why do we have to respect the answer to these questions as if they were settled science?  And how are we to know whether they ''are'' settled or disputed? Obviously the ''prestige'' of Stephen Hawking and other famous 20th to 21st-century scientists isn't sufficient to determine the question.  The [[climategate]] scandal, among others, which continues to this very day, show scientists have political or theological interests which cause them to selectively promote or conceal different ideas according to their convenience in pursuing those interests.  Which goes to show that often what is presented as science is really just speculation and not honest speculation at that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 01:10, 1 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::Perhaps "opinion" wasn't a good way to put it.  In any case, what John Selway wrote, for better or worse, doesn't affect the existence or nonexistence of these things. If you believe that people are changing their "opinions" and that that refutes science, you're welcome to hold that view.  But most people take a more flexible and nuanced view of how language works, and how science works.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:45, 3 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
:That discussion of the "pictured" black hole's size further up on this page helped answer one of my questions.  Hawking says:
+
:::::::Once we crossed the bridge back to her block, she suddenly turned around and ran all the way back to a few meters behind the stop sign, with me closely following behindMaybe you can understand why she did this.  I thought it was because she figured she had the power to go wherever she wanted but sensed that the power was a temporary granting of her wishesSo the road hadn't changed any, but she was just as happy to go there a second time.
::[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)
+
:::YesJust 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===
+
:::::::I think another reason was that the event was ''too'' perfect, and in the back of her mind wondered if I had caused what happened just to get her to stop pulling to go over the bridge when she got to that place around the block on her walk so I'd never have to take her across there again.
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 ==
+
:::::::I think a third reason was that she felt like a human would feel if they had found a secret corridor and room in the house that they had lived in a long time without noticing.
[[Image:Amish Republicans.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Many Amish have large families and in 2012 the Amish were named the fastest growing faith group in the United States and the Amish population is projected to grow to 1 million people by 2050.[https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1130/For-Amish-fastest-growing-faith-group-in-US-life-is-changing]
+
  
In the above picture, Amish residents are waving to President George W. Bush (Lancaster, Pa., August 2006)]]
+
:::::::But I think the best reason is that she wanted to see if she could count on me to take her wishes seriously if she ever felt she needed to break away from the routine of walking around the block if there were a dog-sized emergent situation, even if she couldn't explain it (an urge to cross the bridge), it seemed arbitrary (going back to the same place), or it looked like a play of the imagination (running back instead of walking).
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]]
+
  
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]  
+
:::::::Maybe blacks, who were made in God's image, voted for a candidate not the best in conventional governance, but whose presence acted to reveal, from the motive of having a lingering apprehension, whether the response to the black civil rights movement was just lip service, or whether blacks would be entrusted with real political power. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 02:43, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
  
[[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]]
+
::::::::Great analogy. Obama presented a moral dilemma for blacks in 2008, 2012, and now: ''Is a vote for Obama purely motivated by racism and pride, everything they abhor and in conflict with their sense of justice?'' I have enough confidence in the moral values and good practical sense of ''most'' of my fellow African American Christian brothers and sisters that they will admit, "yes". It doesn't matter if they admit it out loud, only to their own conscience. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup>
  
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)
+
:::::::::Thank you! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 15:54, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
  
: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)
+
===Week of Oct. 9===
==Appeal for justice==
+
Warren's surge in the twitter following is a default setting and bandwagon effect after the demise of Biden and Sanders, however her steady, uninterrupted, upward trend in other polling is impressive. Sanders surge is a "sympathy vote". Buttigieg has taken a dump in Twitter followers, despite beating Biden in fundraising. Yang can't seem to gain traction. In a Hillary/Biden matchup, Hillary would bloody his  other eye and kick him in the groin. A Hillary/Warren cat fight is interesting to contemplate; we'd find out just how much of down and dirty fighter Warren really is. Personally I think Hillary would mall her the way she malled Sanders, but I think forcing democrats to even contemplate a Hillary/Warren contest would create such an anti-Hillary backlash that she couldn't survive. Even blacks would flock to Warren. It maybe Warren's only hope to get blacks on board and solidify their support. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:15, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
  
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)
+
To thumbnail it: Biden & Sanders fundraising efforts will dry up in the fourth quarter, make them fight for a showing in early primary states. Warren likely will pick up Sanders financial backers, but her anti-Wall Street rhetoric will keep Biden money backers away. Her challenge is to pick up Biden's black supporters, who see the duplicity of her robbing affirmative action programs to promote her herself. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:57, 11 October 2019 (EDT)
: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 ==
+
== Dayton shooting ==
  
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)
+
=== The U.S. ranks No. 61 in mass shootings ===
:Actually, [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Video Games|something like that already exists]]. You can contribute to it, however. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 15:42, 2 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::Oh great - thanks! I'll add a few. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 15:45, 2 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
== New chant for [[Elizabeth Warren]] student loan amnesty rally ==
+
Don't believe the lying media. John Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center is the only group that has done anything close to a serious international study of mass shootings. They found that Columbia ranks No. 1, Benin is No. 2, and Iraq is No. 3. The U.S. is No. 61. In most countries, the police do not compile this type of statistic. There are only media reports to go by. A school shooting in the U.S. will make national news while one in the Philippines or India might get reported only in a local language paper. Mass shootings at parties is a surprisingly large and underreported category. The category of "mass shooting" is itself an American (or at least a Western)-oriented one. In East Asia, deranged adults with blood lust are more likely to pick up a knife and head to a local school.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXGgI2E5JUw&t=183s][https://nypost.com/2018/08/30/america-doesnt-actually-lead-the-world-in-mass-shootings/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 12:57, 10 August 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...
+
:You can download the full paper [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3289010 here]. Check out appendix 3 and then get back to me on whether the US has a mass shooting problem. I'll wait. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 15:08, 10 August 2019 (EDT)
  
All:<br> The more you squandered...the more you get.<br>
+
::Looks like a diversion from the Epstein case. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:31, 10 August 2019 (EDT)
Let's all pay off student debt!<br>
+
:::I read the abstract of Lott's paper and it seems to be consistent with what I wrote above: "Out of the 97 countries where we have identified mass public shootings occurring, the United States ranks 64th in the per capita frequency of these attacks and 65th in the murder rate." Is there a reason why I need to read the full 34 page paper? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:35, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
:
+
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 08:42, 4 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:In 1992, Paul Tsongas attacked Bill Clinton as "Pander Bear" and carried around a stuffed Panda bear to his primary rallies. It didn't work. Being anti-pander does not hit home in the Democratic party. Warren is trying to lock down the student vote (pity the poor students, torn between Warren and Buttigieg, student debt vs gay rights). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:57, 4 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
== Restraint of trade, and Facebook hides it ==
+
:::::I'm aware that conservative reading comprehension often declines rapidly in the likely presence of unwelcome news, but seriously, which part of ''Check out appendix 3'' are you struggling with? Pages 26-28. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 12:05, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
  
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.
+
::::::Appendix 3 says the United States had 53 mass shootings between 1998 and 2015, ranking tenth internationally. The heading says "per capita," but this is obviously a typo. The numbers given in the table are absolute. That is to say, the U.S. ranks higher on this table because it has a larger population. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 16:05, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
  
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.
+
:::::::According to the FBI, more Americans are killed with hammers and clubs than with rifles: [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/11/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-rifles-kind/] I guess we'll now need "hammer control", since restricting hammer ownership obviously will stop the violence. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:29, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
  
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.
+
::::Just do what JohnZ asks, please: assemble a report about Appendix 3 and his unevidenced interpretation of Lott's report, and he promises the truth will cause you to write it in a way that supports him and negates the other relevant reports and statistics on this very page.
  
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.
+
::::If you do this just ''one! last! time!'' he also promises neither to dispense with rebutting prevailing arguments without admitting defeat nor to shift the burden of proof of arguments he similarly doesn't feel like rebutting anymore.
  
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)
+
::::Nor to use the material you digested for him to help him understand the issues clearly enough to double up on future opponents.
: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==
+
::::Nor to refrain from checking others who show up to repeat his losing arguments, after him having complained that you were using argumentative overkill, and that enough had been said already.
  
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.
+
::::And if you won't do it, then it ''proves'' that you're ''afraid!'' [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 02:11, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
  
"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:
+
:::::Maximum verbosity. Bravo, son. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 12:05, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
Look at JohnZ's talk page. Like the latest postings. He doesn't admit defeat even when it is overwhelming defeat. The most you will get is sullen silence. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:29, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
  
:You’re calling P[aul] J[oseph] W[atson], [Alex] Jones, Milo [Yiannopoulos] and [Laura] Loomer white nationalists?
+
==Anticipating Europhile/Anglophonisphere peanut gallery comments==
  
:Please stop clogging my mentions with low-IQ stupidity. Thanks.
+
27 of America's 3,242 counties are responsible for almost 80% of firearm homicides.
 +
Without them, we'd be at the EU average, but in possession of 300 million legally-owned guns.
  
:—Brittany Pettibone
+
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 06:07, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
  
"Trump News" (that is President Trump's Twitter account) has an audience of 60 million, while CNN has a viewing audience that stays much of the time less than 2 million, and Trump has shown that he is able to pressure CNN (as recorded on Conservapedia's Main Page Right) and those like it to indirectly signal to the social media giants to back off their attempts at a conservative purge.  CNN folded their campaign of negativity against Trump and broadcast editorially at the end of last week that Trump deserves credit for a healthy U.S. economy.
+
I wish this near-sighted focus on the weapon of choice reflected real compassion for potential victims of violence in America.  But I think liberals have a suspicion that a well-armed populace keeps them from getting the social change, the economic change and the religious change that they can't convince the rest of the country, or in the case of looky-loos from the liberal anglophone world, the last of the anglophone countries, to adopt.
  
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".
+
So the elite liberals come up with schemes and rhetorical repetitions that the lesser liberals carry out that are aimed at what they suspect will distract from the purpose of a well-armed militia in the free country of America.  Which means they have to get personal towards those most likely to know the purpose, employing the group identities that they shaped partially perhaps for this very reason in a kind of circus. Here's what we're supposed to forget:
  
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.
+
*'''Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in <font color="blue">Europe</font>.''' The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword: <font style="text-decoration: underline;"> because the whole body of the people are armed,</font>, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. —[[Noah Webster]]
  
They were correct—but the only danger was to left-wing political success.
+
*<font style="text-decoration: underline;"> A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms</font>...To preserve liberty <font style="text-decoration: underline;"> it is essential that the whole body of the people posses arms,</font> and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...The mind that aims at a select [that is, chosen by state governments] militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle. —Melancton Smith
  
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.
+
*<font style="text-decoration: underline;">The rights of</font> conscience, <font style="text-decoration: underline;">of bearing arms</font>, of changing the government, are declared to be <font style="text-decoration: underline;">inherent in the people</font>. —[[Fisher Ames]] (reporting constitutional Amendments proposed by [[James Madison]].)
  
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.
+
If Americans are thinking about clearly about defending the country against tyranny, it's reasonable that we are asking ourselves from time to time from where those threats might arise, especially if we have a personal stakeSo, if we see ourselves as a part of a well-armed militia (sometimes even figuratively or perhaps in a supporting role with smaller arms), and see others, in the role of other members, instead of contemplating such matters, carrying out a kind of strategy of diverting to rash judgments, that, taken one upon one, reject the idea of defending against tyranny altogether, maybe we can see how useful these kind of associations can be to begin with. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 09:12, 5 August 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.
+
:Agreed overall with your point, though we ought to have a bit of caution and restraint, lest we end up taking the second amendment rights to the extremes that the French Revolution did where they used it to simply commit murders for fun. While we can point to Nazi Germany and the USSR regarding why a second amendment is actually necessary, the same can't be said with their progenitor, the French Revolution, which embraced second amendment teachings to an even more radical degree, heck, shotguns even being used for execution much to the amusement of the congregated crowd. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:13, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Not to detract from RobS below, but that was "a real good answer".  An example of what political science is all about from Pokeria. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 02:25, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:: 3,242 counties? i thought the figure was more like 50,000.
 +
::What commie libs don't understand is, after these horrific shootings they keep thinking people will be ready to surrender their firearms. in fact, it stiffens their resolve and emphasizes why we have a Second Amendment. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:07, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::A nut with a gun does a shooting and people are horrified. A nut ''without'' a gun gets elected (like Obama, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Clinton, etc) and people are equally horrified. As an American I can tell non-Americans this - the reaction of people to these events is no more emotional or shocking from one to the other. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:14, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
  
Am I treading well-travelled paths for you so far?  Or have I just observed this alone? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 09:38, 5 May 2019 (EDT)
+
@VargasMilan: ''27 of America's 3,242 counties'' Where did you get this statistic from? It does not seem to be very meaningful, as there are counties with as many as 10,000,000 and as few as 0 inhabitants.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 03:50, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
: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)
+
:In America, if you live in a big city, you'll probably get paid more per week (even welfare payments are higher), but you'll probably have a Democratic mayor as well and take a risk of getting shot or robbed, whatever race you are, unless you can also afford security.  By the way, only one county has close to 10,000,000 inhabitants, and there are counties with less than 2,500,000 inhabitants in the top ten [having high fatalities or not]. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 08:19, 6 August 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.
+
:No one forces you to live in a big city here. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 08:26, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::"Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders".[https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/]
  
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)
+
::"Black people have consistently accounted for close to half the country's homicide victims, making up more than 50 percent of the broader pool of those killed overall every year since 2010. The number of black victims increased 15 percent in 2015 over 2014.
  
: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)
+
::Of the 13,455 cases from last year in which the FBI listed a victim's racial information, 7,039 victims – or 52.3 percent – were black. That compares with 5,854 cases – or 43.5 percent – in which the victim was white, an increase of about 8 percent from last year.
  
::"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)
+
::It's a disparity that becomes more pronounced in the context of population, as 2015 Census estimates suggest that whites account for 77.1 percent of the overall U.S. population of roughly 321 million, while blacks comprise 13.3 percent." - ''U.S. News and World Report''.[https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers]
:::[[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]
+
::72 Percent Of Black Kids Raised By Single Parent, 25% Overall In U.S.[https://newsone.com/1195075/children-single-parents-u-s-american/]
*[https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2018/14-december/features/features/interview-with-eric-kaufmann-race-on-a-professor-s-whiteboard Interview with Eric Kaufmann: race on a professor’s whiteboard]
+
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdQaD_RaZ4I Eric Kaufmann on Nationalism, White Identity & Immigration]
+
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCsTBfsdo50 Harvard: Diversity + Proximity = Republican Voters]
+
  
These are excellent resources on future racial demographic/political shifts and the future of white identity politics. I especially like the material by [[Eric Kaufmann]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:53, 5 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::Seventy-two percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. Sixty percent of America's rapists grew up the same way. Source: D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987. And N. Davidson, "Life Without Father," Policy Review. 1990.[https://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:36, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::FBI on psychology of mass shooters.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzpIJtRJLTE]
  
: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.
+
:::Irreligious and the psychology of mass shooters (see: [[Atheist mass shooters]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:07, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
  
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.
+
===Red flag laws===
  
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)
+
If you want America safer, shutdown sanctuary cities and close our border -- don't enact Red Flag laws that Democrats will weaponize against us when they return to power.
: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)
+
What seems "reasonable" today, will be used against you down the road. I promise.
:::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.
+
 
 +
*OpposeRedFlagLaws<font color="red">🚩</font>—Amy
 +
 
 +
As I recall, someone warned us about that same kind of thing in the 1970s.  I wonder who that could be?
 +
 
 +
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 05:54, 8 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Why do they hate Mexicans? ==
 +
 
 +
After the El Paso massacre, will Mexican newspapers run "Why do they hate us?" articles similar to ones American newspapers ran after 9/11? Perhaps Truthers will tell the Mexican people that it was really the Mexican government who did it. What I have seen so far is the U.S. media demanding that Republicans denounce white supremacists. Why do I have care anything about white supremacy? I'm still waiting for liberals to denounce Al Sharpton for provoking anti-Jewish mob action. Remember, Hillary could say with a straight face that Islam had nothing to do with terrorism. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 09:40, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:The Walmart shooter gave the answer: after [[automation]] replaces workers, Mexicans will come here seeking to get $1,000 a month from [[Andrew Yang]] instead of jobs which don't exist anymore. Americans are already saddled under a load of student loan debt which [[Elizabeth Warren]] promises to forgive, but Mexicans will be competing for college entrance next. Then they'll probably all want reparations for being underpaid tomato pickers for the past 100 years. The fact they've been promised free healthcare is slowing down America's march toward [[Social Justice]].  Thank God [[Bernie Sanders]] and others have advocated for the Walmart and Dayton shooters to vote up until the time they are executed. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:01, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::I think we're a little late to arrest and convict the presumed Dayton shooter. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 03:06, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::And worst of all, immigrants (whether legal or illegal) come here, according the the El Paso shooter, and ''do not'' engage in plastic re-recycling. They also contribute to murdering trees to make paper towels to wipe our hands with. It's not Trump's rhetoric, but socialist rhetoric coupled with [[white privilege]] that distorted the minds of these early twenty-something kids who grew up in the Obama era with no opportunities and a sense of [[entitlement]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:54, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Like the Christchurch killer, the El Paso manifesto writer is an "eco-fascist." This is a brand new ideology that fuses climate idiocy with neo-Nazi racism. If you believe that overpopulation is causing global warming and destroying the planet, humans are the enemy and killing a bunch of them is a logical step. For a leftist, the only fly in the ointment is that in this case potential Democratic voters were targeted. It brings to mind Michael Moore complaining that the 9/11 terrorists struck a heavily Democratic area. I would suggest that switching to nuclear power might be worth a try before anyone else resorts to genocide. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:10, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::He also says automation is a good thing, then accuses immigrants - both legal and illegal - of slowing down passage of a [[UBI]]. If there is one theme that dominates the El Paso shooters thinking throughout the manifesto, it is automation. It's an anti-corporate screed while praising automation for  making his life easier, reducing the need for immigrant labor, and promising him a basic income.  Immigrants, legal and illegal, he accuses of competing for a UBI while driving up college costs.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:03, 8 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Message to the atheist with the username Bottlecap, re: Atheism and the brain ==
 +
[[File:Greta Christina at Skepticon.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Atheist [[Greta Christina]] wrote: "A lot of atheists, [[Secular humanism|humanists]], and other nonbelievers are leery or dismissive of meditation and mindfulness."[http://thehumanist.com/magazine/november-december-2013/fierce-humanism/mind-is-matter-2] See: [[Religiosity and larger frontal lobes]] ]]
 +
User: Bottlecap wrote: "I forgot to take out the trash, It must be the fault of atheists!"?
 +
 
 +
3 points:
 +
 
 +
'''1.''' Healthline.com declares about the frontal lobe: "The frontal lobe is the part of the brain that controls important cognitive skills in humans, such as emotional expression, problem solving, memory, language, judgment, and sexual behavior. It is, in essence, the “control panel” of our personality and our ability to communicate."[https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/frontal-lobe/male]
 +
 
 +
Please see: [[Religiosity and larger frontal lobes]] and [[Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts]] and [[Atheism and sexuality]] and [[Atheism and the brain]] and [[Atheist community and verbal–linguistic intelligence]].
 +
 
 +
'''2.''' Depression can cause forgetfulness.[https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/7-common-causes-of-forgetfulness-201302225923] See: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]].
 +
 
 +
'''3.''' Do you have [[Alzheimer's disease]]? See: [[Atheism and Alzheimer's disease]] and [[Religion and Alzheimer's disease prevention]].
 +
 
 +
I hope this clarifies things for you. Deny that atheists have a deleterious effect on mankind's mental health as a whole and lose all credibility. And remember, no man is an island! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:36, 5 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:I bet Ace[y] McWicked and Bottlecap sometimes fancy themselves the Archie and Jughead of atheism. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 09:26, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Ace is an obscure and uninfluential atheists who has little effect on Christendom or its future (see: [[Future of Christianity]] and [[Desecularization]]).
 +
 
 +
::Given that atheists often crave attention and are narcissistic (see: [[Atheism and narcissism]]), I have decided to have a policy of benign neglect towards Ace and ignore him.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:06, 6 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== And now we're citing Infowars? ==
 +
 
 +
From Mainpageright (the public reads this, you know):
 +
::'''Setback for the [[vaccine]] police''': "Babies Do Better with Unvaccinated Moms – Study." [https://www.infowars.com/babies-do-better-with-unvaccinated-moms-study/]
 +
 
 +
'''INFOWARS??'''  [[Alex Jones|Alex "gay frogs" Jones]]?  [[Alex Jones|Alex "the Sandy Hook massacre was faked" Jones]]?  It's enough to make one long for Breitbart, Sean Hannity, and Tucker Carlson.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:31, 7 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:After the mainstream media touted the Russian-colusion hoax for 2+ years (the Mueller congressional testimony was a total flop) and the mainstream press totally blew their coverage leading up to the 2016 presidential election, trust in media is at an all time low. I am not a regular visitor to InfoWars, but I don't see a great deal of difference between Jones and most mainstream journalists - except that InfoWars is often more reliable (Sad!).
 +
 
 +
:Much of modern news organization news is just sensational clickbait and red meat, political journalism which does little to help people deeply understand the world.
 +
 
 +
:I am giving up on most news organization news coverage and will look at major trends and other relevant data instead.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:42, 7 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Gallup organization, 2016: "Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year... Republicans who say they have trust in the media has plummeted to 14% from 32% a year ago. This is easily the lowest confidence among Republicans in 20 years."[https://news.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:28, 8 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::[https://digiday.com/media/global-state-trust-media-5-charts The global state of trust in media, in 5 charts], Digiday, 2018: "By all accounts, it’s been a turbulent year for media. The alarming spread of fake news — whether for financial gain, pushing partisan agendas or sharing inaccurate information — has shaken audience trust in media both on and off social platforms."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:34, 8 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::[https://www.businessinsider.com/2019-media-layoffs-job-cuts-at-buzzfeed-huffpost-vice-details-2019-2 3,200 people have lost their jobs so far this year in a media landslide], Business Insider, July 30, 2019
 +
 
 +
::::People are not willing to pay to be lied to by mainstream journalists. Very [[fake news]]![[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:38, 8 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
For a good source on vaccines, I'd highly recommend former [[CBS]] News anchor and award wining journalist [[Sharyl Attkisson]], [https://sharylattkisson.com/medical-vaccine-links/][https://www.ageofautism.com/2019/01/full-measure-with-sharyl-attkisson-vaccines-and-autism-was-top-goverment-expert-was-silenced.html] She (a) has devoted years to this area, (b) currently has a lawsuit against Eric Holder and the Obama DOJ for illegal wiretapping, and (c) currently is in dispute with Wikipedia hitmen for slandering her on her bio.
 +
 
 +
Attkisson would be right at home with the ''Epoch Times''. They should hire her. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 01:11, 8 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
=== Man bites dog news story! ===
 +
 
 +
Dozens of dogs rescued from [[China|Chinese]] dog meat festival headed to U.S.[https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-dogs-rescued-from-dog-meat-festival-up-for-adoption-20190709-b7u4gpwqv5eddc7vcbmton6q64-story.html]
 +
 
 +
Are there Chinese [[Atheism|atheists]] in the [[United States]] who eat dog meat? See also: [[Atheists and dog meat eating]] and [[Atheism and animal abuse]]
 +
 
 +
Also, read our new articles: [[Religion and vegetarianism]] and [[Atheism and veganism]]
 +
 
 +
What would we do without User: Conservative to give us the stories that matter and not sensational news! Always remember, dogs are man's best friend! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:42, 8 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Vox says there's probably a lot of "scientific" research that's nothing but poppycock ==
 +
 
 +
[https://www.vox.com/2019/8/8/20758813/secrets-ultra-elderly-supercentenarians-fraud-error Here's a reminder that the Bible is the only source of absolute truth]. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 06:23, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Well, I’m a News reporter of my God’s Word,
 +
:Jesus came here in time,
 +
:And the Good News I’m talking about,
 +
:Will ease your troubled mind.
 +
 
 +
:The subject of the book is Christianity,
 +
:And it’s headlined with religion,
 +
:And I don’t care how many books you read,
 +
:The Bible is the final edition.
 +
 
 +
:—Ira Tucker
 +
 
 +
:[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 10:21, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
== I speak for the trees! ==
 +
 
 +
Glacier melting since Jefferson lived reveals 2000-yr-old frozen forest from prior warm period, which never happened before today’s global warming which will kill us all because shut up denier. #science —Hale Razor
 +
 
 +
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 02:11, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:When the babyboomers die off, that itself will reduce fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions. Global warming will be China's problem, as well as Muslims and Mexicans with higher birthrates, assuming they reproduce in sufficient numbers to replace the number of dead boomers (Hispanic females nolonger are having as many children as they used; higher living standards have a devastating effect on fertility). It'll be their problem. Let them worry about it, and let them fix it/ I'm sick of hearing about it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 02:55, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Greta, the Nobel Prize nominee for organizing school strikes (civil disobedience) to protest the resistance of European legislatures to passing global warming hoax laws, recently virtue signaled to the Nobel Prize judges by posting a picture of herself onto the internet wearing a black Antifascist shirt.
 +
 
 +
::You may soon be hearing about global warming lunacy a lot more than you'd like to.
 +
 
 +
::What I don't understand is why the idea of the carbon cycle never makes it into mainstream discourse:
 +
 
 +
::*The carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>), what little there is of it, gets absorbed by plants and makes the plants grow in volume.
 +
::*Meanwhile the plants release oxygen (O<sub>2</sub>), which causes a surplus of oxygen in the atmosphere in proportion to CO<sub>2</sub>.
 +
::*Consequently, the plants die off some because of the lesser CO<sub>2</sub> available.
 +
::*Meanwhile, the animals slowly continue to turn the oxygen from the atmosphere, together with that additional oxygen released by the plants, back into CO<sub>2</sub>.
 +
::*Finally, the plants grow back as the CO<sub>2</sub> proportion of the air rises, and the cycle returns to the first step.
 +
 
 +
::Why wouldn't the carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels simply feed into this self-adjusting cycle? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 06:49, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Atmospheric carbon dioxide went from 311 parts per million in 1950 to 408 ppm in 2018.[https://www.sealevel.info/co2_and_ch4.html] So, no, it's not self-adjusting. All the same, CO<sub>2</sub> is a trace gas in the atmosphere compared to water vapor. I have never seen a good argument for designating it to be the driver of the climate (as opposed to, say, the sun). [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:41, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::I checked the figures, and you're right about the CO<sub>2</sub> concentration!  And temperatures, such as the inaccuracy of the data is, diverged from CO<sub>2</sub> presence, but now they're back to being closer.
 +
 
 +
::::Before they diverged, I heard about an idea to pump carbon dioxide underground, especially where the oil and natural gas from fracking used to be, to be dealt with later.  But when it did diverge, I heard the idea was shelved—but now, why shouldn't such conventional solutions as this one be taken up again? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 20:22, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Protestors close Hong Kong airport ==
 +
 
 +
With the airport closed today, Hong Kong has arrived at a tipping point. The city was a hard working bastion of free market economics with essentially no politics until the "umbrella protests" of 2014. Under the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, Hong Kong was to eventually get an elected government. China vetoed this idea in 2014. The city's chief executive and 75 percent of the legislature are currently appointed by Beijing.<br/>Yesterday, the police fired tear gas in a subway station, the first time that's happened indoors. The U.S. press isn't giving this issue the prominence it deserves, so check out ''[https://www.hongkongfp.com/ The Hong Kong Free Press]'' (the tribune of the protestors) and the ''[https://www.scmp.com South China Morning Post]''.<br/>The city is being run for the benefit of land speculators who keep jacking up the price of land and making housing unaffordable. The Panama Papers claims that Chinese President Xi Jinping owns five properties in Hong Kong. Xi is far from the only party leader invested in the housing bubble. Hong Kong is the most expensive city in the world and it's all because of land prices. Less than two percent of the city's land is currently zoned for high density housing, so government policy is choking the market. Home ownership is a proven way of reducing political unrest. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 09:38, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:We have a massive tragedy in the making. The first democracy movement in 30 years since Tiananmen. And it's ending the same way as Tiananmen.
 +
 
 +
:One of the most despicable things that public education and the Democrat party has done to our children since the election of the Clinton's in 1992 is not educating our children about the truth of Tianenmen, China, and communism. They have other priorities over democracy and human rights, like same sex marriage, single party control, and sexual perversion for all. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:50, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::You've got that right. I definitely remember reading textbooks in Elementary School where they basically painted [[Chiang Kai-Shek]] in the worst light imaginable, while Mao Zedong was treated like a good leader. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:44, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::John Lennon's ''Imagine'' was hijacked by the global free trade movement ("''The world will live as one''); they forgot the lyrics to John Lennon's ''Revolution'':  "''If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.''  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:53, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
===China's most dangerous book goes on Amazon===
 +
After five years in limbo, the book that kicked off the current turmoil in Hong Kong will finally be available on Amazon: ''[https://www.amazon.com/Xi-Jinping-His-Lovers-Chinese/dp/0359566170 Xi Jinping and His Lovers]''. The book was scheduled to be published in Hong Kong back in 2014. When the Chinese government got wind off it, they started kidnapping the editors. One was kidnapped while on vacation in Thailand. This year, Beijing proposed an extradition law so it can arrest Hongkongers who produce this kind of material legally. The city reacted with massive protests.<br/>The human desire to read smut has always been a valuable tool in bringing down dictatorships. Tell Amazon you want a Kindle edition of this book, as well as an English language translation. Xi killed people to keep these secrets. As many readers as possible need to know what they are. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:55, 14 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Well, I don't know about smut being valuable to bringing down dictators. Sometimes, it's also just AS valuable to installing dictators. After all, Voltaire and Diderot advocated for smut specifically to bring down Catholicism and install in its place a godless anarchistic tyrannical government. Not to mention Sade. And don't get me started on Foucault and his promotion of smut, and how he wanted something akin to the September Massacres and has sung praises for the Ayatollah of all people. Still... if it brings down Xi, might as well support it, though I would have preferred something else entirely, like I don't know John Paul II's visit to Warsaw. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:01, 14 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Actually, I was thinking of Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans. They were invincible on the battlefield. But such godly rulers were never a good fit for an island built on smutty sex jokes. Nell "I'm the Protestant whore" Gwyn could have told them that. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 08:45, 14 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==The Mooch==
 +
Brilliant strategy.  Scaramucci and Trump are in a scrap.  Scaramucci will become the chief "go to" guy as Trump's critic. He'll become a regular MSNBC and CNN pundit. may even get his own show. Build his own fan base. Then, after the convention, when Harris/Biden/Buttigieg/whoever gets nominated,  Scaramucci comes back out of the closet and says Trump still is better than anything the Democrats have to offer.
 +
 
 +
These idiot Dems and MSM take the bait every time. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 12:04, 15 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Antifa strategy==
 +
 
 +
Here's a thought: Antifa is promoting its anti-fascist agenda and militant maneuvers to menace ''socialist heretics''.  This would include those who wouldn't use violent revolution to achieve their socialist ends, or are acting according to [''incremental'',] ''conspicuously independent'' or ''nationally skewed'' forms of socialism.
 +
 
 +
They don't have to call conservatives fascists too.  But if they didn't you would have heretics and non-believers, the second actually falling under a less negative name than the socialist heretics.
 +
 
 +
An expected consequence of successful intimidation would be more antagonism between conservatives and socialists because of a silenced center-left and a more united left that would cause the left and right parties to share less common ground, an antagonism Antifa could exploit as a camouflaging backdrop to later increases in their promotion of violent revolution. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 17:08, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:One flaw in your reasoning: Antifa does not have an "antifacist agenda"; Antifa ''is'' a fascist organization. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:56, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::When a right-wing group does a protest or show of force in a liberal/leftist area, they cannot count on police protection - period.  Confronting the opposition where its strong is never a good idea. "So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak." - [[Sun Tzu]]
 +
 
 +
::I think it is better to move to a conservative state and vote with your feet. This way your tax dollars are not going to support liberal/leftist policies.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:59, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::RobS, Antifa has members and groups in many major cities. Why don't you think, when they grow large enough, they would all step up at the same time and declare themselves dedicated communists?  They have reached out to ISIS; do you doubt they have correspondence with other socialists in other parts of the world?  The word krypto-communist comes to mind.
 +
 
 +
:::Conservative, a civil engineer can tell you where a building would break first due to stress.  There are words to describe types of buildings like "top-heavy", "bottom-heavy" or "overloaded".  I think that's how the martial arts work too.
 +
 
 +
:::Trump has his hand on the lever of calling Antifa a domestic terrorist group.  He knows what's going on by now.  It might be interesting to watch what they do.  Especially if they think Trump has a counter-strategy of demolishing their "building". [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 20:14, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::It's all a commie plot to overthrow the U.S. Constitution (First and Second Amendments are under extreme attack right now). They could give a rats' pitutie about racism, Medicare for All, or income equality. It's a criminal gang trying to seize power, as all Socialist movements everywhere at all times in history have always been at times of societal breakdown, to wit abortion and gay marriage attest. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:44, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Potential articles or templates ==
 +
 
 +
1990sguy hit a home run with his [[Donald Trump achievements]] article idea. The article got a lot of page views.
 +
 
 +
Here are some of the top issues rated in importance in my estimation, but maybe others have better ideas.
 +
 
 +
1. 2020 USA Presidential race
 +
 
 +
2.  Immigration/the wall
 +
 
 +
3.  China-USA Trade War
 +
 
 +
4. Gun rights/shootings
 +
 
 +
Maybe a "[[Leftist mass shooters]]" article would be popular
 +
 
 +
Maybe a [[Donald Trump's wall]] article would be popular.
 +
 
 +
I am just throwing out ideas. If others have ideas, please tell us your ideas.
 +
 
 +
Maybe some templates on important issues could be created too.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:06, 20 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:For the record, we already have a [[Border wall]] article and an [[Open borders]] article. We also have [[Mass shootings prevented by armed citizens]]. We could either 1) expand these articles further (though I think they're already pretty good), 2) create redirects to make it easier to find them, or 3) create new articles related to these. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 20:24, 20 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::I think a cleverly titled template relating to the presidential campaigns, which will grow in interest, might be optimal at this time.  Perhaps "Template:President 2020"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:39, 20 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::We need something more specific than [[Border wall]] as a lot of countries have border walls. How about [[United States-Mexico border wall]]?
 +
 
 +
::As far as the template, it would be "Template: United States President 2020"[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:50, 20 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::The border wall is kind of a sore point, to say the least.  Negotiations are continuing, however, and some progress made.  For example:
 +
 
 +
::::ANN COULTER SAYS SHE IS HAPPY WITH TRUMP because of the decision to end 'catch and release' and she proudly says SHE WILL NOT CRITICIZE HIM AT ALL TODAY  Congrats to: @realDonaldTrump 💯
 +
 
 +
:::[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 18:42, 21 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::By the way, don't think I'm unnecessarily elevating Coulter in the ribbing I copied off of Twitter about the situation, either.
 +
::::*She's presented the clearest case for halting immigration;
 +
::::*Trump's adherence to the case allowed him to win against the rest of the Republican primary candidates who opposed immigration restrictions to the bitter end;
 +
::::*And her taking immigration seriously allowed her to successfully forsee serious events like what was recognized to be the immigration emergency Trump declared, and which the Democrat-controlled House was forced to pass a billion-dollar appropriation on July 1, 2019 to combat. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 22:21, 22 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:FYI: Here is a report of a mass shooting prevented by an armed loyal citizen:
 +
::Sciascia, Andrew J. (August 21, 2019). [https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/good-guy-gun-distracts-gunman-shot-multiple-times-averting-potential-mass-shooting/ "Good guy with a gun distracts gunman, shot multiple times averting potential mass shooting".] Conservative Tribune website.
 +
:There was also a mass shooting planned in Lubbock, Texas, near the time of the most recent two but was stopped by the would-be assailant's grandmother reporting it to the police, rather than by a citizen carrying a gun, hours before it was carried out.  Scary stuff. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 12:21, 23 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Why don't we catalog [[opioid]] deaths; that's something the government is suppose to have control over. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:25, 23 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::I've also been hoping that we could somewhere, somehow catalog statistics for causes of death. I know the numbers are out there, and I've started gathering some, but it's slow going. The problem seems to be getting numbers for all causes '''from the same year'''.
 +
:::It seems like all we hear about are deaths due to "gun violence" and "preventable" drug overdoses (if it was legal to use all drugs, and they were dosing in a monitored clinic), as if these are the top causes of death.  The actual #1 cause of unnatural death? I think it's alcohol, but indirectly. Car accidents caused by alcohol, drug (legal and illegal) reactions/overdoses due to alcohol, doing idiotic things due to alcohol (falling to their death, killing themselves with fireworks, etc.), and so forth. This being a root cause will probably be difficult to get statistics on, but we could at least catalogue the immediate causes.  Even lighting could make that list; these days, there seem to be somewhere between 55 and 16 (the lowest ever recorded) fatalities due to lightning. In the 1940s, it was over 400 per year.
 +
:::All around the world, there are fools who think the U.S. is some lawless death zone where everyone goes around shooting one another.  Although this is a somewhat morbid topic, it would be nice to have some stats all in one place to prove them wrong.  Also, we could add on to this how many mass murdered were stopped with force (such as armed citizens shooting back). --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 13:55, 23 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::For crime, including hate crimes, there's the FBI.  Andy Ngo investigated hate crimes further to see how many were domestic violence (until he was interrupted by being badly beaten himself by Antifa).  And for other causes, there's the National Center for Health Statistics.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 23:13, 23 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::I posted a link here a while back, also, about records of assaults with multiple targets. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 23:20, 23 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Silver linings: Epstein ==
 +
 
 +
At least it's stopped people talking about him and Epstein for a bit. I wouldn't have advised going full drunken racist uncle on Twitter to do it, like, but then I'm sure Trump knows far more about winning bigly than I do. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:27, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:It's ridiculous to call Trump's comments "racist" -- doing so takes away the word's meaning and power and makes it just another overused political catchphrase. As [https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/453306-trumps-no-racist-hes-an-equal-opportunity-offender this op-ed] (among others) shows, Trump makes statements like that against anybody who criticizes him regardless of their physical (or even ideological) characteristics.
 +
 
 +
:Also, Trump's statements are logical -- the U.S. was extremely generous to Ilhan Omar and the millions of other refugees and migrants who have been allowed in and who have been naturalized. If all she's doing in response to that generosity is bash America, she shouldn't live here. If a British, French, or Russian person moves to the U.S. and bashes it in return, they also should leave.
 +
 
 +
:Also, the same people who are defending Omar and her buddies are the same people who frequently mock and insult non-western immigrants such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Dinesh D'Souza. Trump and his supporters have high opinions of people like them. Internationally, Italy's right-wing populist League elected the country's first black senator,[https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/03/07/italian-populists-elect-first-black-senator-county-history/][http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italy-elections-black-senator-elect-lega-nord-anti-immigration-party-toni-iwobi-brescia-lombardy-a8243736.html] and the Alternative for Germany has a higher proportion of immigrant MPs than Angela Merkel's party.[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-election-immigration/germanys-far-right-afd-has-more-immigrant-mps-than-merkels-conservatives-idUSKCN1C42GZ] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:42, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::hahaha!!! Let me tell you about the time I heard a Native American tell an African American "go back where you came form."  HAHAHA!!  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 18:53, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
[[File:Donald Trump with Snoop Dogg.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Donald Trump keepin' it real with Snoop DoggMeanwhile Kamala Harris claimed she used to listen to Snoop Dogg when she was in college (during the 1980s).  Snoop Dogg hadn't released his first album until 1993. (Hat tip to [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] for his finding the Kamala Harris story and providing a link to it)]]
 +
 
 +
:1990's guy, why are you working to convince someone who is laboring to fit the most slanderous remarks into the smallest space possible?  A simple "As a lazy rock-thrower, you don't have access to the knowledge required to make that determination, as you don't even understand the American system of government to begin with" will do. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 19:01, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
The biggest tell with this whole thing is that Trump (or more likely someone with the keys to his Twitter account) tried to bury the original 3 tweets with ~20 retweets of random guff. Go and check if you don't believe me.
 +
 
 +
On a more general note re. strategy, if you're tweeting stuff that - a couple of days later - forces you to deny that you're a racist, you probably shouldn't have tweeted that stuff in the first place. Racist or not, your boy's a moron. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 19:56, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:I don't believe you.  If you're too slack-moralled to [not] describe somebody without obviously making up stuff, you could never be held accountable enough to receive any consequences for further repetitions of the same behavior.  There's no downside for you! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 20:23, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::It's all good. Pelosi has drawn closer to Ilhan Omar, whom she refused to condemn for her racism just two months ago.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 20:29, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::JohnZ, of course you don't know about winning bigly like Donald Trump. You are a British, [[secular left]]ist. Brexit passed. [[Boris Johnson]] was elected. On December 2018, ''The Times'' indicated: "The number of atheists in Britain has fallen in the past year, according to a survey suggesting that more people are attending church, albeit irregularly." See: [[British atheism]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:38, 23 July 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
=== Epstein: Another Clinton victim? ===
 +
 
 +
The Clintons sure do look happy about Epstein's death. See [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/clintons-are-all-smiles-in-illinois-hours-after-bill-clintons-pal-jeffrey-epstein-found-dead-video/ this video]. I suspect that this is the best day Hillary's had since Comey shivved her. She doesn't look at all like the woman on the campaign trail who kept getting drunk and stumbled around. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:13, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:At the prison where Epstein was being held, a guard checked up on him every nine minutes. From [https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/08/11/former-mcc-inmate-theres-no-way-man-epstein-killed/ this description], it sounds almost impossible for a prisoner to commit suicide without the connivance of the guards. That's under the standard regimen. That Epstein was mysteriously taken off suicide watch a few days before his death raises the jaw dropping factor to another level. This prison held El Chapo without incident. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 11:01, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::He was under 24 hour video surveillance in his cell. There's supposed to be video tape.  Unless a jailer is disciplined within days, it's obvious what happened. The immediate problem is privacy regulations related to civil service workers' personal files. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:09, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::There was a story that 15 minutes before the Epstein death story broke, an anonymous writer appeared on 4-chan claiming to have been present in the prison and said they saw Epstein being walked out of the prison into a waiting car surrounded by persons near three other cars.
 
:
 
:
:::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.
+
:::I also saw a photo of a body being taken out of a prison on a hospital/EMS body cart that looked like Epstein, but had definite differences in the nose and ear, that was displayed by a Twitterer in a helpful side-by-side comparison using graphics software.
 
:
 
:
:::RobS Yes and where there's explosions, there's cowards like me to hit the sidelines and foreswear any connection to whatever conservative is taking the heat, however feckless the Democrats' efforts at any kind of recovery of a silver lining on the effort that ended up so frustratingly unfruitful may be, because they're really just mad at Robert Mueller.
+
:::These could have been faked, but who has the motive of presenting that kind of picture, but with no story to go along with it?  If whoever reported each of those events had wanted to, they could have argued pro or con for Jeffrey Epstein meeting with foul play, and the picture or description could have reinforced the Twitter poster's opinion (one way or another) immensely.  So why go to the trouble of either faking or for that matter even honestly reporting what was happening at the prison in little pieces by themselves with no other additions to serve as conclusions or even speculations? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 15:46, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
:
+
 
:::These weren't ever really supposed to be "funny" topics, but when your digging a hole for yourself, go with what you know, I guess. And now I don't know when I'll be able to get back to answering SamHB about Neil DeGrasse Tyson not being a conservative.  And 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.
+
::::It's rumored the contract killing kitty has reached $100 million so they faked his death so as to move him to an undisclosed location. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 16:10, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Jason Goodman did a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVvpSy_OiRM 21 minute report from just outside the MCC] minutes after the news broke. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 16:13, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::The reports today say there is no video footage of the incident.[https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/theres-no-video-of-jeffrey-epsteins-apparent-suicide-sources/] How convenient. Yesterday, the media was loudly demanding answers. Had the deep state finally gone too far? Today, much of the coverage has slipped into Seth Rich mode. The public's continued interest is being denounced as a right-wing thing. Soon the media will be back to its regular output of "Trump's a racist," "Republicans are racist," and "Why are you disturbing Epstein's family. Haven't they suffered enough?" [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:09, 11 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::Here's the theory: it is a conspiracy charge - others will be named.  Epstein's death does not mean Clinton, Richardson, Mitchell ''et al.'' skate. The U.S. Attorney already noted the conspiracy charge is ongoing. Epstein became a co-operating witness in the cases against Clinton, Richardson, Mitchell ''et al.'' and was moved into a witness protection program at an unknown location. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 00:52, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Epstein is the first suicide at MCC since 1998. It's a jail for the worst of the worst, the prisoners with no hope.[https://nypost.com/2019/08/10/suicide-supposedly-nearly-impossible-at-ulta-secure-jeffrey-epstein-lockup/] The city's medical examiner has completed an autopsy, but they still don't know what the cause of death is. What's up with that?[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/after-autopsy-cause-jeffrey-epstein-s-death-awaits-further-information-n1041216] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 09:05, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::See, now you are contributing to fake news engineering. It should be "Epstein's "apparent suicide", or Epstein's "alleged apparent suicide". We have yet to (a) see the coroner's report (b) see the IG investigation into the coroners report, etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:40, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::Yeah, and besides, didn't one of Epstein's... child maids for lack of a better term already state that she never even met Bill Clinton or Donald Trump? Something tells me that at the very least Bill Clinton for once was not responsible for his death (why would he need to, since one of the child maids already confirmed she never even met Clinton anyways. And besides, as you pointed out, Clinton's screwed either way with conspiracy charges, so it's not like killing Epstein would really help him out of the dug hole he made for himself.). And I'm not fond of Bill Clinton. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:44, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::Both the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons are calling it an "apparent suicide."[https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/journos-debunker-mentality-rush-to-rip-conspiracy-talk/] I of course do know what really happened to Epstein. I am pretty sure that the mainstream media doesn't know either. It seems suspicious that we already have a corpus of "debunking" literature, with reporters tripping over each other to proclaim the Clintons innocent. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 12:15, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::Do I want the Clintons to be innocent? Absolutely not! Heck, if anything, I'd be glad if we actually NAIL them with something for once after spending far too many times escaping justice. But the problem is that one of the former child maids of Epstein under testimony denied that both Trump and Clinton ever came to her during her time as an escort. That's why I'm doubtful the Clintons would have been involved in any way with the death, as much as I really want them to be just to nail them with something for once. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 12:53, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::Bill Clinton is the highest profile perpetrator in the U.S. (among dozens of other prominent Democrats and Wall Street CEOs). In the UK, it is Prince Andrew. We know other Prime Ministers, Muslim emirs , and multinational corporate figures are involved. So yes, it's true the Clinton's are getting a disproportionate amount of publicity. it's a question of scale. The scandal is much much larger than just the Clintons.  They do occupy a peculiar space however, having organized the shady money laundering scheme known as the Clinton Foundation in which there likely is overlap between donors and other accused pedophiles. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:37, 12 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::::I think we have a [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/one-of-epsteins-guards-was-not-a-corrections-officer clearer picture] of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWMlLgNuugY&t=8s what happened]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 16:21, 13 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
*Epstein's will, made up two days before he died, put his claimed assets of $577 million into a trust.[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-we-know-about-jeffrey-epsteins-will-and-what-happens-next-with-his-estate/] This is apparently an attempt to keep his beneficiaries secret. At the time he made up the will, he had a cell mate. But the cell mate was pulled out just before Epstein's death. In other words, someone arranged things to make it easier for Epstein to kill himself. The IRS gets first cut and then the victims. Epstein's beneficiaries, whoever they are, may not end up with anything. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:09, 23 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Can't believe none of that. We'll wait for the results of investigations. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:29, 23 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Pedogate roundup===
 +
 
 +
The FBI sent divers to Epstein's island.  Some are claiming they found human remains there.
 +
 
 +
Some are saying the scandal will reach Hollywood by the end of next week.  I'm sure it could take longer, but regardless, if the FBI (or SDNY?) arrests people, it could be that those arrested first will be those most likely to whom they will offer a deal.  That being said, I'm still not "naming names."  It could be a deliberately false leak.
 +
 
 +
Perhaps you've heard that the golden dome on the mock-Egyptian temple on Epstein's island was taken down.  Well, supposedly someone sent a cement truck there too.  Who would lie about something like that? But I don't really know if that's a good way to hide all or any types of evidence or not.
 +
 
 +
I haven't heard this mentioned since Epstein (or his look-alike) died, but what ever happened to Epstein's rumored "kill-switch" that would release evidence to the authorities in the event of his death?
 +
 
 +
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 17:52, 16 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:SDNY is investigating itself. I think we need an Independent Counsel.
 +
 
 +
:In the IG report recommending [[Andrew McCabe]]'s firing, you'll see that McCabe leaked to the ''Wall Street Journal''. When investigated, he tried to pin the leak on the New York Field Office and SDNY, knowing its reputation and the likelihood an investigation would never produce conclusive evidence. When two internal investigations (FBI Inspection Division and DOJ IG) pinned the leak on McCabe, it became another charge of him trying to pass off his own corrupt behavior on others. But McCabe's theory, that the SDNY was corrupt, certainly was plausible in FBI's Washington HQs. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:40, 16 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::RobS, I mentioned the SDNY corruption reputation here months ago, so you and your sources are not alone in claiming this.
 +
 
 +
::But the story I referenced about the discovery of human remains? I traced the story to the source and then found a discussion of it on 4chan/pol completely accidentally. They seemed to think it was too good to be true, as far as drawing interest from those following the story.
 +
 
 +
::Even worse for the story's credibility, however, was that, first, the source quoted was called a Russian, top secret document.  Something like that can't ordinarily be either confirmed or denied.  Secondly, even if the truth of the report were sought out from Russia, the sentence that actually describes the source and transmission of the report has a grammatical error.  What Russian official would stoop down to prove or disprove a charge made as carelessly as that? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 23:40, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::You're talking about Sorcha Faal. You have to learn ''how'' to read Sorcha Faal, not its verbatim contents.  They talk in code.
 +
 
 +
:::Here's a video purporting to show [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah5cHepaHIc Prince Andrew at Epstein's Manhattan residence]; perhaps some of our UK viewers can help making a positive ID. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:00, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::I can't believe you're justifying giving this journalist credibility on sorcha faalse premise. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 08:33, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Sorcha Faal has sometimes broke stories hours if not days ahead of mainstream sources. [http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2679.htm The Pakistani connections in the New York limo accident] comes to mind. Sorcha Faal was 24-72 hours ahead of mainstream sources, and MSM only hinted at the owners father being an FBI informant, at which point MSM reporting ceased.  (Never mind all the chlorine bomb stuff, cause that's probably just added to draw attention).
 +
:::::In the Epstein case, Sorcha Faal has twice now claimed the tail numbers on Epstein's aircraft were stolen, and seems frustrated there is no reporting on it. I haven't delved into it, but if it ever does appear in MSM, I'll recall where the first reports came from.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:14, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
So here's a likely theory in the New York limo accident, drawn from all sources: The company was founded by a Pakistani immigrant after the 9/11 attacks who was likely re-located to the United States in the witness protection program as an FBI informant. His Limo business made him self-sustaining and not a public charge (using the capital supplied by the government to start-up). At some point he retired and passed the business along to his son. The company was involved in horrid, freak accident, prompting a public outcry, numerous lawsuits, and New York's governor threatening to take their license away. In less than 24 hours, a guy in the federal witness protection program was publicly identified, exposing holes and weaknesses in the whole federal witness protection program based on Google open source information (See [[Nellie Ohr]]; Nellie Ohr's whole career as a CIA, and later FBI contractor, was built on being an open source specialist. She used open source information to build the whole Russia collusion narrative. Her whole [https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-doj-ohr-comms-production-6-01854-pgs-300-312/ "Who's Who"] ([https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/JW-v-DOJ-Ohr-comms-production-6-01854-pgs-300-312.pdf download]) is built on open source, which sites such as Ratinfestedwiki use verbatim in its 'Trump Russia connection' article. Any supposed "classified information" in the Mueller Report and the whole Trump-Russia fiasco is to hide the identities and wrongdoing by Obama administration civil servants, not national security "sources and methods.")
 +
 
 +
The NY limo accident is somewhat an example of the function of the Sorcha Faal website. Use it to develop analytical skills in  the [[counterintelligence]] field.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:40, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:[http://whatdoesitmean.com/index2971.htm Sorcha Faal has a good one today]. It pulls together all the information in the [[Michael Flynn]] case, with underlying links. It does however, add to the narrative a fiction than Flynn plotted this take down of the Deep State by pleading guilty.  This is done to add some bravado and make it appear more interesting and appealing to less informed readers who haven't followed the story so closely.  Other than that, if you follow the story after the upcoming Sept 10 hearing, you can judge for yourself the veracity of Sorcha Faal's information. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:08, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Two tier system===
 +
The fact that Nixon was pardoned, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have never been in jail and OJ Simpson initially got off and Epstein initially got a cushy sentence, tells me there is a two tiered "justice" system and the political/social elite often don't go to jail or are jailed under cushy conditions. Don't expect Prince Andrew to be convicted either. Call me a cynic, but it is hard to come to any other conclusion.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:19, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Yeah, should we really count Nixon? The whole Watergate thing was done by leftists in order to force him out of office without needing to assassinate him. It was purely partisan and a coup from the get-go, and aside from that, Nixon wasn't even AWARE of the break-in until after the fact (and if anything there's sufficient evidence that the "star witness" who supposedly "broke ranks" with Nixon was the one who actually masterminded the break-in, and all to remove evidence implicating him and his girlfriend to an infamous call-girl ring at the hotel). Definitely agree with the others, though. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:42, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::You need an understanding of federal law and civil service regulations; adding Prince Andrew and OJ in the mix only confuses issues. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup>
 +
:::Let's separate the OJ murder charge under California law and the Prince Andrew charge subject to the US/UK extradition treaty out, and focus on [[civil service]] regulations, whether state or federal. Take the facts in the case you cited, and also examine the facts in Mayor [[Pete Buttigieg]]'s firing of the South Bend police chief, based on threats (Buttigieg claims) made by the U.S. Attorney's office, regarding the civil service status of a South Bend, Indiana civil service employee (the police chief). The case is still under litigation, I think, 5 or 7 years after. The civil servant (the police chief) is likely to win (probably in a case that will never be fully litigated with an out of court settlement). Corruption, as is alleged by some, in the U.S. Attorney's office will never likely be exposed (forget non-action by the DOJ's Civil Service Division to protect minority rights).
 +
:::Here's a good starting point to examine the two-tier system regarding civil servants under existing federal law. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:11, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::In my town, two local cases show the problem (1) the Superintendent of schools (one of the largest school districts in the nation) got a DUI; it cost the school district $750,000 to fire him before he his contract expired. (2) The University football coach was caught up in a lot of shady deals regarding recruiting (some of his recruits lived at his house, drove his car, and got in trouble with girls and drugs); it cost the University (i.e. the state) $500,000 to break his contract and fire him. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:41, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::I don't understand how a high profile figure such as a school superintendent or state university football coach can negotiate a separate contract and still be protected by collective bargaining rights. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:50, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Michael Jackson never saw a day in jail for his pedophilia. Jackson could even dangle his baby over a hotel balcony railing on camera and still escape punishment.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ElddgJCgyg] He just said he committed a terrible mistake danglihg his baby over a hotel balcony and that was it as far as repurcussions.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2494249.stm]
 +
 
 +
::::It's very obvious there is a two tiered system of justice. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:49, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::You're confusing the issue, again, by bringing up non-civil service employees; cite the names of civil servant investigators and prosecutors who may have been paid off (with evidence), if you wish to make headway on the subject. Everyone knows money can buy justice. You just sound like a lame conspiracy theorist who is not helping to reform the system by confusing issues. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:02, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
My point is that high ranking government officials, celebrities and people with a lot of money often escape justice.
 +
 
 +
Donald Trump famously said, "And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the x$#$#@%. You can do anything."
 +
 
 +
It is true though that in a post Me-Too era, celebrities and others are being held to a higher standard now when it comes to sexual crimes. Bill Cosby found that out. So did Matt Lauer.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:15, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:By the way, I am not a fan of the Me-Too movement, like most liberal/leftist ideologies it goes beyond reason. Like "believe the woman" is lame. People still need to have the presumption of innocence. And the Cavanaugh hearings were a disgrace.
 +
 
 +
::But with that being said, I think the reason why Epstein faced the law a second time is due to the Me-Too movement and due to the Catholic Church being increasingly charged for pedophilia crimes. In addition, some of the craziness of the sexual revolution is wearing off. The nation is now more pro-life and pedophilia crimes are now being treated more seriously.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:21, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::It was [[Mike Cernovich]] and [[Alan Dershowitz]] getting the Appeals Court to unseal documents related to ''Virginia Roberts Guiffre vs. Gsilaine Maxwell'' defamation suit (the 2009 plea agreement negotiated between James Acosta, [[Ken Starr]], and Alan Dershowitz). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:37, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
Bottom line, here was the situation in 2003: "Almost all Americans have sex before marrying."[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/]
 +
 
 +
Here is the situation now: "But surprisingly teens are less likely to have sex than they were 25 years ago. The 2015 Centers for Disease Control research update shows that 6 in 10 of teenagers have never had sex.  That shows an increase of 28% since 1991.  The CDC study found in their 2010 study that, “the most common reason for not yet having [had sex] was that it was ‘against religion or morals,’’ which was also the most common reason in 2002."[https://www.acpeds.org/the-increase-of-teenage-abstinence]
 +
 
 +
The growth of Bible believing Christian churches is having an impact on the culture (see: [[Growth of evangelical Christianity]]).  And these type of churches will likely keep growing in the USA because religious people have more children. But maybe not, maybe young evangelicals will drop out of the church. It is tough to say at this point. I do think Trump putting in conservative judges and a future economic downturn of a big magnitude could cause many people to sober up. During the Great Depression holiness churches and pentecostal churches grew.  In times of trouble, people often turn to things that are more solid and not things like fake churches, etc. So your more conservative, Bible believing churches could see an increase.
 +
 
 +
So eventually, sexual perversion such as pedophilia, etc. might recede in the USA for the foreseeable future. But maybe it won't. Maybe non-Christians will be very adversely affected by internet porn.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:33, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:The point I am making is that the law and legal system do not operate in a vacuum. The surrounding culture shapes the law and legal system. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:33, 18 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Hopefully, out of the coup plot and Epstein situation, we can muster a bi-partisan reform movement. The FBI needs to be dismantled, in the same way INS was after 9/11 or the KGB after the fall of the USSR.  Federal law enforcement needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:19, 19 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== What to say if you're called a racist ==
 +
 
 +
If anyone calls me a racist, I usually respond, "And you're a jerk." Another option is, "I am not a racist." According to [http://archive.is/cogwg today's ''Washington Post''], I've got it all wrong. When white people are called racist, they should recognize that they are in fact racist and express gratitude. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:48, 24 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:I dunno; being singled out as a racist by race pimps could be racist itself. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup>
 +
 
 +
:::"Our racist president emboldens bigots, xenophobes and white supremacists as domestic terrorists commit horrific acts of violence across our country.
 +
 
 +
:::As the proud son of an immigrant whose family was murdered by Nazis, I say: we will defeat white nationalism." —Bernie Sanders, August 23, 2019.
 +
 
 +
::Ah yes, the guy who moved from Brooklyn to 96% White Vermont is here to lecture you bigots about diversity. —[[VDare]], August 23, 2019. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 02:25, 25 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== The most corrupt president ==
 +
 
 +
The Obamas just bought a 29-acre beachfront property in Martha's Vinyard for $15 million. Martha's Vinyard is where ''la crème de la crème'' flaunt their wealth by buying a modest hut or two. The Obama mansion is a seven bedroom, 8½ bathroom fortress. Does this sound like a family worried about global warming or rising ocean levels?[https://nypost.com/2019/08/22/barack-and-michelle-obama-are-buying-15m-estate-in-marthas-vineyard/][https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/08/23/why-would-obama-buy-a-doomed-beach-house/] And where does a guy who never held a nonpolitical job get this kind of money? There was a leaked 2008 email from Michael Froman to John Podesta that speculated as to what an Obama cabinet would look like if contributors were rewarded according to how much they contributed. The Froman list was pretty much what the real Obama cabinet looked like.[https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:22, 25 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:In 2015, Obama told the United Nations that, "Rising sea level threaten every coastline...On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees." I guess that was just the Teleprompter talking. Back in 2012, the one even had a socialist moment: "I do think, at some point, you've made enough money." See "[https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/08/23/with-12-years-left-on-earth-due-to-climate-change-obama-says-screw-it-and-buys-oceanfront-property-n2552102 12 Years Left Due To Climate Change? Obama Says 'Screw It' And Buys Oceanfront Mega-Mansion]". [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 14:02, 25 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Obama replied, "When I said that about the ocean levels, I was going to check the beachfront real estate market to find out how the ''pricing'' research behind all its buyers' and owners' investments assigned confidence with regard to the validity of the ''allegedly scientific'' research behind that aspect of global warming, but I forgot." [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 19:40, 25 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Brazil fires ==
 +
 
 +
According to NASA, the level of fires in the Amazon rainforest is roughly the same as the 15-year average for this time of year: [https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil][https://twitter.com/lyndseyfifield/status/1167114222247075847] It's interesting that despite this, the "international community" is upset only now that a conservative leads Brazil, rather than the leftists who controlled Brazil for the previous 15 years. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 10:20, 26 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:The Washington Times has a story on how the only record with this matter is "international outrage": [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/26/amazon-fires-normal-agriculture-despite-internatio/] --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 09:49, 27 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Bots ==
 +
Is there anyway we could use bots to check for vandalism? I would also like to update the articles to have an "edit lock" icon like on Wikipedia {{unsigned|ChickenHacker}}
 +
 
 +
== Joe Biden has a long term lead over other Democratic rivals, but for how long? ==
 +
 
 +
I was hoping that Biden's campaign would falter because mentally, I don't believe he is up to the job. I have talked to 90+ year olds who have more mental acuity than Biden (see: [[Biden's age]]). Unfortunately, the typical American diet is not good for long term brain health (see: [[Cognitive decline and diet]]).
 +
 
 +
The media refuses to face the fact that Joe Biden isn’t close to collapsing.[https://nypost.com/2019/08/28/the-media-refuses-to-face-the-fact-that-joe-biden-isnt-close-to-collapsing/]
 +
 
 +
It's really pitiful that Joe Biden is the frontrunner.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:30, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Biden's gaffes and/or him being forced to campaign harder (he makes more gaffes later in the day) is the only thing that could probably shake up the race.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:34, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::434 DAYS TO GO: 2008 Dem: Clinton led by 16.9 points. 2008 GOP: Giuliani led by 10.6 points. 2012 GOP: Perry led by 5 points. 2016 Dem: Clinton led by 24.2 points. 2016 GOP: Trump led by 14.5 points.
 +
 
 +
::Just as we all know about the "unreliability" of polls, we also know polls can be "cooked"; IMO, we're seeing some polls being "cooked" right now to eliminate Tulsi Gabbard. And who would have believed De Blasio would survive Gillibrand? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:49, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Biden has the more moderate lane. He stands out. The left leaning Warren/Sanders are diehards who will not drop out easily and their votes are fractured. Trump was elected because he took the right lane and he stood out. Opposition to Trump was fractured among moderates (Cruz was too unlikeable and softer on immigration).
 +
 
 +
:::And black support for Biden will likely not waver given he was Obama's VP, Biden's overall voting record on race/black issues, etc.
 +
 
 +
:::Biden's lack of mental stamina and gaffes are the only things that stands in the way of him getting the nomination.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:59, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Biden does have a long term lead as long as he stays as much out of the public as possible. He is like a fighter with long arms who stays away from his opponent.
 +
 
 +
::::There is probably a 60-70% chance that once he has to get out in the public more, his lack of mental stamina and his gaffes will sink his campaign.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:31, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Warren could knock out Biden in IA/NH too and then gain momentum.[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-of-a-threat-is-warren-to-bidens-front-runner-status/] You are entirely correct. It is too early in the race to predict.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:52, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::The British odds-makers have increased Warren's predicted odds of winning for ten straight weeks in a row now, placing her six points ahead of Biden, regardless of polls. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 15:10, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::I grant the British oddmakers have an outside view and can theoretically be more objective. But I would trust an American oddmaker website more. John Stossel's political oddsmaker website has Warren in the lead.[https://www.electionbettingodds.com/] 
 +
 
 +
:::::My guess is that Biden will be knocked out in IA/NH. My guess is that NH will be the knockout blow. Maybe that will puncture his electability argument and a significant amount of black voters in South Carolina will defect from Biden. My guess is that a large segment of black voters will be pragmatic and vote according to "what's in it for us" and flee Biden. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:24, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::It isn't legal for Americans to participate in the larger of the two polls averaged to determine the odds on the Stossel/Lott website, so that's why I call them the "British oddsmakers'" predictions, as it's also located in the U.K. By the way, I agreed that Warren was ahead; I wanted to point out the interesting fact that her odds have been increasing week after week (her momentum is growing).
 +
 
 +
::::::I saw a recent poll on Twitter that said 49% of black Democrats preferred Biden as their candidate.  So what's stopping Biden from promising his own assortment of federal government goodies to win votes? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 16:23, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Here's what the polls reveal: Blacks and Hispanics are the Democrat moderates. Old hippies and [[white privilege]]d Antifa Millenials are the far left. Biden is buoyed by blacks, while the Sanders/Warren extreme white privileged far left vote should be counted as one bloc. Booker and Harris have not caught on among blacks cause they're chasing the white privileged far left vote. [[Identity politics]] appears to be failing.  
 
:
 
:
:::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)
+
:::::::All this points to Obama being kingmaker. While Obama ideologically is more in line with the predominantly white Warren/Sanders bloc, he's not particularly enamored to Biden, who is ideologically more in line with racial and ethnic minority voters than Obama is. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:40, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
::::Stop trying to change the subject to white nationalism. Focus on the coup plot and the globalist attempt to destroy American democracy. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 04:45, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::You want to stop the coup plot and globalist actions against America? Do yourself and us a favor and stop calling America's form of government a democracy. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Want an actual Democracy? Look at France during the French Revolution, whether it be the September Massacres or the Reign of Terror. Look at Athens in Hellenistic Greece, even. In fact, our founding fathers specifically wanted to AVOID a democracy. By stating it as "American democracy", you're only helping the globalists and the Deep State. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:50, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::Our elected officials are democratically elected. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 19:55, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::::Still doesn't make us a democracy. A real democracy entails mob rule, like with the French Revolution, or, heck, various Communist revolutions (or even Southern Somalia in the episode "Collapse" of SEAL Team on CBS). The founding fathers specifically envisioned us as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, and in fact, what happened in the French Revolution is precisely why they did NOT want a democracy, that as well as how Athens fell. Sure, thanks to Woodrow Wilson and a certain Constitutional Amendment, we're closer to a democracy, but we still have checks and balances, and thus are NOT a democracy. Even the Communists believed in democracy, as [https://robertwelchuniversity.org/Not%20a%20Shot.pdf Jan Zovak made clear in "Not a Shot was Fired"], heck, Lenin for that matter, and the communists are a big part of the Deep State. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 20:45, 6 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::Pokeria, did you see my reading collections [[User:VargasMilan/Mob rule in democracy]]?  That seems to be topic of interest here at Conservapedia, and you might like them. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 08:06, 7 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::::I've yet to do it in full, but I've gotten a start. You might want to also add in excerpts from "Not a Shot is Fired", and maybe also Lenin's "What Must be Done", since they also spoke glowingly of democracy in a manner that can only be best described as "mob rule" in favor of Communism and Socialism. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:14, 7 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::::Have you noticed, since a certain Amendment got passed, we don't have any short, bald, fat guys get elected president? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 09:34, 7 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::::Ha-ha, you mean like the future Joe Biden?  You're going to end up eating your words; dashing Beto is holding Hillary-sized crowds, and women are throwing themselves at electable Biden, saying he can rub their necks anytime! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 08:11, 8 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::::Commie agit-prop. It's gonna be a Harris/Buttigieg ticket, the first LGBT ticket, top and bottom. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:52, 8 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::::::Personally, I don't think most Americans are onboard with the Democrats plan for ending abortion by making everybody gay. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:59, 8 May 2019 (EDT)
+
Breitbart reported that one of the main perpetrators of the "White Nationalist" smears, fake news CNN, announced yesterday that they have been holding job buyout offerings to employees that have laid off a hundred people. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 09:45, 7 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
== Colorado shooter -- anti-Christian Democrat ==
+
== Homosexual agenda ==
  
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)
+
Can someone please add this to In the News:  
  
===Students refuse to be useful idiots for gun control===
+
'''Setback for the [[homosexual agenda]]''': Major study finds that there is no "gay gene." [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gay-gene-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-for-homosexuality/ See here.] - JobsNotMobs
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)
+
:I doubt homosexuality is genetic at all. The article argues there is no one single "gay gene", but that homosexuality is partly genetic and the result of more than one gene. See: [[Homosexuality and choice]]
  
== Serious question for the conservative hive mind ==
+
:For example, Asian/African/Middle Eastern/Latino cultures often look down on homosexuality more than Europeans/Westerners do and religion/culture likely plays a big role in this (see: [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]] and [[Atheism and racism]]).[https://thediplomat.com/2013/06/asia-divided-on-homosexuality/] But obviously, the people in these cultures have genetic differences from Westerners.  
[[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)
+
:In addition, the scientific community has become politicized and it has much fraud/incompetence (see: [[Limitations of science]]). This is sad, but true.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
::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==
+
::"complex mix of genetic and environmental influences". Maybe there is a serial killer gene, too. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:51, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
  
The Attorney General has offered to let Democrats view a version of the Mueller Report that is 98.5% unredacted
+
== NEW logo ==
  
The only redactions are ones that are required by law
+
'''See if this looks cool'''
 +
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Proposed_Conservapedia_logo.svg Proposed logo]
 +
:I like it. With right-wing nationalism growing in the world, it would be good for Conservapedia to gain more overseas editors. For example, with Brexit finally likely going to happen soon, the UK could shift further rightward.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:55, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
  
Not a single Democrat has viewed the report, yet they are holding AG Barr in contempt for following the law?
+
::I oppose it, as I don't like the "globe" symbol (often, and for obvious reasons, it's used as a symbol for globalism -- I'm not saying it's the intention here, but it could lead to confusion). If we're going to change CP's symbol, I would use something like Liberty Bell or the U.S. Constitution (or the Magna Carta if we want to attract non-Americans) -- something with stronger conservative philosophical symbolism. The current proposal seems well-intentioned, but I just don't think it's an improvement. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 20:12, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
  
—Charlie Kirk
+
:Maybe, User:Conservative.  But it's also possible, and arguably more likely, that the British Conservative party - the only viable right wing party in the UK  - could tear itself apart by the end of the year and allow in a Socialist government on a Brexit backlash.  To address your substantive point, I agree.  I've argued sporadically for years that we need more UK editors to correct misconceptions about the UK as much as anything.  [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] ([[User talk:Rafael|talk]]) 20:26, 29 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::An interesting observation: "in this heavily researched piece, shows that we highly educated tend to be more ideologically rigid and less willing to adjust policy beliefs to empirical feedback than the less educated".[https://twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1166602762408402944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw]
 +
:::You're citing '''TWITTER'''?  Really?  With its statement that something is "heavily researched"?  What does it mean for something to be "heavily researched"?  Researched heavily enough to be actually published somewhere?  What next for your heavily researched citations?  YouTube?  Infowars?  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:06, 31 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::I am citing Professor [[Eric Kaufmann]]'s Twitter feed who cites scholarship located on the website of Inside Higher Ed which is the leading digital media company serving the higher education space. All you needed to do is click the link on the Twitter feed and you have seen that. You are still clinging to your [[genetic fallacy]] illogical behavior. It is ridiculous on your part to knowingly be illogical.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:44, 31 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::If Eric Kaufmann's Twitter feed goes to an intellectually defensible (i.e. not Twitter) web site, why didn't '''YOU''' follow that link and post same?  I hardly ever go to that cesspool called Twitter, though I see lots of screen captures, on actual web sites, showing how stupid it is.  I do not have a Twitter account, and would never post there.
  
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 10:48, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::And I'll thank you not to disparage my cognitive or intellectual capabilities by suggesting that I subscribe to one of your pet "fallacies". The page you suggest is commonly used by you in order to bully people, and I'm not going to play that game.
:The plan here is to hold Barr, Mnuchin, McGahn, ''et al'' in contempt and rally pubic support for impeachment of a corrupt administration, or at least lose the 2020 elections. House Democrats have the support of maintsream fake news media and their social media Gestapo disrupters of like-minded conservative groups and users. Never mind if it is legal to demand that the Attorney General violate the law. They'll get months and months of publicity demonizing Barr as crook, and by the time they loose in court the news will be buried on the back page.  
+
  
:All this is motivated by an effort to cover up the criminal activities of Comey, Brennan, Sally Yates, [[John Carlin]] ''etal'', dominating the fake news cycle in coming weeks and years, as much as their hatred of Trump. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:16, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::I assume that, as a Christian, you adhere to the Golden Rule, and therefore would like to have other people treat you the way you are treating me. That is, you would like to have them impugn your intellectual and cognitive abilities. I'm sorry, but I'm too busy to oblige you in this matter, though I am willing to give you occasional advice on matters of grammatical construction. However, there's a website, that I'm sure you know about, that has extensive commentary on your intellectual and cognitive shortcomings.
::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.).  
+
:::::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:20, 31 August 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::SamHB, I did not disparage your cognitive abilities.  I said you willfully engaged in illogical behavior. That is far different from saying it is a result of cognitive impairment. As far as that website you refered to that has extensive commentary, have you seen [[Atheism and obesity#Trent Toulouse (one of the founders of the website RationalWiki)|THIS]]. [[Medical science]] research indicates that excess weight impairs brain function (see: [[Health risks linked to obesity#Obesity and its negative impact on intelligence|Obesity and its negative impact on intelligence]]). By the way, there are now 4 individuals with access to the User: Conservative, but three individuals who have used the account. Keep that in mind when referring to the extensive commentary on the User: Conservative account. [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu#Chapter_VI_%C2%B7_Weaknesses_and_Strengths 微乎微乎,至于无形;神乎神乎,至于无声;故能为敌之司命].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:30, 1 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::The educated ruling class will continue to be out of touch with "the deplorables" and right-wing populism and anti-Islam/anti-immigrant nativism will likely keep driving politics rightward for the foreseeable future.
  
::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)
+
::As far as highly educated left leaning pundits who isolate themselves from "the deplorables", they will continue to be poor political forecasters.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:01, 30 August 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''.
+
:::I object to your use of the term 'anti-Muslim'. Surely there is a better way to convey what you mean. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:12, 30 August 2019 (EDT)
:
+
::::I changed it to anti-Islam. Nevertheless, I think many Europeans are anti-Muslim.  That is why: France has a headscarft ban, many French Muslims face employment discrimination[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/new-research-shows-that-french-muslims-experience-extraordinary-discrimination-in-the-job-market/?noredirect=on], [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11822816/German-refugee-shelter-torched-in-anti-immigrant-attack.html German refugee shelter torched in 'anti-immigrant' attack], etc. Generally speaking, the higher the percentage of Muslims in a non-Muslim country, the greater the level of conflict.[https://virtueonline.org/what-islam-isnt-dr-peter-hammond].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:55, 31 August 2019 (EDT)
:::The way this breaks down is, a fight between Obama appointees and Clintonistas in the DOJ, FBI and White House. The Clintonistas are guilty, the Obama appointees need to be pressed to sing and finger them. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 12:07, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::Thanks. You know how it is. No sense attracting negative publicity unnecessarily. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:14, 31 August 2019 (EDT)
:
+
::::::I just discovered this today from Pew Research, "While Americans still feel coolest toward Muslims and atheists, mean ratings for these two groups increased from a somewhat chilly 40 and 41 degrees, respectively, to more neutral ratings of 48 and 50."[https://www.pewforum.org/2017/02/15/americans-express-increasingly-warm-feelings-toward-religious-groups/][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:40, 31 August 2019 (EDT)
:::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)
+
::On the surface, you are right.  But that disregards several factors.  First, British populism tends left.  The mythical Golden Age is one where the state helped communities to help themselves.  Second, right wing populism is bankrupt of policies here.  Boris Johnson is as good as it gets and he's socially liberal.  Third, a lot of what we are seeing is a backlash to the Conservatives' economic policies of the last nine years, which brings us back to the first point. There are other factors but do not take it for granted that the tendency in Britain is to the right.  On the contrary, we are seeing a deep and dangerous crisis in Conservativism (g Ruth Davidson's resignation).  [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] ([[User talk:Rafael|talk]]) 03:27, 30 August 2019 (EDT)
::::Steve Bannon predicts Trump will go "full animal" on his opponents now that the Mueller investigation is over. And Trump says his favorite Bible verse is "An eye for an eye". We will see what happens.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:28, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
 
:::I hope Trump's rabid shark fans will chomp down on the three chunks of raw meat he's tossing to them (if Trump doesn't back down), and he ''sic''s them on the Democrats until the next election. It's like illegal immigration has morphed into a black market. It's not as if the Democrats didn't start it. You can count on Biden issuing a few choice complex political lies in the meantime ("they want to put you-all in chains").
+
:::Define "Conservatives' economic policies of the last nine years", because from what I gather, it was more the Labour Party, which isn't conservative by any stretch and if anything is of the far left. Also, we've got a Canadian Catholic on here, Northwest, who's actually extremely conservative even by American standards, let alone Canadian standards (and bear in mind, Canada's politics are closer to Britain than in America at the very least, and if anything are even closer to the politics of Macron's France right now, and is pretty much stereotyped as big government policies and socialized medicine, not to mention very far left, so if we've got a Canadian user who defies that stereotype and comes across as very conservative, I'm fairly sure there are Brits who come closer to that, as well). And as you said, Boris Johnson is a start. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 06:09, 30 August 2019 (EDT)
:
+
 
:::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)
+
User:Conservative needs to weigh every comment he's made for the past ten years ''one!'' ''last!'' ''time!'' because the fact that SamHB has failed to demonstrate User:Conservative has in any instance been inaccurate in pointing out the logical errors in the verbal impositions of left-wing mouthpieces and ideologues, he, yes SamHB, thinks it's time to appoint himself, SamHB, the Tone Police—and judge too!—and is now free to sit in the judgment seat, admitting firstly to his bench the very matter that is being discussed, namely his own advancement of rude allegations of abuse and imputations of blame towards Conservative, and to which he, SamHB, condescends to receive any evidence against (by proving a negative!) that might be offered, or we would sooner say he lies back in his lounge chair and criticizes Conservative for not living up to his, that is Sherlock SamHB's, personal, private, opaque and strangely inspection-avoidant standards of deportment that he, SamHB, with an arbitrary play of his imagination and without a trace of self-irony, simply renounces their applying to himself for the duration of the discussion to begin with.  Isn't that the kind of personality everybody likes the most?
:
+
 
:::And Trump has jawboned for months and months about a proposed infrastructure billIf, 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 if Conservative doesn't catalog those ten years of comments, that ''proves'' that he's ''afraid!'' [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 20:35, 1 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:VargasMilan, do I and the other editors who are using the User: Conservative account need to read this article? [https://www.niashanks.com/guide-not-care-what-people-think/ The Ultimate Guide on How to Not Care About What Other People Think of You and Live the Life You Want] by Nia Shanks
 +
 
 +
:Or do you think I have sufficient serenity and/or mental toughness to not care what others think of me? And remember, the greatest being to ever walk the face of the earth was nailed to a cross!
 +
 
 +
:And also remember that SamHB's center-left world is crashing all around him - people are moving out of Massachusetts; Donald Trump was elected; right-wing nationalism is spreading like wildfire in Europe and around the globe; and finally, [[liberal Christianity]] churches are imploding in membership while [[Growth of evangelical Christianity|evangelical Christianity is growing briskly in the world]]. So you have to forgive SamHB for his occasional bouts of frustration.
 +
 
 +
:Question: What will SamHB do if there is a 2020 Trumpslide?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:48, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::He will be very startled by the roars of acclamation. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 07:12, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
==Why we need guns: The Hong Kong edition==
 +
Biden may be old enough to remember when the Dems were the party of the American working class. But the rest of his party isn't. Nowadays, the party's agenda is to open the border, give the vote to illegal immigrants, abolish the Electoral College, and snatch our guns. They tell us that any attempt by Republicans to verify the vote is "voter suppression." If the Electoral College is abolished, any state can generate as many votes as it likes and these votes must be counted in the national vote count. In short, the plan is to steal an election and retain power indefinately.<br/>If you want to see the future of the U.S. after a Democratic Party return to power, take a look at Hong Kong. Hong Kong was scheduled to have a free election in 2017. This election was shamelessly manipulated by the Chinese Communist Party. Nowadays, the opinions that matter in the city are those of the party leadership and the real estate speculators. (In the last few years, party leaders have bought a great deal of land in Hong Kong. Xi Jinping is said to own seven properties in Hong Kong while rising prices have made housing almost unaffordable for the average Hong Konger.)<br/>The party plans to mop up pro-democracy protests by October 1, the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the people's republic. That's not going to be pretty. And just as the Democrats justify manipulating elections by pointing to Russia, the Communists point to the presence of "black hands" in Hong Kong, meaning the U.S. While the Dems threaten to open the U.S. border with Mexico, Beijing threatens to undermine Hong Kong's special status by opening the mainland/Hong Kong border. Although no one in Hong Kong wants this, it's all too possible because the citizens of Hong Kong remain unarmed and defenseless.<br/>[https://twitter.com/SCMPNews/status/1168136222931161094?s=20 Here is a video of yesterday's chaos in Hong Kong]. Flames rise while police go through subway cars beating the passengers with clubs. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:19, 1 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:The Hong Kong protests mark the return of Big History. Trump's response is what he will be remembered for. Corruption is the Communist Party's most vulnerable point. U.S. intelligence needs to put together dossiers for leaders implicated in the crackdown. Post them all over Youku (China's equivalent to Youtube) and Weibo (China's equivalent to Twitter). That's where young Chinese get their news from. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 15:32, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::It's not all China's fault.  Hong Kong chief executive Carrie Lam said she has caused “unforgivable havoc” by igniting the political crisis engulfing the city and would quit if she had a choice.  Surely there's some kind of compromise solution to be struck that acknowledges the wrongs of ''both'' countries.  And with a characterization ''that'' politically convenient to them, China would be too ''embarrassed'' to ask people to take it at face value unless it were definitely ''not'' coerced. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 20:49, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Lam is an appointee of the Communist leaders in Beijing. She was "elected" in 2017. But as I explained above, this election was a farce -- and one of the issues that provoked the protests in the first place. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 12:55, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Hong Kong needs to step up and finally accept Lam as their leader—It was so big of her to assume the role of their sole representative, reject all forms of defense and forfeit credit for the authenticity of their grievances regarding their basic liberties, on behalf of the people of Hong Kong, by, up to and including, characterizing their dissent as "havoc". [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 15:35, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==We gave up on impeachment as "he's not worth it" long ago, but impeachment is on the table==
 +
Like a shiny gun, Democrats say they've holstered that issue, but when people have gathered to listen to them, you suddenly notice that that supposedly forgotten weapon is being brandished about again by every liberal. Total troll. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 02:59, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:It's in the courts; Nadler needs an impeachment resolution to pursue certain subpoenas for his fishing expedition. The courts will decide the matter. But of coarse we won't get the issue resolved in the courts til after the election. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 03:30, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
I beg all of your pardons.  I had assured myself that impeachment was extreme, but I didn't realize the magnitude of the situation:
 +
:"If we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." —Congressman Al Green, Texas (D).
 +
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 02:41, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Al Green is a communist. He's from a district that is 94% communist. He can say what he likes, as is wont and his habit. He's preaching to the liberal choir, with no consequences at the ballot box. Other Democrats envy him for that.
 +
:Al Green is typical of the type of Democrat who can't imagine that there are people in America who are not communists. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 03:48, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::"Impeachment until you don't have the votes". - Hypocrite Diaries.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:00, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Here's the situation, based on a Nixon era precedent; Congress goes on a fishing expedition looking for something, anything. They subpoena people and documents.  The people say, "That's not related to the business of government." The congress then has to pass a full House Resolution for an impeachment inquiry, and refer it to committee. The Committee then is vested with extraordinary powers to go into court and say, "This is of vital importance to the business of government." The court then orders the person or agency to comply.
 +
:::The Committee right now is on a fishing expedition with no more than it's oversight powers. The Committee itself has to draft a Resolution and bring it to the floor for vote to grant it extraordinary impeachment powers. They got 137 votes from safe blue districts. The purple districts are scared witless of even talking about impeachment.
 +
:::It'll remain a non-issue no matter how much 137 deep blue district voters (about 45 million voters) and the commie/lib [[fake news]] media talk about it. Experience shows it will blow up in their faces. But we're dealing with idiots here, after all, so what can one expect? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 04:08, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::Here, [https://ballotpedia.org/Texas'_9th_Congressional_District look at Al Green's district]: he's had 2 Republican challengers in the past 5 elections. In 2016 he won 100% with 32,000 votes; in 2018, he 80% with 136,000 votes. This man has no clue what America looks like outside his district or Washington.  In this man's world, you get what you want by bullying and intimidation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 04:26, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Especially in Green's case, the less you study the liberal sludge involved with his office-holding the better (watch them try to skip the ''full'' vote to begin the impeachment inquiry). I was just admiring Green's creative way of carrying out his commitment to enforcing justice against President Trump.  His legal grounds for the impeachment: "Article 1: If the President is ''not'' impeached, he is likely to be re-elected."
 +
 
 +
::::I don't think "possible re-election" meets the constitutional standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors", do you? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 09:57, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::In lib-think "possible re-election" is a crime for which we all can be held accountable for.
 +
:::::I'll admit to a secret: I've always studied closely the rhetoric used by congresspeople of both parties who run unopposed and serve for decades; it's an insight into the heart and sole of both parties. Wishy-washy moderates change with the wind. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:45, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::I admire your courage, but it will take you just that long to get through the liberal kind. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 18:10, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
=== Biden and Ukraine ===
 +
How did Hunter Biden get a $50,000 a month job at a Ukrainian natural gas company, despite his lack of energy-related experience or expertise?[https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/21/trump-ukraine-biden-1507051] Was this job offer in any way related to the fact that his dad was supervising American policy toward Ukraine at this time? Not only does the mainstream media think that such questions are out of bounds, they demand that Trump be impeached for asking the government of Ukraine to investigate them. To anyone who can remember the 2016 campaign, the idea that this type of request is taboo strains credulity. Andrew Napolitano reported that [https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-13/cnn-confirms-foxs-napolitano-british-intelligence-passed-trump-surveillance-us-spy-a the Obama administration asked the British to investigate Trump]. The Brits got Napolitano fired from Fox News for this. That's hardly the reaction you would expect if the original report was simply in error. Napolitano was reinstated a few months later, and he has never retracted his claims. Under the "Five Eyes" intelligence cooperation program, the type of cooperation Napolitano was describing should be routine.<br/>According to [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia this ''Guardian'' story], the British started passing intelligence about Trump to the U.S. in "late 2015." The article doesn't admit that the U.S. requested anything, but this is around the time that Dem leaders started worrying about Trump as a presidential candidate. Either way, it undermines the Mueller Report's claim that the investigation of Trump started with Papadopoulos and Mifsud.<br/>The Five Eyes program makes it all too easy for a president to evade laws against domestic spying. According to Napolitano's original report: “So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this." The U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have access to the Five Eyes database. All they have to do is ask one of the other nations in the alliance to access the database on their behalf and it becomes international intelligence rather than domestic spying. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 04:40, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:See [[Biden-Ukraine collusion scandal]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 04:54, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::As the Romans would say, ''Cui bono'', who gains? The answer is Warren, who can leverage this scandal against both Biden and Trump. Ukraine is far from the only country that paid off Biden by making a sweetheart deal with one his sons. The dam has been breached and there is a reservoir of Biden corruption ready to pour out. Real whistleblowers provide first-hand evidence of irregularities. The whistleblower system is not supposed to allow partisan hacks to anonymously dish on the president. This "whistleblower" is obviously connected. If so, he represents the Deep State and he is telling Biden, "Take a hint, buddy."<br/>This incident reminds me of another example of Obamunist skullduggery: The leak of Clinton's irregular email setup to the ''New York Times'' by Obama aide Valerie Jarrett. I assume that this hit was intended to take Hillary out of the 2016 race and make Warren the nominee. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:50, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::They [[fake news]] media has it exactly backwards: The government of Ukraine has been trying to get in touch with the U.S. government for several years to expose the pressure that the Obama administration, and the Clinton campaign, put on the government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 elections.  Ukrainian officials have been denied entry visas by the Kiev embassy to visit the United States. An attorney was hired to hand deliver the documentary evidence to the US Justice Department in New York. The evidence was never relayed to Washington.
 +
:::The new Ukrainian presidential administration took the non-response from their overtures as a sign of a diplomatic crisis - that the US was very angry with the government of Ukraine for colluding with Obama and Hillary to interfere in the 2016 election.  Eventually, the U.S. State Department asked Rudy Giuliani to act as an emissary, respond to their overtures, and meet with Ukrainian officials.
 +
:::When phone call was made, the supposed "whistleblower" was unaware of the background. The alleged "whistleblower" heard of the call by hearsay.
 +
:::The current IC inspector general is up to his eyeballs in the [[FISA abuse]] scandal, as well, having served as chief legal counsel for [[John Carlin]] and [[Mary McCord (DOJ)]] when the [[Carter Page]] FISA application was used to hoax the FISA court. His name in [[Michael Atkinson]], and it was Atkinson who granted "whistleblower" status to a non-witness by hearsay evidence.
 +
:::We will know more details when the FISA abuse report comes, if Atkinson's name is redacted. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:08, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::The Democrats' accusations against Trump are projection. The Dems have been applying screws to the Ukrainians for a long time. Manafort was forced to resign from the Trump campaign because of material released by a Ukrainian prosecutor. The timing was so convenient for the Dems that it is hard to imagine how this could have happened without White House pressure. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has openly bragged of bullying Ukraine out of cooperating with Trump. This is no doubt why Trump's pestering of Zelensky went nowhere. See "[https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections Let's get real: Democrats were first to enlist Ukraine in US elections]." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:52, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::The argument in defense of Biden is, "Well, people all over the world were complaining about the prosecutor" Well, yah. [[Soros]] employs people all over the world with business dealings in Ukraine. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 11:25, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Trump to Ukraine president: "I would like you to do us a favor, though..."===
 +
A quote for the ages, right [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/25/trump-releases-transcript-call-ukraine-president/2438300001/ there]. MAGA! x [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 11:17, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:So 'splain to me the difference in nuance between "I'd like you to do us a favor" and "fire that SOB or else"? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 11:34, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Elizabeth Warren is closing the gap. And the frequently, barely coherent and gaffe prone Sleepy Joe Biden would be ripped to sheds in a debate with Trump. Furthermore, he could not deal with the rigor of full blow presidential campaign in full swing and some of his supporters/advisors suggested not having him speak later in the day when he is more gaffe prone.
 +
 
 +
::Biden is so old news.
 +
 
 +
::And don't forget that Hillary Clinton first brought up the Ukraine/Biden situation to scare Biden out of the race.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 11:30, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::Trump to Ukraine President: "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible."
 +
 
 +
:::::JohnZ, did you see [[Robert Mueller]] during the recent public hearing? Deny that Mueller was incompetent and lose all credibility![[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 11:36, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." - King Solomon, Proverbs 25:2[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 11:41, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Mueller looked old and tired, for sure. What's your point?
 +
 
 +
:::::::Trump & Rudy have already admitted the substance of this (asking Zelensky for an investigation into Biden). That's impeachable. It's now simply a case of trying to persuade people their motives were ''pure'', and impeachment would therefore be disproportionate.
 +
 
 +
:::::::I obviously wish them the very best of luck with that. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 12:00, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::I don't think you have a clue what your talking about. Rooting out international criminal conspiracies is what both men, and the new Ukrainian parliament, were elected to do. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:10, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::A bunch of Western governments and NGOs had been calling for Shokin's head, and it had nothing to do with Hunter Biden being on the board of Burisma. I'm sure that won't dissuade you from producing thousands of words of nonsense to the contrary, though. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 12:27, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::See above. A bunch of [[Soros]] stooges called for Shokin's head, of course.
 +
 
 +
:::::::::Wait, wait, wait.....Isn't calling for the firing of a prosecutor [[obstruction of justice]]?  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:29, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::::::This guff only flies in the right-wing fever swamps, Rob. Most GOP senators, for all their faults, still have at least one foot in the real world. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 12:36, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::You may be confused from the reporting of events.  The first investigation of Trump was to investigate collusion.  But collusion is not illegal.  So the purpose of the investigation must not have been collusion, but election irregularities and possible election crimes, connected with the collusion.
 +
 
 +
:::::It was called a "collusion investigation", but we can't prevent news networks from describing it that way.  Anyway the Mueller Report was forced to conclude there weren't even any collusion to begin with, much less surrounding criminality.
 +
 
 +
:::::Now Trump is colluding with the President of the Ukraine.  But yet again, collusion isn't illegal.  So what are the Democrats going to do?  Say we want a second investigation?  All the circumstances that might have been illegal surrounding the non-existent collusion have already been investigated.
 +
 
 +
:::::They've made it so Trump is free to collude all he wants, and even on the surface, we won't hear of a second trial because Democrats have so tarnished the name of collusion that Trump had to sit on his hands throughout the investigation even if there were an opportunity to make use of our allies' support or intelligence in that way.
 +
 
 +
:::::Now that it was proven to be a fake inquiry [no evidence of collusion to begin with], the rest of us reckon he feels the need to make up for lost time, having for two years lost that particular tool of managing foreign affairs, which is the President's duty. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 12:40, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::You're leaving out some facts; the current chief prosecutor in Ukraine is colluding with AG Barr and John Durham investigating [[Crowdstrike]], who are in possession of the DNC servers allegedly hacked by PutinZelenskyy said, "First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:01, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Is the prosecutor the same one whom Biden extorted the Ukraine government into firing?  I hope so (payback time!).  Of course, if the ongoing collusion is no longer secret, it's doubtful if it be collusion any longer. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 14:57, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::I don't know; but it appears the Barr/Durham team is in contact with the new Ukrainian administration (we'll have to wait for Hunter Biden's extradition request, I guess).
 +
::::::::There are two elements Barr/Durham are investigating to find the original [[probable cause]] to begin [[Crossfire Hurricane]]:
 +
:::::::#the status of [[Joseph Mifsud]], and
 +
:::::::#the evidence [[Crowdstrike]] claimed to have alleging Russian hacking of the [[DNC]].
 +
::::::::CrowdStrike itself has extensive Ukrainian connections - it was founded by a Ukrainian and contracts with the Ukrainian military. CrowdStrike is also an FBI contractor - so there is your foreign collusion right there. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:49, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Just to clarify, when I say collusion isn't illegal, I mean collusion ''per se''.  Different actions where collusion plays a part may be unlawful.  Some were saying, but really only speculationg, Trump's conversation with the president of Ukraine involved a ''quid pro quo'' where information about the Bidens was sought in exchange for maintaining current foreign policy towards Ukraine. 
 
:
 
:
:::As for that, there are other reasons why failure to pass infrastructure wouldn't stick to Trump, but shh... the walls have ears.
+
:::::Secretly moving to discontinue U.S. aid by the president to Ukraine would be an attempt to thwart U.S. policy, but the transcript of the phone call where it supposedly happened put the lie to that, as did the public remarks of the Ukrainian president. But no such explanation can be offered for Joe Biden's public admission many years back that he extorted Ukraine to remove a prosecutor from legally pursuing his son. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 15:39, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::*''maintaining current foreign policy towards Ukraine.  ''
 +
::::::The United States does not support corrupt regimes. Judging from the context, Trump "faithfully executing the laws of the United States." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 03:43, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Yes, but diplomatic relations are being maintained, like with Egypt, in hope for a change (sometimes in increments). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 07:27, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
JohnZ, you wrote: "Mueller looked old and tired, for sure.  What's your point?"
 
:
 
:
:::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)
+
I clearly and strongly implied Mueller looked incompetent during the hearing. Being a [[secular left]]ist, it appears your bar is so exceedingly low for competence, that Mueller easily cleared it![[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 13:56, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
::::Comey's going to jail, it looks like. Too bad. It should be Brennan. But opening the Brennan Pandora's box opens a re-examination of the US-UK "special relationship" which allowed UK intelligence to interfere in American elections. That then threatens the future of the whole NATO alliance. Somebody has to swing, and unless Comey is wiling to convert to Trumpism to save himself and rat out Brennan, he's the designated fall guy as of this moment. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 08:16, 15 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::::Mark my words: Comey's going to look as disheveled as [[Michael Cohen]] or anybody else who endured a North Korean interrogation before this over. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 08:24, 15 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
:::My cryptic remark about Trump giving out three chunks of raw meat, turned out, alas, another time where Trump backed down. We were told that Jared Kushner was finally going to redeem himself and rally conservatives around Trump by composing an immigration policy bill that gave conservatives THREE-fourths of what they have been asking for in immigration law.
+
=== Conservapedia and it ranking for the Google search: "Ukraine collusion"===
 +
:[https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTzsq77piHtkJwCyoRunJkA2irPkQ%3A1569435054981&source=hp&ei=rq2LXaf-OJDY-wSu2qmIAQ&q=Ukrainian+collusion&oq=Ukrainian+collusion&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i10i30.2259.2259..4736...0.0..0.124.124.0j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.ciUkllILoc0&ved=0ahUKEwinjcqXyezkAhUQ7J4KHS5tChEQ4dUDCAg&uact=5  CP is an authoritative source on this subject], #9 on Google - Ahead of the ''New York Times'' and Wikipedia. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:13, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Wow! Go Rob! Ranking for [[Biden's age]] was a [https://www.historynet.com/picketts-charge-gettysburg Pickett's charge], due to very stiff competition and I never should have attempted it. Oh, well. You win some. You lose some. I should have remembered [[Sun Tzu]] (Attack weakness and avoid strength).[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 14:33, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::You see again the importance of early placement in keyword titling. I'd encourage you to begin a page on reorientation therapy with external links if you can imagine the keywords taking shape 6 months or two years down the road. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:37, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::You were insightful about this matter. I think it is because the early web article gathers more inbound links plus mentions on the internet. [[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 22:17, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::It wouldn't surprise me if Google "grandfathers" in, say, the top 20 or 50 to a keyword term, and after that there's competition for rankings. In the case of "Ukrainian collusion", 2 million results were added in the last 24 hours, up from 10 million to 12 million. CP bounces around between #9 and #11, but holds pretty steady at #9 or #10. Today, for a few hours, BBC knocked it down to #11, but its back to #10 now. [[Lawfare]]blog, which is leading the [[Deep State coup 2.0]] charge with its ridiculous, definitive, 'Trump-Ukraine conspiracy hoax timeline', was up to #2 or #3 for a few hours, but is back down behind CP right now. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 22:32, 26 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update:''' there are now 23 million results and CP has fallen back to #13. It is #1 on DuckDuckGo. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:57, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update:''' There are now 42 million results and CP has fallen back to #15; I need one of the SEO checkers to tweak the page. Anybody got a link ? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:44, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update:''' Back into the Top 10, bumping ''WaPo's'' timeline and an Andrew McCarthy interview with Fox. They cropped down the number of results from 43 million to 33 million yesterday, but it's back up to 38 million. This version is having an impact. The problem is, right now I could fill it up with much more detail to shape the narrative, but that would overwhelm the specific points that need to be made. Also, introducing new foreign names into the narrative  always has its risks, [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 11:24, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update.''' Back up to #9. It fell to 15 two days ago (worst so far). The page is definitive. And There's more to come. I'm loaded for bear against these insurrectionists. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 04:03, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update.''' Up to #8, the best since #3 when the story broke. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:36, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update:''' Holding steady at #9; fallen back a bit to #8 on DuckDuckGo. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:04, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update:''' Hanging tuff at #9 with stiff competition. Also, #34 of 78 million under '''Biden-Ukraine scandal.''' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 02:36, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::'''Update:''' Holding at #10; '''Biden Ukraine scandal''' up to #20 on Google of 80 million. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:10, 11 October 2019 (EDT)
  
:::Today, Ann Coulter reported that the bill had no provisions for the wall or decreasing the number of legal immigrants. How are Trump's sharks supposed to feed on that? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 23:26, 16 May 2019 (EDT)
+
=== Trump to Ukraine president: "I would like you to do us a favor, though..." - continued ===
 +
*I must say that Ukraine is an odd hill for the Democrats to plant their flag on. First, off there is [https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections a history of the Dems bullying Ukraine on these same issues]. That the Ukrainians protect Hunter Biden while backstabbing Paul Manafort shows that they are more afraid of congressional Democrats voting against aid for Ukraine than they are of Trump. Impeachment will go nowhere in the Senate. Poll after poll shows that the idea is unpopular with the public. This incident also publicizes Biden's longstanding practice of using his sons as conduits for foreign money, although Biden's reign as frontrunner was just about up anyway. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 16:01, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Go nowhere in the Senate? [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/24/speaker-pelosi-bamboozles-base-by-announcing-enhanced-continuation-of-status-quo/ It's going nowhere in the House.]
 +
{{quotebox|There is not one thing different from today than yesterday, except the optics and new language to help the media hype something that doesn’t exist.  Speaker Pelosi did not announce her intent to hold a house vote to authorize an impeachment investigation; she didn’t even mention the word vote at all.  In essence what Speaker Pelosi has done is just satiate her base of Democrats with the fancy optics of something that doesn’t exist.
  
===John Durham===
+
What’s the difference from Nadler’s “impeachment inquiry” yesterday, and Pelosi’s “official impeachment inquiry” today?…  Nothing.
[[John Durham]] has already investigated both [[Robert Mueller]] and [[John Brennan]], Mueller in the Whitey Bulger case when Mueller was US Attorney in Boston. Bulger named Mueller as a defense witness before going on the lam. Mueller was promoted to FBI director for his role in the Boston field office coverup. An FBI agent did go to jail, and four innocent men who were framed by prosecutors for a 1965 murder won a $100 million lawsuit against the FBI. Bulger, an informant for the FBI and the Boston US Attorney's office, spent Mueller's entire 10 year term as director as a fugitive. Durham's case ended before Bulger was finally captured as Mueller's term ended, and convicted of 19 murders (he was suspected of 52).
+
  
Bulger, who was sentenced to life, was murdered six months ago while in US custody.
+
The constitution provides for the formal process to initiate articles of impeachment for a sitting president.  The constitutional process begins with a vote in the House of Representatives to launch an impeachment investigation by House Committees.  However, Pelosi doesn’t want to hold a vote to start the process…. so she’s just modifying the language of the status quo and instead of the House voting to authorize an “impeachment investigation”, Pelosi announces an arbitrary “impeachment inquiry” by fiat.
  
[[Bill Weld]] also figures into the Bulger/Mueller case.
+
It’s silly.
  
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)
+
It’s the goofiest thing in modern politics....}} [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:47, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
  
==This is all messed up==
+
===BTW, object of the investigation Trump requested of Ukraine—it wasn't Biden's son!===
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.
+
Trump said "do all that you can possibly do". "I would like you to do us a favor, etc."
  
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)
+
This had nothing to do with Biden's son.  It was about Trump's search for information that caused the Mueller investigation against him to start, and start with no evidence of collusion by the U.S. president in the first place, even though that was the pretext of the investigation.  The absence couldn't be hidden because no evidence of collusion turned up during the investigation, either.  It was later in the conversation that Trump mentioned Biden's son. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 15:18, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:*Statement of [[Viktor Shokin]] on September 4, 2019; [https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement] (definitely relevant to the Biden case);
 +
:*“A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said Wednesday (September 25, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/u-s-attorney-john-durham-looking-into-ukrainian-involvement-in-2016-election]
  
#Copypaste  [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act and First Sale Doctrine]] into [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]];
+
:'''Background:''' A forgotten article, ''Politico'', [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446 Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire], January 11, 2017 -- the same day ''[[BuzzFeed]]'' released the pee-pee memo, i.e. beginning of the "insurance policy" or [[Deep State coup]], to coverup [[FISA abuse]] and [[Ukrainian collusion]].
#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]];
+
:Impeachment 2.0 is an attempt to neutralize:
#Merge [[DMCA]] into [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]];
+
:# Information about to come out in the Flynn trial;
#Make redirects from [[DMCA]] and  [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act and First Sale Doctrine]] to [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]].
+
:# Information coming out in the Roger Stone trial;
: [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 23:23, 10 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:# Information coming out in the Trump declassification order;
 +
:# Horowitz FISA abuse report;
 +
:# Durham indictments.
 +
:All this will play out up to Election day. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:51, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
  
::Great suggestions. Thanks for identifying this, Progressingamerica!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 01:07, 11 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::As we're awaiting declassification one thing is becoming obvious: William Barr is protecting Rod Rosenstein. There is no doubt that Rosenstein was a willing participant in the coup attempt. However, because Mueller kicked back the decision to prosecute in Book II on the obstruction charge, Barr said he and Rosenstein made the joint decision that there was no obstruction of justice. Therefore, Rosenstein can't go down, cause if he does, that calls into the question the decision on Trump's fate.
  
==Update: Mueller Report says Rosenstein didn't try to persuade Trump to fire Comey==
+
::This makes sense. McCabe so far appears to be the designated fall guy. Brennan's fate is in Durham's hands. And people in the Obama White House so far are skating. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:36, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
  
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)
+
===Quid pro quo===
 +
Trump has created trouble for himself with his "no quid pro quo" tweets since it seems likely that he did hold up U.S. aid as a way of putting pressure on Ukraine. Foreign policy is all about making deals and quid pro quo, so this is the wrong standard to apply. You can interpret anything that benefits the United States as a benefit to Trump's campaign, so I don't find the "campaign contribution" argument convincing. The question should be, was Trump acting in the wider national interest or for narrow personal gain? John Durham's investigation is an official Department of Justice probe. A treaty concluded in 1999 authorizes cooperation between the U.S. attorney general and the Ukrainian chief prosecutor. Giuliani's involvement has raised eyebrows, but there is a tradition of presidents sending personal friends they can trust to back up official negotiators. The request to investigate Biden is the most problematic part of the affair since it creates a conflict of interest. The president has an obligation under the constitution to "take care that the law be faithfully executed." No one should be able to evade investigation simply by announcing a candidacy. In 2016, numerous Democrats demanded -- and got -- an FBI investigation of Trump. According to the Page-Strzok correspondence, Obama himself met with FBI agents on  this matter. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 16:10, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
  
==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==
+
::"Trump has been justly criticized for hiring his daughter and son-in-law at the White House. But at least when he pressures a foreign leader for a favor, it’s to investigate corruption, not to get a prosecutor off his son’s back. Maybe Biden's son was guilty, maybe he was innocent. But it is a fact that Joe Biden held up foreign aid to a desperately needy ally in exchange for their halting prosecution that implicated his son. It's not Trump's fault that Biden is now running for president."—Ann Coulter, September 25, 2019.
 +
:Democrats are going to try to re-construct the Mueller investigation as a personal legal issue for Trump instead of 2+ years of abuse and denial of his civil rights, by virtue of his being an office-holder, by the legal system, there being no evidence of the activity that was supposed to have sanctioned it in the first place.  Lol, good luck with that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 16:33, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
  
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.
+
:::''[[NYT]]'':  "[https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1176882766597767168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw The Ukrainians weren't made aware that the assistance was being delayed/reviewed until more than one month after the call]."  
 +
:::How the impeachment frenzy plays out over the next month can be gauged real easy: watch to see if Biden's slide in polls reverses itself.  
 +
:::If voters say, "A pox on both your houses," What's their alternative? Buttigieg? Warren? Yang? Sanders? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:03, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
  
But let's focus on TwitterReportedly Dorsey makes over a billion dollars from President Trump's account. Loomer was banned from Twitter for posting this question based on undisputedly correct information:
+
::Trump has finally turned the tables on Democratic leaders by starting investigations to match theirs, and they have responded with more presidential abuseSchiff needs to be impeached, and the other ones can’t be removed from office too soon. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 20:01, 12 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::That is incorrect - and a Democrat talking point. Investigations into the criminal activity of Deep Staters and Democrats was ongoing before that bogus "impeachment inquiry" which is a cover to create the illusion that indictments of [[John Brennan]] and [[James Clapper]] are reprisals and an abuse of power. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 09:56, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::If it prevents that illusion from happening, I'm willing to wait. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 16:08, 13 October 2019 (EDT)
  
: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://[...]
+
===Conservapedia proven right?===
  
calling it "hateful conduct".
+
:Especially in Green's case, the less you study the liberal sludge involved with his office-holding the better (watch them try to skip the full vote to begin the impeachment inquiry) VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 09:57, 14 September 2019 (EDT)
  
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.
+
Did Pelosi skip holding the vote from the whole Congress to start the House impeachment inquiry?  Trump is none too pleased regardless:
  
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.
+
:The conversation with the new and very good Ukraine President, who told the Fake News, at the United Nations, that HE WAS NOT PRESSURED BY ME IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, should by and of itself bring an end to the new and most recent Witch Hunt. Others ended in ashes!
  
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)
+
:The Whistleblower’s complaint is completely different and at odds from my actual conversation with the new President of Ukraine. The so-called “Whistleblower” knew practically NOTHING in that those ridiculous charges were far more dramatic & wrong, just like Liddle’ Adam Schiff fraudulently and illegally inserted his made up & tweeted words into my call with the Ukrainian President to make it look like I did something very wrong. He then boldly read those words to Congress and millions of people, defaming & libeling me. He must resign from Congress!
:The 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 ==
+
:The only people that don’t like my conversation with the new Ukrainian President are those that heard Rep. Adam Schiff read a made up and totally fraudulent statement to the House and public, words that I did not say but that he fabricated (& admitted to this fabrication). Sick! —Donald Trump, September 28, 2019.
  
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)
+
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 23:43, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
:So, are you saying Comey and the ''New York Times'' have lied to the American people? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:11, 16 May 2019 (EDT)
+
::Word is, Barr is in Italy right now interviewing Mifsud personally. Mifsud is spilling his guts how Brennan roped him into something bigger than he imagined and he's been in hiding, fearing for life, cause he doesn't want to end up on the Clinton body count. Nadler and Pelosi need to take out Barr before they can take out Trump. Barr's gonna be, shall we say, upset, when he returns, cause he's not just investigating the Democrats anti-democratic election interference from 4 years ago, he sitting right in the middle of another Deep State coup.
::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)
+
::Trump, as Commander in Chief, can call out the military against these insurrectionists. But [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDpQmCGjEPc Barr also has the U.S. Marshall Service] at his disposal, as well. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup>
 +
:::The Drudge Report seems to have gone over to the dark side. It's full of headlines that make it sound like Trump is finished. Trump's net approval is at minus 8.[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html] That might not sound good, but that's pretty much as high as he has ever been. Biden is toast, according to the betting markets. Black voters don't respond to Warren. So the path is open to Hillary, according [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/could-trumps-impeachment-crisis-push-hillary-clinton-run-2020-84301 to this article]. On the eve of a coup, the coup plotters will engineer a crisis. Then the coup can be portrayed as the resolution of the crisis. Maybe it's not about Hillary's triumphant return to head the Democratic Party. The media and left have financial reasons to feel nostalgic for the Mueller investigation. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 11:06, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::(A) The media wants impeachment to drive ratings; (B) Drudge is limited to sources because of Google censorship; (C) it's a rallying call to wake up voters because of the danger of the moment.
 +
::::IN the Clinton impeachment, I personally worked on several issues for nearly 5 years; Not until ''after'' the House Judiciary passed the Articles (the point at witch Nixon resigned) did ''most'' Democrats for the first time ever hear the names Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, were enraged, and circled the wagons. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:13, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Charlie Kirk isn't having any today:
  
== News addition ==
+
::::::Barack Obama asked Ukraine to investigate his political rival's campaign manager
 +
::::::3 Democrat senators asked Ukraine to investigate Trump
 +
::::::And the DNC solicited Ukraine's help to dig up dirt on Trump
 +
::::::And the media was silent about all of it.
 +
 
 +
::::::Why is it that Democrats can spend 32 MILLION dollars investigating election meddling, all in an attempt to destroy their political enemy—the President
 +
 
 +
::::::...But when they accuse him of doing the same thing—investigating meddling & corruption—they want to impeach him?
 +
 
 +
:::::[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 15:49, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::::::America, being a two party system, always views foreign policy in black and white, good and evil. For American readers it needs to be presented as two competing factions - one pro-American, one pro-Russian (ignoring the fact Russians do not regard themselves as anti-American). Both these factions are corrupt beyond imagination. Like Dems and Pubs, one faction serves a few years kissing up to America until its driven from power due to corruption; then the other faction serves trying to strike a balance between the U.S. and Russia, until its driven from power due to corruption.
 +
 
 +
::::::The grave sin committed here was the attempted brainwashing of Americans by Obama and media that Russia and the U.S. are enemies, and Ukraine is caught in the grip of two competing factions, one pro-American, one pro-Russian.
 +
 
 +
::::::[[Christopher Steele]] aligned himself with anti-Russian Ukrainians and cultivated contacts when he worked for UK intelligence in the 1990s. Ironically, Russians view the Ukrainian nationalists as racist, fascist, antisemitic, anti-[[multicultural]], anti-universal order (legacy of the Soviet times) bigots. These are the groups Hillary Clinton, [[John Brennan]], [[Richard Dearlove]], and the [[DNC]] chose to align themselves with, taking up ''their'' cause wholeheartedly.  [[Alexandra Chalupa]], a Ukrianian/American citizen and member of the Democratic National Committee (paid $500,000 since 2004) was the linchpin who wanted to trade corrupt Putin puppets who employed [[Manafort]], for corrupt Ukrainian fascists who employed Hunter Biden.
 +
 
 +
::::::Chúpala fed her dirt to Steele and [[Isikoff]]; Isikoff and Steele fed that garbage to [[Yahoo News]] and the FBI, which fed it to the [[FISC]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:32, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::::Actually, the John Birch Society and The New American, even Trevor Loudon, makes it very clear that Russians are indeed still communists, let alone bad guys, and those sources are not for Obama either nor do they shill for him. Also, I'm not sure Obama was against the Russians. I definitely recall Obama during the infamous hot-mike incident specifically stating he has one more election to go and then he'll be wide open to making concessions to the Russians. That doesn't sound like someone who's against Russia in the slightest. More likely than not, Obama cynically used Russia as a scapegoat for the hacked DNC servers to push the narrative that Donald Trump was backed by them. Maybe if the Russians completely give up Communism to such an extent that they even obliterate Soviet symbols and replace them with Tsarist symbols, I'll start believing they've truly reformed from Communism. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::The Russians are about as communist as the Chicago City Council. Sure, corruption and communism go hand in hand, coupled with greedy, undemocratic leaders who maintain control in a [[single party system]], but the Russians are neither a nuclear threat to the U.S., a conventional military threat to the U.S. or Western Europe, or a threat to the international global trading system. Their entire economy is dependent on access to that international trading system. Exxon keeps both the Russian government, i.e. civil service, and the Russian military, afloat. 
 +
::::::::(This of course would lead us to a discussion of the use and effectiveness of targeted sanctions, a sort of microsurgery to cut off key individuals and anyone connected to them by monitoring global banking transactions via sophisticated technology. In the old days, the Germans would just send troops into Belgium or Poland; nowadays leaders have to think twice cause they can't expand their business contacts beyond markets using their own currency, and they eventually have trouble maintaining the cost of their country villa. Even Trump now has come around to the idea of targeted sanctions against Iranian mullahs, rather than a cruise missile attack.
 +
::::::::The wisdom of this modern approach to addressing international conflicts rather than sending in troops has yet to play out. It would require another thread to fully explore). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 08:00, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::Actually, the Russians right now are about as communist as the Seattle City Council. As bad as Chicago is, I don't think they've gone as far as to retain at least one monument to Marxism or even build a new monument as far as I know, while Seattle's rather infamous for having a statue of [[Vladimir Lenin]] in its premises. And the comparison is apt since they still have a monument to Karl Marx in the middle of Moscow's public square instead of doing to it what they did to Stalin and Lenin's statues and toppling it, and they still have Vladimir Lenin's tomb open to the public when, had they truly given up on Communism, they would have bulldozed that tomb and, if they were to do anything to Lenin's corpse, it would be either to bury it in an unmarked grave, or otherwise hang him from a streetlamp to set an example as to what happens if anyone dares try to bring Communism back. That's what I would do if I headed the Russian government or were the Russian people. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:22, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::Ironically, they keep Lenin's tomb open cause it's a tourist attraction, like the Pyramids. Great Wall, the Louvre, or British Museum. It's a monument to capitalism these days.
 +
::::::::::We hear much about Russian propaganda and influence in foreign elections, in Europe and America. NBC News worldwide has a budget about three times larger than the Russian Foreign Ministry which dedicates only a fraction of its budget to information and propaganda campaigns. And we haven't counted the impact of CNN, ABC, Fox, etc. yet, either.  From the Russian perspective, it's difficult to compete in a world that honors free speech when they are outspent about 60-1 globally. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 08:32, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
:::::You told us a story that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry wanted a photo-op with a rebel leader and a Syrian government official to highlight and secure a peace treaty, and that Putin provided one too and ordered the other killed and secured a peace treaty independently.
 +
 
 +
:::::To retaliate, Obama broke off diplomatic relations with Russia (or at least at a number of embassies) on some pretext at the end of his administration while staging NATO military exercises at the same time.  Trump and Putin were able to secure each other's trust, and nothing came of it except feeding obliquely into the holdover intelligence community's conspiracy to falsely attribute to Trump the pursuit of Russian interests before his own country which failed catastrophically.
 +
 
 +
:::::Now you're telling us there was an anti-Russian cabal in government that was "aligned" with the Obama administration making things happen.
 +
 
 +
:::::But the antagonistic tone of the investigation always seemed to be the resentment of the (allegedly intelligent) intelligence community toward a leader not dependent on anyone, and who therefore couldn't be pressured into backing off from scrutinizing their little fiefdom.
 +
 
 +
:::::How did they think that an anti-Russian sentiment could be evoked from such a clumsy contrivance, when it was clear from the beginning that Obama did not like Russia?  I originally thought they were carrying out Obama's sweet revenge, but then I actually believed the Russians were involved, because who would have the mental...inadequacy as to set themselves up for the kind of backlash that would inevitably follow? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 22:44, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::(ec) I don't know where the Kerry reference comes from, but neither Hillary nor Obama had much experience or understanding of foreign policy while in the Senate. True, Hillary had more DC experience in the White House and Senate, but never an indepth interest or understanding of foreign policy until - the formation of the Clinton Foundation.
 +
::::::As Secretary of State, Hillary was more qualified and experienced than Obama, but going back to the Riady's and the [[Chinagate]] scandal, their only approach was shaking down international donors for access. Cold War politics and ideology exited American foreign policy with the Clinton's in the 1990s; now it was focused on influence peddling, access to technology, and trade deals.
 +
::::::Ukraine has always been the red-headed stepchild in the Russian sphere, going back to the Czars. The Germans tried to make it part of Germany twice in two World Wars (Hitler was going to make the Crimea the "German Riveria" by extending the autobahn east from Budapest, as the climate is pretty nice there by European standards). Now the Ukrainians want to be part of the [[EU]] (i.e. that dream and vision of the Kaisar and Hitler that the rest of the world was adamantly opposed to. Sheesh, the EU can't keep its own house in order right now, let alone expand out to the Black Sea).
 +
::::::So what do  the Russians have to say about this 21st Century dream of Hitler and the Kaisers coming true, now?
 +
::::::Then, when you factor in 70 years of multicultural communist integration, making the number of Russians and Ukrainians evenly split at 50%, with halfbreeds of Turks and Slavs everywhere, you think Russia will allow a [[NATO]] base at Sevastopol? Will the UK allow a Russian submarine base at Dublin? Will the US allow a Chinese naval base at Acapulco?
 +
::::::I mean, c'mon. Just what have these Democrats been teaching our children the past 40-50 years> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:26, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::And since I'm asking, why would anti-Russian Hillary negotiate the sale of large amounts of Uranium to Russia? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 23:11, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::Cashola (a brokers fee for the Clintons). The US was bound by previous trade agreements, mainly the Sakhalin I & II projects negotiated by [[Rex Tillerson]] in 1996, which allowed Exon to  be part  owners of the land and resources where they drilled (unlike the deal with Saudi Aramco in 1926 where the Saudis retained exclusive ownership of all land and reserves below ground). As a ''quid pro quo'', Russia was free to buy land and mineral resources in North America. The deal itself was legal, the $500,000 brokerage fee to paid the Clinton family is not. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:32, 29 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
====Kerrys and queries====
 +
 
 +
Here is your [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&diff=1320608&oldid=1320396 Kerry reference], Rob:
 +
 
 +
=====Trump's moves to take control of the CIA=====
 +
Trump's authorization to the CIA to expedite drone strikes, that with Pence's statement Julian Assange should be locked up for life, and the firing of Flynn, are the first steps to repair the breach with the Intelligence Community. It is IC's turn to come around, and they can begin by telling McCain & Graham, "False Alarm!" "There's no 'There' there!" RobS (March 14, 2017)
 +
 
 +
The issuance of authority to CIA for drone strikes without the checkback provisions Obama had is a Win-Win for Trump and the CIA. It gives the CIA authority to do drone strikes on leadership of militias loyal to the Syrian regime while at the same time giving Trump deniability he ordered strikes against Putin and Assad allies.
 +
 
 +
This is presumably payback for Russian intervention in Syria. In late 2015, John Kerry arranged for Syrian peace talks with Assad and the Russians on one side, and the 'Syrian opposition' and US on the other. However the [http://www.businessinsider.com/zahran-alloush-death-assad-2015-12 Russians whacked the 'Syrian opposition leader' the US groomed after talks were agreed on but before the US puppet could get to the table], leaving Assad & Putin in full control and making Kerry & Obama look like the idiots they are. RobS (March 14, 2017)
 +
 
 +
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 16:39, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Ok, thanks for digging it out. It took me a minute to regain context and I just noticed this thread her right now. Sorry for the delay. The question is (referring to the present Ukrainian and Russia collusion schemes, I presume):
 +
::''How did they think that an anti-Russian sentiment could be evoked from such a clumsy contrivance, when it was clear from the beginning that Obama did not like Russia? I originally thought they were carrying out Obama's sweet revenge, but then I actually believed the Russians were involved, because who would have the mental...inadequacy as to set themselves up for the kind of backlash that would inevitably follow? ''
 +
:"''They''" being IC conspirators presumably, and "''clear from the beginning''" only refers to "''clear from the beginning of the anti-Trump deep state operation, c. mid 2015''". Obama obviously was Putin's b*tch since at least August of 2008 (link available) and reiterated it to both Putin and Romney's face on live national television in 2012. So still don't quite understand the question.
 +
 
 +
:Reference point: [https://archive.is/73G5z Statement from Senator Obama on Russia's Decision to Recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Independent States, Chicago, IL | August 26, 2008] (there have been efforts to scrub this statement from the internet). Candidate Obama, who just hired Joe Biden as his foreign policy expert, says:
 +
 
 +
:*''The United States should call for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to condemn Russia's decision in coordination with our European allies.''
 +
[[File:Ukro-nazis.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Obama administration Russian foreign policy experts, 2014.  Written on the wall: “Ukraine for Ukrainians.” ]]
 +
:Candidate Obama announced to Vladimir Putin and the world:
 +
::(A) Dear Vladimir, Please occupy Abkazia and Georgia. Be my guest.
 +
::(B) I went to school for International Relations, but don't know a thing about it.
 +
::(C) I trust that American voters are too stupid to know Russia has a veto in the UN Security Council and my statement is meaningless.
 +
::(D) Also my dear Vladimir, I do not understand a thing about Putin or Russian designs, and neither does anyone on my staff of advisors.
 +
 
 +
:To pretend 5 years later President Obama suddenly awoke to "''the Russian threat''" after inviting them to occupy Abkhazia, or his staff of experts and advisers are knowledgeable, or even concerned, about Russian activities in Syria or Crimea is a joke and farce.
 +
 
 +
:The DNC, through [[Alexandra Chalupa]], and the Obama administration and Clinton campaigns, got in bed with [[Banderist]]s, i.e. [[xenophobic]] [[Russophobic]] Ukrainians, and turned over U.S. Russia and NATO foreign policy expertise and relations to Banderists, through [[Crowdstrike]] and the [[Atlantic Council]], because of the Obama administration, DNC, and Clinton campaign's own lack of expertise and understanding. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 11:46, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Trumpism===
 +
Trumpism, aka [[MAGAnomics]] is simple to understand. We Americans have something very valuable to sell, that the rest of the world wants to buy into - access to our consumer market. We are among, if not ''the'' largest, richest, consumer market in the world (the EU in size rivals, but it appears to be an artificial structure that is falling apart). The question is, ''At what price are we willing to sell?''
 +
 
 +
The argument to give Mexico and China a hand up by selling access cheap is over. Russia ''is not'' passing out AK-47s to the poor, downtrodden, and dispossessed like church groups do with coffee and donuts to the homeless. These countries can stand on their own.  We don't need anything from the rest of the world. We are self sufficient. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:03, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==="Professor Mifsud, I presume."===
 +
Attorney General Barr is headed for Italy to meet the thought-to-be-lost Professor Mifsud and hear his account of a CIA plot against then-presidential-candidate Trump, including a deposition he made after Trump won the election and before he went into hiding.
 +
 
 +
Ranking Democrats feel Mifsud's story is so ridiculous that Barr needs to recuse himself immediately—I guess because his revealing the falsifying perpetrators of the 2+ year Russian collusion investigation will cause too many Democrat allies in the intelligence community to laugh themselves into criminal indictments. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 13:20, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Sorry, I thought this was fact.  Actually he's already there, and [[George Papadopoulos]] on belief thinks it's to meet Mifsud, as do nervous Democrat legislators. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 14:04, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::That's why the Impeachment inquiry - the poop is about to hit the fan and Democrats want to put Republicans on the defensive. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:09, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Ukraine investigates Biden's favorite prosecutor===
 +
Lutsenko, the chief prosecutor Joe Biden bullied Ukraine into appointing back in 2016, made the media rounds last week as Biden's star character witness. Lutsenko has no law degree and the parliament had to modify Ukrainian law so that a non-lawyer could be chief prosecutor. [https://nypost.com/2019/05/16/joe-biden-and-son-hunter-cleared-of-wrongdoing-by-ukraine-prosecutor/ Here is Joe and Cokehead Hunter looking real happy when Lutsenko cleared Burisma (Hunter's company) back in May]. Zelensky, who was elected president in April, has reopened the case against Burisma. Now Ukraine has opened an investigation of Lutsenko for “abuse of power and malfeasance...by facilitating illegal gambling businesses."[https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-probes-ex-chief-prosecutor-lutsenko-on-gambling-charges/30193895.html] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:13, 1 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Thank you for having provided this timely information. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 01:01, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Step 1: Call Ukraine.  Step 2: Call Australia===
 +
[[File:Downer-and-halper.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Halper and Downer, along with Mifsud, were recruited by John Brennan to frame Papadopoulos and Carter Page.  Richard Dearlove, the head of UK's [[MI6]] also worked closely with Brennan. They didn't like Trump's talk of making [[NATO]] allies pay more for their own defense. The future of the [[military industrial complex]] was at stake ]]
 +
Like I said, Biden's son was a less important issue to Trump than Ukranian collusion.  Now it seems the phone calls were a one-two punch against the FBI and their fig leaves of stories as to why exactly the FBI felt the need to mobilize against Trump as if it were a four-alarm fire.
 +
 
 +
In fact, the Biden angle now looks like nothing more than a distraction.  If Trump finds out why the Australians pretended to be shocked at George Papadopoulos stale news that Hillary's emails were reported to be in the Russians' possession, it will be seen together with the fact that when the DNC emails were hacked, the DNC refused to let the FBI investigate, but instead hired CrowdStrike, the Ukrainian company.
 +
 
 +
If the FBI wanted to investigate George Papadopoulos and his environs so badly that it was all hands on deck (scores of agents), why didn't they at least ''suggest'' to the DNC that they examine their server?  Isn't the physical evidence of ''the secret being taken'' as important as the circumstances of the ''person who knew the secret''?
 +
 
 +
Especially when the so-called "secret" was a newsstory and not private information?  And when the FBI found out it was a newsstory the FBI...did what?  Stopped the investigation of George Papadopoulos, released the agents and halted the surveillance?  Does this make any sense to you [that they actually didn't do any of those things]?
 +
 
 +
Likewise, why deify the Ukraine "whistle-blower" if the ''event he whistled at'' is a matter of recorded history and renders his account ''unnecessary''?  By the very means of the Democrats' frenetic camouflage efforts, this informer's irrelevance is teaching us, and the American people who pay attention, lessons about how to receive the Australians' evidence explaining their over-attachment to George Papadopoulos and his story, should they provide it, with the right kind of critical eye and ear with which to view and audit the perpetrators (reacting or pretending to react unnecessarily)?  Ouch, that's gotta hurt. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 19:51, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:[[John Brennan]] and [[Richard Dearlove]] set it up.
 +
 
 +
:[[Halper]] and [[ Alexander Downer]] were in on it. So was [[Mifsud]], albeit he may have been used unscrupulously without his knowing by Dearlove & Brennan.
 +
 
 +
:Downer has deniability, passed off to Erika Thompson, as the Mueller Report says. However, Downer did not follow channels of reporting back to [[Canberra]] for proper vetting, who then would share it with the CIA if the information was any good, but rather passed off the information to Clinton stooges in the U.S. Embassy in London, who sent it back to Clinton stooges at the DC State Department, who gave it to the FBI conspirators. It was outside the official [[Five Eyes]] process for intelligence vetting necessary to open a [[counterintelligence]] investigation on a U.S. citizen. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:29, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Most American's don't understand who Alexander Downer is; by American standards, he would be something like the grandson of George Washington. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:33, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
=== Hunter Biden is on the board of a Chinese company  ===
 +
It's high time somebody who knows how to read Chinese business records took a look at the Biden in China story. ''South China Morning Post'' was not able the substantiate the claim that Hunter Biden got $1 billion from the Bank of China. That always seemed like a wildly improbable amount. However, Hunter is listed in China's National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System as a board member of BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Company, an investment firm backed by the Chinese government. It all sounds suspiciously similar to the deal he got from Burisma in Ukraine. See "[https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3031632/joe-bidens-son-listed-director-china-backed-equity-firm Joe Biden’s son listed as director at China-backed equity firm, government filings show]" and "[https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/3009709/sleepy-joe-biden-one-few-us-politicians-whos-wide-awake-about ‘Sleepy Joe’ Biden is one of the few US politicians who’s wide awake about China]." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:59, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:On the Chinese government records lacking a record of this matter: "Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus he is master of his enemy's fate." - [[Sun Tzu]].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 19:55, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Follow the link to the ''NYPost'' article for more on BHR - Bohai Harvest RST (Rosemont Seneca Trust) from here: [[Hunter_Biden#China]]. Chris Heinz, of the Heinz family fortune and John Kerry's stepson, had enough to sense to bail, pulling out RST and leaving the deal to the Biden and Bulger families, i.e. Mueller informant [[Whitey Bulger]]'s nephew.
 +
 
 +
::Whitey Bulger is suspected of 52 murders while a Mueller and [[Bill Weld]] informant in the 1980s and '90s.  [[John Durham]] was called in to investigate the whole mess and clean it up.
 +
 
 +
::Mueller was promoted to head the FBI for covering up corruption in the Boston FBI field office. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:13, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::I misspoke; The "T" in Bohai Harvest RST is for "Thornton", which is the Bulger family. RST is the merger of Rosemont Seneca (Heinz family fortune) with Bulger interests (Thornton). After Chris Heinz bailed, it became simply Bohai Harvest - a Chinese military operation which Hunter Biden sits on the board. Whitey Bulger's nephew was recently convicted in some $60 million Wall Street scam (meaning he's available to testify). Looks like Hunter and [[PRA]] (Peoples Revolution Army) are all alone in this now, along with Uncle Joe. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:34, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Comey's memos==
 +
It is certainly dissappointing that the inspector general has determined that Comey's most serious offense was....wait for it....refusing to turn over four memos worth of work product when he left the FBI. It's like finding out that Lee Harvey Oswald took home the office stapler. If these memos had been classified, Comey could have been accused of mishandling classified information. But a committee consisting of Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok determined that they weren't classified. There is apparently no one in a position to overrule this absurd decision.<br/>The larger issue is why Comey created these memos and what he planned to do with them. It seems that he wrote them in order to force the appointment of a special counsel. At very least, that's usurping the authority of the attorney general. IMO, the entire process starting with the memos and going through to the Mueller report represents a planned conspiracy. That is to say, Comey provoked his own firing because he expected that this would result in the appointment of a special counsel team filled with investigators determined to get Trump. That would amount to an attempted coup. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 16:19, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Rumor has it the [[FISA abuse]] report will be out tomorrow which will damn Comey and send him to hell, along with Brennan and Clapper, paving the way for [[Lindsey Graham]] to begin open hearings, netting more info for [[John Durham]]'s grand jury and put the final nails in the coffin of the coup cabal, including McCabe, Strzok, Susan Rice, ''et al''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:18, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:It should be noted, there are many more than just 7 "Comey Memos". I've begun referring to them as the [[Comey Diaries]]. They are supposed to be out by October 12. They include the names of FBI spies, presumably [[Mifsud]], [[Halper]], etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:22, 2 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Remember in ''Final Days'' how Nixon kept a diary on a tape recorder, and Ziegler said the public would appreciate him more if he could find a way to communicate the ideas he came up with while recording them? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 04:55, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::(Or the [https://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/senate/chapter-13-judiciary-1947-1968.html#103 ''Morganthau Diaries'']; ''"the serious problem of unauthorized, uncontrolled and often dangerous power exercised by nonelected officials"'' ) The Comey Diaries are a collection of memos Comey wrote to himself that are said to include the names of spies or "lures" that the FBI had used against the Trump campaign in Europe beginning as early as December 2015. It is a contemporaneous narrative of the whole illegal operation ran against Donald Trump that can be used as a road map when laid against other FBI, CIA, State Department, GCQH and other sources.
 +
:::In the case of [https://clintonfoundationtimeline.com/tags/archey-declarations/ ''CNN vs. DOJ''] (related to January 6, 2017 Comey Trump Tower meeting (Comey Memo 1) and Clapper leak to [[Jake Tapper]], the judge has already ordered release of the full, unredacted ''Comey Diaries'', which the DOJ is fighting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:26, 3 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Wow, this is good==
 +
:''"Globalism writ large requires Big Government, central planning, and full control of systems by political elites.  Socialism requires exactly the same structure.  Through globalism you have multinational corporations, financial elites, making rules for the underclass.  Socialism requires the exact same top-down distribution process.
 +
 
 +
:''A few high powered political institutions (think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) decide the wealth distribution and sharing processes used to support the masses.  They retain power through control at all costs.  Within this alignment you see financial elites, globalists in every sense of the word, accepting socialism as a tool to retain corrupt power and influence; and defend against the independent action of lower-class rubes.
 +
I recommend [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/03/u-k-report-all-conservative-lawmakers-who-rebelled-against-brexit-kicked-out-of-party/ the whole article]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:02, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:I would like the use this quote, but I can't find it in the linked article. Are you sure it's the right one? --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 09:01, 4 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::You're right. [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/03/chaos-in-uk-parliament-as-globalists-from-both-parties-attempt-to-block-pm-johnsons-brexit/ Here it is]. And here's a follow up article [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/04/british-globalists-pass-bill-to-block-no-deal-brexit-ongoing-elitist-efforts-to-ignore-british-referendum/ on the same lines]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 09:53, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::The Free Beacon has an article [https://freebeacon.com/columns/the-wages-of-woke/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=8a8e22b3fa-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_09_06_06_24_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-8a8e22b3fa-46524909 on similar lines]:
 +
:''. Every week brings new examples of CEOs intervening in political, cultural, and social debate. In every instance, the prominent spokesmen for American business situate themselves comfortably on the left side of the political spectrum. Shareholder capitalism finds itself under attack. Not just from socialism but also from woke capitalism.''  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:33, 8 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==British Parliament==
 +
 
 +
Boris needs to calm down, his overwhelming emotion is anger and the left is taking full advantage. The prospect of a far left Prime Minister Corbyn who will surrender all sovereignty to The EU is appalling.
 +
Boris needs to get a grip or step aside as time is running out.--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 10:23, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:So, are they gonna have an election or not? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:25, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Flip a coin.--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 10:28, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Lemme see if I have this correct: an Election would work toward Brexit, and ''not'' having an election works toward Remain. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:35, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Again, flip a coin. The Tories would be the biggest party but they would have to at least gain parity in seats in order to form a government and deliver Brexit. It is uncertain if that will happen.--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 10:44, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::So the leftwing Labour party is the party of status quo, and the Tories are for change? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:46, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::Now that is a very good question. Yes, sort of, it depends. Both parties are in an eternal crisis at the moment. The moderate Tories are dismayed at the swing to the right and the moderate Labour people at the swing to left. The left want full integration with the EU and the right want no formal relationship whatsoever. The moderates want to leave but to still have strong political, cultural and economic relationships with it, the best of both worlds.--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 10:58, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Alexander Mercouris of ''The Duran'' explains the process from about  [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snf9dSruKYE&t=1443s 9:45]; the above CTH link (The Conservative Treehouse) link says, "Johnson could intentionally just ignore the law (if passed), proceed toward a no-deal Brexit and force Parliament to vote him out of office; which would trigger the general election vote the Prime Minister is seeking."  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:15, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::I have to disagree with Chewy.  It is not a question of left and right.  Many on the left want to leave, many on the right want to stay.  However, it is true to say the liberal centre tends to be consistently in favour of remain and stronger links with EU.  Surprisingly, many globalists are in favour of leaving so we can our country have a global outlook and a broader immigration policy.  And that's the problem:  leavers have never been able to agree what leave actually means.
 +
::::::Alexander Mercouris's opinion is interesting but ignores the basic constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignity. If he were to ignore the law, he risks being buried in an avalanche of judicial reviews and every subsequent move set aside as being ultra vires.  Given that he has already been given his political teeth in a cup twice, and he is starting to look punch drunk, I doubt that's in Boris's top ten options.
 +
::::::Addressing RobS's point, an election might work towards Brexit and it might not.  The most likely outcome is another hung parliament, even more confusion and even less leverage for the conservatives.  The worst outcome is a socialist government.  To paraphrase Clint Eastwood, does Boris Johnson feel lucky? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] ([[User talk:Rafael|talk]]) 17:14, 5 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
*I don't think Boris has much to worry about.There is no other plausible candidate for prime minister. His net approval is at +6 percent compared to -45 percent for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The Conservatives lost thier parliamentary majority by expelling 21 pro-EU members. Now the party stands for something. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:00, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::That's not how the British system works.  Boris's national net approval is irrelevant.  Theresa May went in to the 2017 election with a bigger approval gap - and fell flat on her face in the election.
 +
::Each of the 650 parliamentary constituencies votes for an MP.  The leader of the party which is most likely to be able to form a working government - usually the leader of the party with the most MPs - is appointed as Prime Minister and forms a government.  If no party gets more than 325 MPs, two or more of the minority parties can agree a coalition with varying degrees of formality eg David Cameron's coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2010 and Theresa May's coalition with the Democratic Unionist Party in 2017.  However, even with a coalition but without a significant parliamentary majority, the PM has his hands tied from day one - eg Theresa May.
 +
::Boris has got off to a terrible start: he set a new record in getting a Parliamentary beating; he has purged some of his most experienced parliamentarians, weakening the talent pool at the top of the party; he is seeing defections at every level; he is starting to lose the BoJo va-va-voom (pizzazz, I think you Americans say); his allies and supporters in the MSM are openly questioning his judgement; the opposition parties starting to coalesce into a "Rebel Alliance". 
 +
::The main thing in his favour is the personal incompetence of Jeremy Corbyn (ironically the only party to be consistently personally committed to leaving the EU and arguably a major player in splitting the pro-EU faction from the inside).  If an able and clear pro-EU MP - eg Kier Starmer - were to take over the Labour Party, we would have a socialist government by Christmas.
 +
::We are very, very vulnerable but anyone who has pointed this out over the last two years is treated like Cassandra in the Greek legend.[[User:Rafael|Rafael]] ([[User talk:Rafael|talk]]) 10:17, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::That's right. To thumbnail it for American readers: There is no direct election of Prime Minister; the party that forms a government sits as an American convention, caucus, or the Electoral College and elects a leader to head it. The only citizens who ever voted for any Prime Minister are those in his/her respective district. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 10:27, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::I am getting my British news from [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/there-will-still-be-an-election-in-the-uk-and-brexit-will-still-happen this article by Daniel Hannan]. When Prime Minister Spencer Percieval was assasinated in 1812, nobody much noticed. But a modern PM has a major media profile by definition and thus has to care about his approval/disapproval numbers. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 02:01, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::The point is, it's a party system. You vote for a party and your own rep. That's it. The party then sorts out leaders among themselves without any input from the public. And these leaders need to work with and forge coalitions with other parties. It's not a winner-take-all system. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 02:15, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Hong Kongians new demands==
 +
 
 +
I met someone on Twitter passing out news about Hong Kong.
 +
 
 +
Carrie Lam has promised to propose withdrawing the extradition bill.  But that is over a month away, and she could renege on the promise.  The delay would serve to disperse focus from the promise, and if she reneges, consume the energy of the united Hong Kongians through the disorienting remobilization of the union that would be necessary.
 +
 
 +
The union has made four more demands to insure Lam remains in earnest and does not exploit the delay to cause attrition of the union's focus and the felt interest of the rest of the world who are watching:
 +
 
 +
Five Demands - Not One Less
 +
 
 +
#Completely withdraw extradition bill
 +
#Retract the proclamation that the protests were riots
 +
#Withdraw criminal charges against all protesters
 +
#Thoroughly investigate abuse of powers by the police
 +
#Immediately implement dual universal suffrage
 +
 
 +
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 04:37, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:So many pundits think Xi Jinping is a master strategist, but IMO he has been stumbing badly lately. Hong Kongers just want to live under rule of law in their own city. Xi's response is to have subway passengers beaten with sticks on camera. If he just replaced Lam with someone more sympathic, he'd be halfway to resolving the crisis.<br/>Xi retaliated against Trump's tariffs by refusing to buy American soybeans. This is a silly shoot-yourself-in-the-foot sort of vindictiveness. Without soybeans, Chinese pig farmers have been feeding their poor pigs contaminated slop. The resulting epidemics have killed a third of the pigs in China. The local price of pork has doubled. Pork is pretty important in China and lately news stations have been showing videos housewives fighting over it. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:48, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Here's my prediction: the mainland will back down on extradition, and over the next few years will turn Hong Kong into a dumping ground for all kinds of socially undesirables and criminals until Hong Kongers demand an extradition bill requiring the mainland to take them back. Carrie Lam will be rewarded with a seat on the mainland Politburo.
 +
::This is generally how things have always worked out in leftist and socialist societies. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 09:52, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::The Hong Kong media is now literally under attack, with fire bombs thrown at the home of pro-democracy media mogul Jimmy Lai yesterday. Hong Kong represents only 3 percent of China's GDP nowadays. In 1983, it was 12 percent of the Chinese economy. But that didn't stop Deng Xiaoping from holding the Hong Kong economy hostage in the "currency crisis" and forcing British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to agree to a return on his terms. Hong Kong is currently experiencing the largest real estate bubble anywhere in history. A young couple that wants to buy a home of their own has to leave the city.<br/>We see protests in China and we think about Tiananmen. But not every China protest story has a sad ending. In 2003, Hong Kong had enormous protests against "Article 23." Chinese leader Hu Jintao responded by firing Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa and by making other concessions. Chinese rule was modestly popular in Hong Kong for the next decade or so. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:40, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::That was at the time of MFA (Most Favored Nation status). China's economic growth exploded at the expense of U.S. wealth exfiltration  to China. U.S. did not compete as one percent of GDP was allocated to the War on Terror. China adopted a "be nice" policy to win support among the population for the success of Communist party policy.
 +
::::Now the CCP wants Shanghai to be a be a global and financial capital, and to transfer all that wealth from Hong Kong to Shanghai, as the globalist house of cards comes crashing down. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:08, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::The Chinese leadership has various factions which are not well understood. The protests in 2003 were provoked when hardliners headed by First Secretary Zeng Qinghong attempted to implement Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law. Over the course of the protests, President Hu Jintao's reformist faction gained the upper hand. Xi Jinping, China's top leader since 2012, is Zeng's handpicked successor as head of the hardline faction. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:06, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::Times have changed. Riding the gravy train to prosperity by access to the U.S. consumer market is history; no Democrat running for President, nor Congress itself, proposes undoing the direction Trump has set (as the Chosen One) in regards to U.S.-China trade policy.  The CCP made Xi president for life in anticipation of this radical shift in the terrain.  Xi will change with the times, as well. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:27, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::I been watching these protests [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kjnJo60NqY outside the U.S. Consulate for hours.]  The crowd is singing ''London Bridge is Falling Down'' and chanting ''Yankee Come Home''. It's heartbreaking.  13:10, 8 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
Am I the only one who is tempted to agree with Beijing’s claim that the protests are an attempt at a Deep State-sponsored colour revolution?--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 15:10, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:I read that at ''Moon over Alabama'', too. They claim Tienanmen Square was color revolution, too, and that sanctions were put on afterward, which is totally false. Rather, [[Brent Scowcroft]] flew to Beijing and toasted the Butchers of Beijing the day afterward, assuring them the globalist plans would move forward (Board members of Walmart at the time, like [[Hillary Clinton]], profited immensely from selling cheap Chinese manufactured junk and destroying American jobs).
 +
 
 +
:No sanctions were ever imposed, no compliance with [[human rights]] pre-conditions were ever discussed or imposed, and China was granted [[Most Favored Nation]] trade status on schedule.
 +
 
 +
:So you can't believe everything you read. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:52, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::And yet there are certain factions of the Deep State who want Xi gone because they want the US to be in charge of a New World Order, rather than China. If this is a colour revolution, it is probably those factions who are behind it. And yes, I do believe they are willing to go to war with China over this.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 18:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Bolton out==
 +
This is about efforts to jump start Iranian nuclear talks.  Come election day, the U.S. will be making nice with North Korea and Iran. Trump is the Peace candidate; his critics are nuclear warmongers. The details for a world of peace, love, and cooperation will have to wait til Trump's 2nd term ., [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:We should be making Iran an ally, at least for now. We’re supporting the wrong side in the Gulf crisis, and it’s time that we treat Saudi Arabia like the we currently do Iran. Hopefully, Netanyahu will accept this reversal of American foreign policy. I’d hate to see the US-Israel special relationship fall apart over this. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 15:07, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::That sounds like wishful thinking. Saudi Arabia, the third largest defense budget on the planet surpassing Russia, is a U.S. proxy and Pentagon front organization. There's no untangling that alliance anytime soon. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia are joined at the hip.
 +
 
 +
::As long as the [[nation state]] of Saudi Arabia exists, it will remain a U.S. ally. When we speak of the U.S. defense budget being X times bigger than the rest of the world combined, you really have to add in the Saudi defense budget as well to get a clearer picture.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:27, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Saudi Arabia===
 +
:::We are joined at the hip because the neocons want to keep the (unconstitutional) petrodollar scam going. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has been using that as leverage to hold our economy hostage. Either we do what they say, or they devalue the dollar and destroy the US economy. And if we really get them mad, they unleash their al-Qaeda and ISIS "bad cops" to bring us to our knees through sheer terror. We must not tolerate these acts of geopolitical blackmail. It's time for a (very nasty) break-up.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 18:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Nah. You gotta look at the bigger picture. We didn't build up the third largest defense establishment to have it used against us. Only liberals and Democrats would make such a stupid argument. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:24, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::I ''am'' looking at the bigger picture. The petrodollar agreement was an illegal trade deal orchestrated by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger which replaced the gold standard with an oil standard controlled by the Saudi-dominated OPEC through oil price manipulation. Almost ''everything'' that has gone wrong with our foreign policy since then can be traced back to that deal. The deal is also partly to blame for our inbility to balance the budget, because it established the dollar as a global reserve currency, which means we have to keep printing money indefinitely in order to avoid a global recession. The petrodollar deal has brought us to our knees, and the Saudis know it. But unlike other countries, the Saudis aren’t willing to re-negotiate this deal. Any re-negotiation would destroy its quest for a global caliphate. No, they would rather sponsor assassinations, unleash terrorists on the whole world, and start major wars to keep the status quo. We have no reason to treat them as anything but a mortal enemy. They have the blood of thousands of Americans on their hands. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 22:01, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::Without doing a deep dive into specifics, I'd say you just put your finger on a big reason why we're joined at the hip (since fracking, the balance has shifted much more toward the U.S., who now can dictate to the Saudi's what the world oil price should be). However, you seem to follow the school of thought that the Saudi government and bureaucracy functions, or has power and control, analogous to Western nations. Saudi oligarchs, and others in the Gulf, have an amazing degree of freedom and independence to act on the world stage apart from the Saudi government and policy of the Saudi ruling regime. This comes from its base law - ''Shariah'' - which does not recognize man made regimes (same is true in virtually all Islamic Republics; only the most [[secular]] regimes are run by ''tyrants'' who follow Western models of a modern police or [[administrative state]]).
 +
::::::The Saudi ruling clan are basically the first among equals, whom the other tribal leaders defer to in the area of foreign policy since that is what brought them such prosperity. However, many of these other oligarchs and tribal chiefs still can have their own foreign policy, arm terrorists outside their borders, etc., which is really just an issue of Saudi domestic politics.  If the ruling clan blanketly tried to restrain them, that would be a rejection of their own legitimacy under ''Shariah'' as guardians of the Holy Places.
 +
::::::When you speak of "sponsor assassinations, unleash terrorists", etc., yes, you are referring to what we in the West call "Saudi citizens" or "Saudi organizations" or "Saudi companies" etc.  But they are not executing the policy of the Saudi ruling clan, i.e., the "Saudi government" ("There is one God but Allah, and Mohammad is his Prophet;" Islam does not teach government by men, so the Saudis walk a fine line holding any legitimacy over the territory of the Arabian Peninsula, or as Keepers of the Shrines in the Islamic world. And don't tell me, "''Screw their Islamic traditions, we should create a power vacuum and impose a Western style secular or Christian regime over the Islamic Holy Places''"). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 22:39, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::First off, you seem to believe that it's only certain tribes that support terrorism. That's not true. The central government itself has sponsored terrorism in the past, and it continues to do so today. And even if it didn't, the fact that it even allows other tribes to sponsor terrorism (with the help of princes acting on their own accord) without consequence is a sign of tacit approval. The US and the Saudi system of government in its current form cannot peacefully co-exist. If we want Wahhabi terrorism to stop, we must give the Saudis an ultimatum: ''Either break ties with the rogue tribes and shut down all terrorist-supporting institutions such as the Muslim World League, or we ally with Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and other anti-Saudi countries in the region and we jointly pursue a policy of containment against you.''--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:52, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::Again, look at the bigger picture. ''Why did the Pentagon clone itself in a country with a population smaller than California?''  And the Pentagon didn't do this on its own - it was the State Department and Congress. The Pentagon functions in the Middle East, dba Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia recruits and hires for its armed services and mercenary groups from all over he Arab and Islamic world (typically Egyptians, with vast manpower reserves attracted by high wages). The U/S/ and Saudi Arabia jointly do training. It's better than sending Americans to die in some stupid war.
 +
::::::::Some ideological vetting occurs depending on the mission. Iran remains the bad guy until it gives up its anti-American, anti-Israeli, and anti-Saudi views.  This is probably a long way off, since the older generation which is dying off now, was schooled in war from its earliest existence (1980-1988).
 +
::::::::I agree wholeheartedly - the Iranian people and the U.S. are natural allies. But you can thank idiot Democrats in  the Carter years for this mess they left as their legacy. And I see no indication, whatsoever, that idiot Democrats who speak on foreign policy today have learned a thing from their mistakes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:14, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::You seem to be abiding by the premise that Iran is the bad guy. Iran is ''not'' the bad guy. It may be ''a'' bad guy, but it's not ''the'' bad guy. The Saudis are ''the'' bad guys. They are the ones who need to be contained, not Iran. At this point, I would be more than happy to ally with Iran, even if the current regime is in power and even if it's still anti-Israel (I'm starting to become anti-Israel myself because it's actively participating in a propaganda campaign falsely portraying Iran as the cause of all terrorism and smearing those who don't fall for it as being anti-Semitic). --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 07:47, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::The Iranian government is the bad guy; the Saudi government is an American stooge regime that does nothing on its own.  All it's actions are directed by the U.S. [[intelligence community]]. When it created ISIS, it was at the behest and direction of President Obama and [[John Brennan]], the record has borne out. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:56, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::So in other words, you agree with me that the Saudis and the Deep State are tied at the hip. But you disagree with the premise that the Saudis are willing collaborators. When you start with the premise that they are puppets rather than willing collaborators, you're in a whole different world. If ''that'' premise is correct, then not only did the government know about 9/11 in advance (which I believe), but it (probably) also helped carry out or even ''ordered'' 9/11 (which I don't believe). Do you believe that?--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 15:37, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::IMO, you're barking up the wrong tree again. I'm intimately familiar with all the events in Sudan, in Afghanistan, in Saudi Arabia, and in the White House leading up to 9/11, from about 1989 onwards. You're falling into the trap, again, of labeling Saudi oligarchs and Saudi citizens as "the Saudi government'. The Saudi government in fact cooperated extensively with CIA in the pre-9/11 period. The Saudi government itself attempted an assassination of bin Laden in Sudan (1996?) causing him to flee to Afghanistan (the CIA wanted to do it themselves, but the Saudi regime moreless talked them out of it and convinced the CIA of the wisdom of letting the Saudis do it).
 +
::::::::::::Bin Laden signed onto the Iranian, anti-Saudi Muslim Unity Movement. There were other oligarchs in the Arabian Peninsula, which Western media repeatedly mislabels as "Saudis", but while they are (a) holders of Saudi passports, in fact (b) support the overthrow of the Saudi regime.
 +
::::::::::::Iran is complicit with Al Qaeda, not the Saudi government. [http://iran911case.com/] As Iran was complicit in the Khobar Towers attack. Iran allowed the 9/11 hijackers to pass through Iran on forged passports.
 +
::::::::::::The notion that the government of Saudi Arabia is complicit in 9/11 is liberal Democrat BS. Even such a seditious traitor as [[John Brennan]] (a man in the know - CIA Station Chief in Saudi Arabia in 1996) would never espouse such dangerous, bigoted and xenophobic crap. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:00, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::The 28 pages withheld from the 9/11 report detail what I alluded to above:
 +
:::::::::::::''The Saudi ruling clan are basically the first among equals, whom the other tribal leaders defer to in the area of foreign policy since that is what brought them such prosperity. However, '''many of these other oligarchs and tribal chiefs still can have their own foreign policy, arm terrorists outside their borders, etc., which is really just an issue of Saudi domestic politics'''.  If the ruling clan blanketly tried to restrain them, that would be a rejection of their own legitimacy..."''
 +
::::::::::::It is a difference of cultural idiom which Western and American (idiot) journalists are incapable of comprehending, and would only promote anti-Arab [[xenophobia]]. Until these basic misconceptions surrounding Saudi Arabia as a "[[nation state]]" akin to Western concepts of the nation state are corrected, those 28 pages will remain classified. Those pages ''do not'' point a finger at the Saudi government; they detail complicity of rich holders of "Saudi passports" and "Saudi citizenship" who, under ''Shariah'' law which grants the Saudi government legitimacy, the Saudi government is incapable of taking action against.
 +
::::::::::::The name "Saudi Arabia' itself tells you as much; while a consensus existed in 1925 to give the new nation state the name "Saudi Arabia," a consensus lacked over its legitimacy to use the territory's  proper name - Arabia or the Arabian Peninsula. It would be like renaming Arkansas, "Clinton Arkansas", or New York "Trump New York". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:17, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::::So in other words, what you are saying is that Saudi Arabia shouldn't be treated as a coherent entity. Okay, then. Then here's how Saudi Arabia can redeem itself. ''Become'' a coherent entity. Become a nation-state. Don't give a crap about what the other tribes think. If they want to rebel, ''crush them''. Settle this nationalist vs. de facto autonomy conflict the way Lincoln did here in the US. Then the American people will finally take MbS' reforms seriously and get of Saudi Arabia's case. I'll admit MbS has taken steps in the right direction, but his lack of overall progress plus his jingoistic behavior towards other countries in the region make me greatly distrust him and have extremely strong doubts regarding his true intentions. Meanwhile, let's get out of the petrodollar system anyway. It's illegal to begin with. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 17:23, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::::I think you need a better understanding of Islamic law and the extent of the Muslim world. Without ''Shariah'', the Saudi ruling clan wouldn't exist. You're just calling for a power vacuum, chaos, and more needless bloodshed.
 +
::::::::::::::There have been proposals to create an international zone for Mecca and Medina. But even that has its own problems.  Islam doesn't recognize, and is at war with, the concept of "global order" (unless, of coarse, it's under Allah and the Koran).
 +
::::::::::::::The Saudi king appoints the Grand Mufti of Medina, who is somewhat analogous to the Pope in Christiandom, albeit with less secular and more spiritual power (Warning: these are rough analogies I'm drawing here; a Muslim kid posted on Facebook his understanding that Donald Trump was the Pope of Christianity). Structurally, it's like the President appointing a Supreme Court Chief Justice. In fact, this system is controversial; in Iran the Supreme Council (akin to the Supreme Court) elects their supreme leader as Head of State - the Ayatollah. So you see there are two competing systems there. Sunnis, 90% of Muslims globally, tend to support the Saudi system, however there are violent dissenters from this system. While many oppose Shia Islam and Iran, some feel the Iranian system is closer to what the Prophet intended. Other violent dissenters don't.
 +
::::::::::::::Simply labeling people as bogeymen - the Saudis, MBS, the Ayatollah, bin Laden, etc etc etc - doesn't address any of these structural flaws that the successors of Mohammad have been grappling with for 1,500 years. Those types of criticisms are just [[liberal claptrap]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:31, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::::::Oh, I fully understand the role of Sunni-style Sharia in the existence of the Saudi "state." Although I do appreciate the level of detail in your reply. But regardless, if the House of Saud expects the status quo to remain forever, it's totally delusional. At this point, it has three choices: (A) Become a coherent nation state and actually start acting like a civilized government; (B) Dissolve the country USSR-style and be content with having less land to control while the other tribes wither away and kill each other; or (C) Take an extremely high-risk gamble and try to maintain the status quo indefinitely, a move that likely will eventually cause the entire rest of the region to rise up against it and tear the country to pieces in an imperialist scramble that may well start another world war. There's no escape from those options. That possibility ended years ago. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 17:53, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
The recent troop deployment to Saudi Arabia is like a service warranty; for all the equipment the U.S. has sold them. A few micky-mouse drones got through and wiped out half of Saudi Arabia's oil output. Now some sort of lower level radar has to be installed, with a missile defense system to knock out a midget drone. The missile defense systems developed and operational thus far are for larger type missiles.
 +
 
 +
Another problem is swarms of drones. If 50 long range cruise missile's were inbound, we know we could wipe out 60%+ of them; if a 1,000 small drones were launched just over the horizon, flying not much above tree-top level, that presents a new defensive problem that has not been combat tested yet. (Eventually these types of drones with the ability to pinpoint target we'll see launched from Gaza, rather than the old-fashioned bottle rocket type missiles being launched).
 +
 
 +
The U.S. military presence is basically there to install the advanced prototype systems - radar and missile defense - we've developed thus far, and train locals how to operate and maintain them.
 +
 
 +
It's a revolving door. The U.S. possesses technology that can likely deal with drone attacks like the one that just occurred; however, once that technology is shared with foreign allies, there is no way to keep it out of the hands of Iran, China, and Russia, which will eventually copy it, making it obsolete, paving the way for the next generation of weapons development. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:16, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===China===
 +
::::::::::::::::As long as there is Iran-China cooperation (which is why Trump is courting Iran right now - evidenced by the firing of Bolton), there will remain U.S.-Saudi cooperation. Russia is the wildcard that plays both against each other, or sides with the winner. Russia definitely favors siding with the U.S. over China - more evidence of the disastrous failure of Obama's global vision. We have virtually a universal consensus now even among 25 Democrat presidential candidates and members of both parties in Congress, that China, not Russia or Islamic terrorism, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "is the focus of evil in the modern world." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:18, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::::::::What you just mentioned reminds me a lot of John Xenakis' "Generational Dynamics" prediction, which had major influence on the development of Steve Bannon's ideology. If you're not familiar with Xenakis, he's been predicting (since 2003) a "Clash of Civilizations" World War that pits the US, Europe, Russia, India, Japan, Iran, and Israel against China and the Sunni Muslim countries. Now, I'm not entirely convinced that this exact alignment is going to happen, because I do believe some European countries will side with China. I also believe some Sunni countries will side with the US because of existing tensions with other Sunni countries (specifically, some Arabian tribes will side with the US to protect themselves from other Arabian tribes and especially Turkey, the latter who I believe will be -- along with Pakistan -- among China's main partners in the Muslim world). In that event, keeping Russia and Iran on our side would be absolutely critical, because if either of them side with China or fall to the pro-Chinese alliance, then China will have a "land bridge" of allies that would allow it to deploy troops to Europe without having to deal with American naval superiority. Such an event would cause the US to face its most serious national security crisis since 1991, if not since 1945.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 01:20, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::::::::To keep things sane, most people (emphasis on most) understand that a war would be over in 15 minutes. Let's assume that modern warfare is fought out in trade deals and between trading alliances. China, at the moment, has a huge advantage in Africa which is rich in material and human resources.
 +
 
 +
::::::::::::::::::I don't see a consensus in the Arab world to improve their material lot through trading alliances with non-Muslims, so that's a situation they will have to fight out and settle among themselves.
 +
 
 +
::::::::::::::::::As to China, it grew too big too fast, economically. it's a manufacturing-export economy, and has skipped a lot of internal economic development. It's basically a house of cards - and a very big one at that. The question is, will its communist leadership accept the fact that it's days of rapid growth are past, that it no longer has the get-rich-quick access to the American consumer market, and focus on developing an internal service sector with lower revenues from exports? As corrupt and evil as their leaders may be, I think there are still sensible, and will chose that path.
 +
 
 +
::::::::::::::::::As to the EU, assuming it survives, its leaders also have to learn something from the current crisis. There's no going back to its pipe dreams of [[John Lennon]]'s ''Imagine''.  The German economy is on the verge of recession because Chinese orders for manufactured goods are not coming in because of China isn't making the money they were off the American market.  We, the U.S., don't need any of them - the EU, Russia, or China - for manufactured goods or raw resources. We don't need oil from abroad. We're self-contained. We're holding all the cards. We've done our part in giving them all a hand up for 70 years. We're tired of playing policeman of the world, paying for European socialists defense and having them spit in our faces how they can afford free healthcare for their people and somehow we're cruel because we don't. It's a new age, and Trump is leading the world into it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 02:00, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::::::::::One thing that I will never accept is the idea that if two nuclear-armed great powers go to war, the conflict will immediately escalate into an apocalyptic-scale nuclear conflict. When you go to war, the goal is to win. If there's a chance the war can be won without using nukes, that chance will always be taken first. Sure, there probably will be some limited nuclear weapons usage, but I don't see any of the nuclear powers (except perhaps Pakistan) being stupid enough to launch all their nukes at once unless they are absolutely certain that's the only option left.
 +
:::::::::::::::::::As to the Arab world, its time as a major player is running out. Its failure to unite around a single, all-powerful tribe leaves it at the mercy of Turkey and Iran, both which are centered around eons-old civilizations that united, well, eons ago.These two countries, along with Israel and ''possibly'' Egypt, will be the major (non-great power) players in the region in the foreseeable future.
 +
:::::::::::::::::::As to China, its economic woes are only part of the long-term problems it faces. There are also growing tensions among the many ethno-religious groups in the country, and the CCP is growing increasingly worried that there may be a rebellion or even a civil war. This is far from the first time the internal situation in China has reached this point, China faced similar crises (which more often than not exploded into extremely bloody uprisings) in the 1920s-40s (Chinese Civil War/Second Sino-Japanese War), in the 1850-60s (Taiping rebellion), and in the 1790s-1800s (White Lotus rebellion), and many other such crises in the centuries before those. This in my opinion makes a major war involving China and another great power even more likely.
 +
:::::::::::::::::::As to Europe, how would you envision a post-EU continent. What factions do you think would rise?--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 13:02, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::::::::::I'm agreement with much you said. Expanding on the Arab world: it's probably because Arab's view the [[nation state]] as a [[social construct]] counter to the teachings of the Koran.  As to China, there is some danger there; historically they are averse to messing around outside their borders. However, the trade relationship that was built up from 1972 onward was because Nixon didn't want any more unwinnable wars like Korea or Vietnam. That's their "trump card" now, if you will: if the U.S. doesn't accept trade on ''their'' terms, we could expect a return to endless, unwinnable wars with Chinese proxies. How the North Korean negotiations turn out will give us some sense of the direction.
 +
::::::::::::::::::::There's still a lot to play out in Europe. Some demographic shifts are permanent, which will affect its future policy. The global elitists have overreached, and many haven't realized it yet. But take Germany, for instance: I don't see it being a member of NATO in 20-40 years when its troops would rather swear allegiance to a caliphate than to democracy. Alternatively, it could follow the Russian model of 40% troop strength of [[secular]], anti-fundamentalist Muslims who are willing to fight to keep their independence from religious imams. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:41, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Iran===
 +
Happy days, everyone! He’s finally gone. Hopefully he’ll be prosecuted for his seditous behavior later on. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 15:03, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Never happen. Just look for Trump and the Ayatollah singing ''Kumbaya'' (like Trump and Kim) by election day. What happens after that is anyone's guess.
 +
 
 +
:It should be further noted, this has nothing to do with the canceled Camp David meeting with the Taliban. This is the result of Trump making nice with the globalist [[Macron]] at the recent G8 Summit. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:37, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::No, it was the result of many months of Bolton's seditious, borderline treasonous conduct. He will go down as one of the worst, if not ''the'' worst NSC in our history.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 18:58, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::He was needed at the time to pose a tuff line in tearing up the [[Iran nuke deal]] (JCPOA). That being done, he outived his usefulness. Trump is free to start over and negotiate his own deal. Trump and Macron already appear to be on the same page. BoJo too (assuming he survives) will go along with whatever approach Macron and Trump come up with (BoJo has much to make amends for, considering he had oversight of UK intelligence at the time of Brennan and Dearlove hatched the plot to destroy Trump. He's now deeply indebted to Trump, particularly Trump's offer of much needed trade deals after Brexit is completed). Merkel (on her deathbed) and the Germans will go along with the Macron/Trump proposal, with some input from Putin.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:18, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
Can we put on the "In the News" section a link to [https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-john-bolton-light-the-fuse-of-the-uk-iranian-tanker-crisis/ this article], which is evidence that Bolton is Deep State?--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 19:08, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
What really matters isn't that Bolton is gone, but who will replace him. Like him or not, he wasn't even close to being the worst person in the White House. At least he supported national sovereignty (including Brexit) and rejected supranational organizations. People like Mike Pompeo, Jared Kushner, and Steven Mnuchin, who are generally just as globalist/hawkish, but who also emphasize a "moral obligation" to be interventionist, are still in the White House. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 19:21, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:My guess: Pompeao will make the choice. Probably one of Pompeao's chief flunkies who he regularly communicates with and knows Pompeao's thinking.
 +
:The position of NSA has been downgraded from a policymaking role under Trump. The NSA is just a messenger boy between Trump and the National Security community. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:28, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Trump is a very independent person and not a neocon. I never thought for one second that Bolton was going to influence Trump to go to war. Maybe Trump just wanted a "devil's advocate" or a cabinet/team of rivals like Abraham Lincoln. Maybe he just wanted to play good cop/bad cop with North Korea, China and Iran (and maybe even Russia).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:23, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Bolton did a good job. His job was to kill Obama's nuke deal. Time to move on.
 +
:::Three candidates [https://youtu.be/lBEaKlM-CMw listed here (about 5:00 mins in)]. Gen. Keith Kellogg, Brian Hook, and Rick Waddell. Kellogg already served as interim between Flynn and McMaster (Trump took McMaster on Kelly and Mathis advice); Hook fits the bill perfectly; Waddell sounds like a bureaucrat who pays attention to process,
 +
:::The whole goal now is to have a ''Kumbaya'' moment with the Ayatollah between the convention and election day. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 23:43, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::I almost want the Iran deal brought back. We're just may need Iran as an ally if we expect to defeat Wahhabi terrorism once and for all.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 23:52, 10 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Even Macron wants a new deal. He wasn't among the culprits and criminals who negotiated the last one. France rejoined NATO after 40 years because of fear of Iran, not Russia (more simple evidence of the farce of Russiagate). it's Macron's opportunity to put his own stamp on what every Frenchmen knows is a big issue, and possibly salvage his legacy. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:42, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::Don't you see the irony here? France dropped out of NATO in 1967 claiming the Russian bogeyman was BS; they harbored the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] as a [[human rights]] activist up to 1979; in 2004 France rejoined NATO claiming they were right all along since 1967, that Russia ''was not'' a threat to Western Europe, but they had made a mistake in 1979 by harboring the Ayatollah Khomeini. Now their goodwill gesture resulted in a grave threat to their own national security. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:23, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Israel===
 +
How do you believe Bolton's firing will affect relations with Israel, if at all?--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 18:35, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Personally, I believe in the short term it will cause a period of deep distrust between Trump and Netanyahu, and perhaps even cause the US-Israel relationship to deteriorate until either Netanyahu changes his foreign policy or Israel elects a new PM. I cannot see any attempts at detente with Iran sitting well with Israel at this time. During the aforementioned period of distrust, I expect to see anti-Israeli sentiment rising within the GOP, and some hardcore Israel supporters defecting to the Never Trump camp. Whether that adds fuel to the fire is yet to be seen. But nonetheless, I believe that the US-Israel special relationship is in trouble, at least in the short term. In the long term I expect relations to rebound as Israel shifts its focus to the Balkanization of the Arab world and perhaps even tries its own attempts at normalizing relations with Iran.--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 18:45, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Eewww, tuff question. Israel (Netanyahu) has a direct pipeline to the Oval Office (Jared). Bolton basically was advocating the Israeli hardline against Iran. Israel has always shown a willingness to negotiate with Iran, however. With Bolton gone, I don't really see any substantive changes, unless Netanyahu were to become openly critical of the Macron/Trump process. That would be indicative of a marital break-up.
 +
 
 +
::As to the Palestinians, no substantive changes.
 +
 
 +
::Bolton's anti-Russian [[neocon]] approach to [[Syria]] appears to be in the dumpster. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:49, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::By direct line I mean that literally; [https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/When-Netanyahu-slept-at-the-Kushners-and-other-media-tales-of-Trumps-Jewish-confidantes-481486 Netanyahu used to visit the Kushner's home] to get campaign donations from Jared's father when he was still alive and before Jared took over managing the family business. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 06:29, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::All I have to say is that Israel better not pull off any stupid stunts in the interim. I'm very disturbed by the allegations (I say they are allegations because the claims originated from a POLTICO report whose accuracy is being contested by the White House) that Israel was placing spying devices extremely close to the White House. What if Israel was trying to put them ''inside'' the White House? That would be a major scandal, and it would give Trump a good reason to turn against Israel completely. --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 09:03, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Yah <shock, horror> Israel is spying on an ally (again). We can't rule out the possibility it is a bunch of Ilhan Omar aligned anti-Semite Democrats and media trying to frame and smear the Jews, again. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:38, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Who's in control?===
 +
:Bolton lost his influence in the White House after Trump blamed him for Venezuela back in May.[https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/05/putins-influence-trump-blames-bolton-for-venezuelan-coup-failure/] Now it's all Trump and his instincts. Who advised Trump to meet with the Taliban at Camp David? That's the guy who should be fired. Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis recently came out with [https://www.amazon.com/Call-Sign-Chaos-Learning-Lead/dp/0812996836/ a great book bashing Obama's foreign policy]. When Mattis and Tillerson were in the cabinet, I had the sense someone who knew what they were doing was in charge. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:03, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::"[https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2019/09/mike-pompeo-bigger-pentagon-now/159863/?oref=defense_one_breaking_nl Mike Pompeo Is Bigger Than the Pentagon: In the nine months since Jim Mattis resigned as defense secretary, one man has become the public leader of President Trump’s national security policy: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.]" Whren Trump took office, he relied heavily on Pentagon personal (Flynn, Mathis, Kelly, etc) and didn't trust the State Department and CIA who he was at war with and were actively engaged in a coup against him. Pompeo has brought both under control. The DOJ remains rogue, and the Pentagon itself has some internal problems. But its taken more than two years to gain control over the swamp, which is still far from being complete.
 +
::Pompeo is Trump's Dick Cheney now in foreign policy and national security. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:01, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Trump comments on Bolton===
 +
It should be noted, Trump's unusual open criticism of Bolton is not being addressed to the American public or media. Trump is speaking directly to Iran, Venezuela, Macron and EU counterparts, etc., clearing the table for a reset on new negotiations. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 13:57, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
===Bolton's post-firing temper tantrum===
 +
Perhaps as a final "eff you" to his former boss, not only is Bolton now publicly trashing him, but there's speculation that he may have leaked information to the anonymous whistleblower on the way out.[https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/john-boltons-revenge-tour/][https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/10/01/john-bolton-source-whistleblower/] --[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 13:24, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Valerie Plame ==
 +
 
 +
Lying scum Valerie Plame is back, this time running for congress in New Mexico. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICW-dGD1M18 Her latest ad] accuses Dick Cheney aide Scooter Libby of "outing" her, thus making her a victim of Trump, who pardoned Libby last year. This claim is ridiculous at so many levels. Libby was prosecuted by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed by James Comey. The Plame Affair was thus a precursor to the Mueller investigation. Plame's cover was supposedly blown in 2003 when columnist Michael Novak wrote, "[Joe] Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Novak didn't get any of this information from Libby. He learned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA from State Department official Richard Armitage. He found Plame's supposedly supersecret maiden name by looking it up in ''Who's Who in America.''<br/>The name issue was huge at the time because the publication of Plame's name supposedly violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Like the Logan Act used against Michael Flynn, this is a largely inoperative law that likely violates the First Amendment. The peculiar status of these two laws makes them common topics of discussion in law school. [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act_of_1982 If you look at the text of IIPA], it is hard to see why it was triggered by Novak's column. It's a "Phillip Agee Act" that is tailored narrowly to the activities this rogue CIA agent. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:51, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Richard Armitage outed Plame. And yes, the [[Plame Affair]] was a dress rehearsal for Mueller probe. It was initiated as an attack on "Bush's brain", Karl Rove. The first action was for Comey to get AG [[John Ashcroft]] to recuse himself, so Clinton crony [[Patrick Fitzgerald]] could be appointed Special Counsel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:02, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Just as the Mueller investigation was made possible by Trump's decision to leave Comey as director of the FBI, the Plame affair was a result of Bush leaving Clinton loyalist George Tenet at the helm of the CIA. Tenet knew that Muslims were training to fly jets on simulators in Minnesota and kept it to himself. Despite authorizing the torture of Al Qaeda terrorists, Tenet remains a hero to the liberal media for referring the Novak/Plame matter to the Department of Justice for an IIPA investigation. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 18:12, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::The pattern is all too familiar. [[James Comey]] and [[Patrick Fitzgerald]] are prominent in both. First, target a GOP president; second, get the GOP's AG to recuse; third, failing to get the target, inflict as much damage on GOP appointees as possible and create a disincentive for anybody to serve on a GOP campaign or in a GOP administration.
 +
:::In both cases, [[G.W. Bush]] and [[Trump]], the target failed to win the popular vote, which serves as justification for Comey's lawbreaking and the current attack on the [[electoral college]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 18:29, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::The popular vote was never an issue in 2000. For liberals, it was an election decided by an overreaching Supreme Court. The court had a liberal majority at this time, but that didn't stop the media from treating it as a right-wing bogeyman. If the court had followed federal law, they would have left the issue up to Jeb Bush as governor. In 2016, Hillary tried to get the Electoral College to overturn Trump's election. So the popular vote certainly wasn't an issue at the time. All the same, it's an issue now. Perhaps we should shift to California-style nonpartison primaries and runoffs before this time bomb explodes.<br/>Liberals advance two incompatible arguments regarding the 2016 election. They think the Russians stole the election from Hillary and they are also think they were cheated by the Electoral College. But the Electoral College is not a sneaky trick the Russians played on Hillary. It's always been public information, available to anyone who can read the constitution. During the campaign, Hillary's people often boasted of the "blue wall." That is to say, they believed that the Electoral College was so obviously biased in their favor that Republicans were wasting everyone's time by contesting the election at all. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 04:03, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::The popular vote was never an issue in 2000? On what planet? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:02, 12 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Watched Plame in a candidate forum with six other candidates tonite. Knowing NM's 3rd district, I doubt Plame can win a primary. There are two or three other very good candidates. Most importantly, she's a non-native gringa. The Chicanos of the 3rd district have lived there for over 400 years - before the Pilgrams landed at Plymouth Rock. They've heard every line of BS from white folks imaginable. I think getting Trent Toulouse's sister to stuff the ballot box for Plame is too tall of an order. She's running in the Senate primary anyway and will be distracted; but she'll meet the same fate as a gringa against Benny Ray Luhan (#4 in the U.S House leadership right now). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 04:03, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Mass incarceration saved black America==
 +
 
 +
You'd better appreciate this column, RobS; Coulter customized it for ''you''.
 +
 
 +
September 11, 2019
 +
 
 +
The left has the luxury of having lost the argument on crime for the past few decades and, as a consequence, the electorate has no recollection of the living nightmare produced by Great Liberal Ideas About Crime.
 +
 
 +
Brooklyn hipsters blithely go about their business, completely unaware that their trendy neighborhoods were war zones in the 1970s, 1980s -- and well into the 1990s. Walking those streets meant you were taking your life into your hands.
 +
 
 +
Thanks to Republicans’ aggressive law-and-order policies, today, most U.S. cities are astonishingly safe. Crime is at its lowest level in decades. Life is possible again!
 +
 
 +
But Joe Biden, the leading Democratic candidate for president, is said to be hurt by the fact that, as The New York Times puts it, “he championed the 1994 crime bill that many experts now associate with mass incarceration.”
 +
 
 +
Point One: What’s the matter with “mass incarceration”?
 +
 
 +
Are we supposed to stop incarcerating people who commit crimes? Is that the argument? If there are hundreds of innocent people in prison, why do liberals keep giving us the fake sob stories -- the cases they lie about, forcing me to look up the facts, as illustrated in several of my recent columns?
 +
 
 +
Point Two: By “many experts,” the Times means “raving lunatics we keep on speed-dial for when we need a quote we agree with.”
 +
 
 +
In fact, the only theory by which Biden’s crime bill -- technically the “Clinton Crime Bill” -- attacked crime was by ushering in the first Republican Congress in 40 years, as a result of including the "assault weapons" ban in the bill.
 +
 
 +
In the very next election, just two months after the bill was signed, long-serving Democrats lost their seats, one after another after another.
 +
 
 +
Apart from that, the 1994 Crime Bill didn’t do much. There was “midnight basketball”; the “Violence Against Women Act” (feminist nonsense, later held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court); loads of pointless federal funding for local law enforcement; innumerable death penalties added for capital offenses committed on this or that federal property; and the aforementioned “assault weapons ban,” or “Gift From God to the GOP.”
 +
 
 +
But Biden and Clinton were at least savvy enough to know that Democrats had to ''try'' to steal the crime issue from Republicans, even if only with meaningless gestures.
 +
 
 +
Not today’s Democrats! Biden’s opponents seem to be competing for the title of “Candidate Most Likely to Return Murder and Mayhem to Our Streets”!
 +
 
 +
As with all the left’s insane ideas, they’re packaging this as an attack on “racism.” Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, for a reminder of who bears the brunt of cretinous liberal crime policies.
 +
 
 +
In the late 1980s, it was the Congressional Black Caucus that was demanding tougher policies in the war on drugs. At a three-day Congressional Black Caucus Legislative Weekend in September 1989, Rep. Charlie Rangel held hearing after hearing on the devastation crack cocaine was raining on the black community.
 +
 
 +
The CBC being Democrats, the gist of the hearing was to attack President George H.W. Bush ... for not fighting the war on drugs with sufficient ferocity. Thus, Rev. Jesse Jackson testified:
 +
 
 +
“(P)resident Bush's plan ... greatly underestimates the military arsenals and viciousness of the drug lords and pushers who not only have deadly firepower from AK-47s to Uzis, superior to the weapons of the police, they have a reckless attitude and no respect for human life. ...
 +
 
 +
“(Drug) pushers are terrorists. Those who consume drugs are engaged in treason against themselves, their families and their communities. ...
 +
 
 +
“We demand a right to volunteer in the army -- (audience applause) -- to fight a war on drugs.”
 +
 
 +
Throughout the 1980s, The New York Times was full of reports about the scourge of crack cocaine in neighborhoods “where Americans -- especially minorities -- do worst.”
 +
 
 +
There were stories of dealers preying on “poor blacks” who “coughed up enough $5 bills” for a vial of crack; an account of two little girls in the Bronx, children of crack-addicted mothers, “resorting to prostitution and falling prey to a (65-year-old) neighborhood man for $5 or $10”; and reports of dealers who “offered two-for-one deals and 'Mother's Day' specials timed to coincide with the arrival of welfare checks.”
 +
 
 +
A Washington Post-ABC News Poll, taken after President Bush gave a speech in 1989 announcing his “War on Drugs,” showed that 68% of black respondents approved of his plan -- or six times as many as voted for him. While only about half of white respondents characterized drugs as a “crisis” in their neighborhoods, two-thirds of African Americans did.
 +
 
 +
And then, in 1993, Rudy Giuliani became mayor of New York and saved the “ungovernable city." By the end of his two terms in office, murders in the city -- mostly blacks killing other blacks -- had been slashed from about 2,500 a year to 900. With subsequent mayors continuing his policies, whether with enthusiasm or out of fear of the voters, the murder rate has continued to fall.
 +
 
 +
Thousands of black people are alive today who otherwise would not be because of Giuliani’s tough-on-crime policies. As the Rev. Calvin Butts, pastor of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church, put it, without Giuliani, “we would have been overrun.”
 +
 
 +
If Jordan Peele wants a new idea for a conspiracy movie involving race, how about this one: Powerful liberals conspire to kill off black Americans and replace them with Mexicans by pushing lenient crime policies that put violent criminals into black neighborhoods, while simultaneously demanding open-borders immigration policies.
 +
 
 +
He can pick up some script ideas this Thursday, at the third Democratic presidential debate.
 +
 
 +
COPYRIGHT 2019 ANN COULTER
 +
 
 +
For fair educational use only, namely in response to an opinion professed on these talk pages to be valid that took the opposite view. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 02:01, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Ahhh., I can't believe [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqGt4m_rODA&feature=youtu.be she left out this gem.]  I recall fondly debates I had with <s>communists</s> <s>Clintonistas</s> Democrats about "100,000 New Cops on the Streets," which they thought was wonderful, but only paid salaries for two years (til Clinton was re-elected of coarse), then dumped the permanent payroll cost and benefits on local communities who couldn't afford it.
 +
 
 +
:And the "Violence Against Women Act", another Biden scam. Who could possibly oppose violence against women (other than the Supreme Court)? Coulter only tells half the story; after it was struck down, Biden re-wrote it to where it doesn't resemble anything like original or even address "violence against women."  But the names sounds nice to boast about on the campaign stump - that's all that matters. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 03:47, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Epstein appears to have used ''institute of technology media laboratory'' to launder ill-gotten gains from procuring means to sexual abuse offenses==
 +
 
 +
Lol, [https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-edge-f4dea287-054f-48c0-898f-5955a9348105.html?chunk=0&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twsocialshare&utm_campaign=organic#story0 what a geek.] [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 02:21, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Magna Carta Day ==
 +
 
 +
When I lived in France, I took a ferry to Britain and drove around in a car with French plates. A gas station attendant looked at the plates and told me, "We are all one in the EU now." Maybe I don't look so American after all. With Britain (hopefully) leaving Europe and joining a U.S.-led trading block, it's time to create symbolism for a union of the English-speaking peoples, as Churchill would have put it. An obvious place to begin is "Magna Carta Day," June 15, 1215. By putting the monarchy under various laws, including habeas corpus, the ''Magna Carta Libertatum'' (Great Charter of Liberties) established the principle of rule of law. The charter was the English-speaking world's first constitution and created an independent English state (that is to say, an England independent of the Norman French). The holiday would make a great Johnson-Trump joint announcement. See "[https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-for-a-british-american-trade-deal-1489764787 The Case for a British-American Trade Deal]" by Daniel Hannan. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:34, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:What was remarkable was that the assemblage of lords somehow possessed this spark of political genius while they remained so uneducated.  It's the worst-spelled document I know of. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 05:34, 13 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Gregory Cheadle ==
 +
 
 +
The guy Trump called, "my African-American [friend]" is leaving the GOP! Does this mean anything, or is the MSM overhyping it? Also, what's with all the RINOs?!
 +
:Did you read it in the MSM? Probably BS not worth listening to or following up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:31, 15 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Getting around Google algorithms ==
 +
We all know Google has algorithms it is manipulating to limit the availability of conservative thought, and until we can get changes made to [[CDA 230]] that won't change.  However, not all algorithms are created equal or have the same goals.  One of the most draconian algorithms in this respect that Google employs is the '''Google News''' one.  Almost all news from conservative sites is disallowed as the Google news queue is built.  There is an opportunity here for conservapedia.
 +
 
 +
The page [[Top Conservative news websites]] is now the #3 item if that title is searched.  Didn't really take much effort to get the page there either.  However, Thoughtco is #2 and has huge traffic numbers, and of course nobody beats Wikipedia's traffic save for Google themselves.  So we have realistically gotten as high as we can with it.  Here is the point:  Having this [[Top Conservative news websites]] page exposed so highly exposes many of our other internally linked pages.
 +
 
 +
For example, we don't currently have a page for ''The Federalist'', so there is no internal Conservapedia page to link to.  But for pages that do have an internal page, it is highly exposed and if we built these pages up we could get more traffic from it.  I'll eventually get to it, but if anybody is interested in an "all hands on deck" effort we could get this done somewhat quickly.  Just throwing it out there.  Even if no changes are made, it would probably be good to discuss the differences in algorithms.
 +
 
 +
If anybody wants to help me out with this let me know.  [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 14:10, 18 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Two suggestions: 1) Have each of the 60 website articles listed in [[Top Conservative news websites]], link back to the [[Top Conservative news websites]] in their "see also" sections. For example, have the [[Gateway Pundit]] article link to [[Top Conservative news websites]] in its "see also" section. 2) When applicable, lengthen the articles listed in the list so they are more than stub/short articles. For example, expand the Gateway Pundit article. [[User:Wisdomcriesout|Wisdomcriesout]] ([[User talk:Wisdomcriesout|talk]]) 15:09, 18 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Another suggestion: Move [[RedState]] down the list or possibly remove it. This is due to Eric Erickson's former Never Trumper stance and his present weak endorsement of [[Donald Trump]]. [[User:Wisdomcriesout|Wisdomcriesout]] ([[User talk:Wisdomcriesout|talk]]) 15:27, 18 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::The main thing that is needed is to make the pages bigger.  The wikipedia page for Gateway Pundit has 34,488 bytes of information currently, ours has 706 bytes.  The wiki page is absolutely horrendous, but multiply this by the sixty in our list and it's a huge task a single person.  It really depends on how much others are interested.  So far, doesn't seem to be much interest. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 09:16, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::That's the difference between liberals and conservatives: conservatives don't organize well, while liberals are masters at it.  I suppose that would be evidence for the fodder that liberals are more pragmatic and willing to sacrifice on behalf of others, while conservatives are more ideological, self-centered, and stubborn.
 +
::::Another observation: conservatives won't honor their commitment to a role in a collective, organized plan as soon as they get bored, whereas liberals will fight to the bitter end, including being tear-gassed and jailed for a wrongheaded objective. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:38, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::You seem pretty committed.  So how about it? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 20:27, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::On news sources? I endorse it wholeheartedly. Right now, I'm expecting the FISA abuse report (said to be massive) and other key documents to round out and finish my massive chronicle of Obama era corruption. The new bogus Ukrainian Impeachment 2.0 doesn't help. I got my hands full, but can help out where I can. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:54, 27 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== What does Trump want? ==
 +
 
 +
The know-it-alls with opinions and reputations of their own are gone: H.R. McMaster, Rex Tillerson, Jim Mattis, John Kelly, and now John Bolton. There was talk of policy differences between Trump and Bolton, but Robert O'Brien's views are not different from Bolton's in any obvious way. But as a fresh face, he's less likely to assert himself. That's apparently the way Trump likes it: "I make all the decisions. [The advisors] don’t have to work.” Will we bomb Iran? What will the gun control proposal contain? We are in a perpetual cliffhanger episode. Everyone is awaiting Trump's decision and no one has any idea what he might do next. After the hysterical level of coverage he received during the campaign and the Mueller investigation, you'd think Trump would want his life to settle down a bit. As he gets on in years, he's going have to learn to delegate. See "[https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/19/trump-presidency-aides-white-house-1502041 An unshackled Trump finally gets the presidency he always wanted]."<br/>When Obama was president, foreign policy was made by Ben Rhodes, an English major with no relevant qualifications. Cabinet positions were titles sold off to the highest bidder, who then monetized them. As for Obama himself, he spent his time watching ESPN and following celebrity gossip. The biggest difference is that Trump is a patriot. With Obama, you could never be sure whether he would side with the U.S. or Iran. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:21, 20 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:What a pile garbage. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:44, 20 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::After the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson wanted Napoleon, whose forces, at the time, occupied Spain, while France kept up the pretense that Spain was still independent, to sell him the Floridas as well.  Napoleon played on Jefferson and his State Department by using the presumed-impending sale to advance the conception that he was unpredictable, and that Jefferson would do well to quickly take any offer made, if the terms of any offer were made at all, before it was indefinitely withdrawn for an unknown duration.  The strategy had other benefits as well:
 +
 
 +
:::With this avowal, which Turreau understood as a sort of pledge that Jefferson would lean toward war with England rather than with France, the French minister was obliged to content himself; while he pressed on his Government the assurance that both the President and the secretary wished more than all else to obtain the Floridas. Such reports were little calculated to change the Emperor's course. Human ingenuity discovered but one way to break Napoleon's will, and this single method was that of showing power to break his plans.
 +
 
 +
:::In due time Armstrong received his instructions of May 2, and wrote June 10 to Champagny a note declining the proposed alliance, and expressing the satisfaction which his Government felt at hearing the Emperor's approval of "a cautionary occupation of the Floridas." Napoleon, who was still at Bayonne in the flush of his power, no sooner read this reply than he wrote to Champagny—
 +
 
 +
::::"Answer the American minister that you do not know what he means about the occupation of the Floridas; and that the Americans, being at peace with the Spaniards, cannot occupy the Floridas without the permission or the request of the King of Spain."
 +
 
 +
:::Armstrong, a few days afterward, was astonished by receiving from Champagny a note denying positively that any suggestion had ever been made to warrant an American occupation of the Floridas without an express request from the King of Spain: "The Emperor has neither the right nor the wish to authorize an infraction of international law, contrary to the interests of an independent Power, his ally and his friend." When Napoleon chose to deny a fact, argument was thrown away; yet Armstrong could not do otherwise than recall Champagny's own words, which he did in a formal note, and there left the matter at rest, writing to his Government that the change in tone had "no doubt grown out of the new relations which the Floridas bear to this government since the abdication of Charles IV."
 +
 
 +
:::For once Armstrong was too charitable. He might safely have assumed that Napoleon was also continuing the same coarse game he had played since April, 1803,—snatching away the lure he loved to dangle before Jefferson's eyes, punishing the Americans for refusing his offer of alliance, and making them feel the constant pressure of his will. —Henry Adams
 +
 
 +
::[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 12:18, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::There is a lot to learn from this whole incident - including the fact that the purchase was paid in gold. Nowadays we'd just print more money to pay for Greenland, and no one would feel or burden the cost. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:45, 21 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Wait. The story was about the Floridas, not the Louisiana Purchase.  Napoleon never got around to selling the Floridas, and a few months later the Spaniards revolted and re-acquired their country from Napoleon's brother, who had been running things, and deprived Napoleon of his military access to any of the Spanish colonies. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 00:06, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==A favorite lie==
 +
 
 +
Sen. Warren and some of the other Democratic candidates appeared at a homosexual/transexual candidate forum in Iowa, where they met a single question about what government goodies they and their cohorts could expect to receive with them as President.
 +
 
 +
When it came to be Warren's turn, she read a list of names:
 +
 
 +
:The auditorium fell silent as the litany of names continued. “… Bee Love Slater, Ja’Leyah-Jamar: Eighteen trans women of color who have been killed so far this year,” she said. “It is time for a president of the United States of America to say their names.”
 +
 
 +
Journalist Andy Ngo debunked this claim of the number of men trying to act like women targetted for violence, with hate as a motive, months ago by means of taking a strange course of action for a journalist of today—he investigated the claims of the purported targets and reported what he found.
 +
 
 +
He found at least 14 of them were actually targets of domestic violence, with spouses who presumably already knew they were born men, and therefore couldn't simultaneously be very tolerant of the practice of alternate gendering and also engaged in attacking them with a motivation of hatred for the practice.
 +
 
 +
It's not as if Andy Ngo is not a public figure; he has a large Twitter presence, appears on national news shows and recently gained notoriety by being violently assaulted by Antifa members causing him neurological injuries.
 +
 
 +
To Warren, all Trump has to do is say their names ''one! last! time!'', or it ''proves'' he's afraid! The plan's already been set, and everyone's busy, so we can't change the number of people purportedly targeted by hate based on this new information, nor pass around some kind of update on the numbers.
 +
 
 +
But we promise we won't use any recital of Trump's to write news stories with us claiming he's been inattentive to their plight (all four of them in a nation of 320,000,000) and has suddenly demonstrated it by the lengthiness of the recital made with his very own words, and because of this surprising and unexpected angle that no one thought of, insist Trump will need to say ''one! last! time!'' he supports even more draconian federal hate-crimes legislation.  It would be easy for Trump to do.  So if he doesn't do it, it ''proves'' he's afraid!
 +
 
 +
Meanwhile persons dying of heart disease per year number in the 700,000 range.
 +
 
 +
So why don't the Democrats provide every American with counseling about the dangers of and remedies for heart disease instead?  Answer: Because who would believe them?  They have abused their power to affect the government so often and to such an extent that they've lost all credibility to persuade about nearly everything.  Not to mention even the smaller journalists whose reputations are unwillingly caught up in their colleagues' abuse and lowered standards who actually ''seek'' the truth rather than ''shun'' it.  It's too late for them.  Journalistically speaking, the Democrats have poisoned the well!
 +
 
 +
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 15:58, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Did you miss the big story coming out of the conference? Biden wants men to be able to choose to go to women's prisons.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:04, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::It's all just a blur of bad ideas that even doctrinaire egalitarian Chinese communists have enough common sense to avoid. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 21:10, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Gotta love it. A year from now when Democrats try walking all this back, pretending to be moderates, saying "We didn't really mean it." The more insanity we can make a record of now, the more they have to walkbalk later.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:59, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Dissuade you from your own chosen strategy of marshalling the relevant facts into informed, comprehensive accounts of American (if not worldwide) political professions and undertakings of today in hopes of fostering the growth of its remaining political sanity for tomorrow?  I'd sooner attempt to shave a lion. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 00:20, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Greta Thunberg and mental illness  ==
 +
 
 +
Greta Thunberg suffers from various disorders of the mind, including Asperger's, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, eating disorders, anxiety attacks, and high-functioning autism. That much doesn't seem to be in dispute. But if you call her "mentally ill," that's a totally different kettle of fish, as Michael Knowles recently discovered. See "[https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-news-wont-book-michael-knowles-again-disgraceful-comments-greta-thunberg-1242789 Fox News Won't Book Guest Again After "Disgraceful" Comments About Greta Thunberg]." The holy child and her climate nonsense are apparently above criticism. Kids should go to school. Thunberg is telling them to leave the classroom and march for some political cause they don't understand like Red Guards in 1960s China. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:59, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:[https://t.co/DmbUeF0T0e Aussie broadcaster Alan Jones takes the "virtue signaling little turds" down] better than I can: “To all the school kids going on strike for climate change, you’re the first generation who have required air conditioning in every room. You want TV in every room, and your classes are all computerized. You spend all day and night on electronic devices. More than ever, you don’t walk or ride bikes to school, but you arrive in caravans of private cars that choke suburban roads and worsen rush hour traffic.” [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:36, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Although Fox News has been buffaloed, Australia's Sky News is on a hot streak. This is the best summation of the Thunberg matter that I have seen and it belongs on MPR: "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DticpNH3a2Q Thunberg is 'not the messiah, she is an extremely anxious girl']". Make it plain, Andrew Bolt! [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:48, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Speaking as a high-functioning autistic person who did nearly end up brainwashed by the leftists in academia, I somewhat sympathize with her, due to nearly turning out like her. Of course, unlike her, my parents at least made sure to have dinner conversations and even make sure I knew that what the teacher taught was not necessarily the truth (I was one of those few kids who actually STATED what I learned at school each day). From what I heard, she didn't even get that, she instead got parents who if anything made sure she was relentlessly assaulted with climate change agendas specifically to make sure she was parroting them by 16 years of age. Talk about sick... [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 20:07, 24 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::I watched a bit of Greta's UN speech. Her shtick is to hold her own mental health hostage. The implied message is "Believe and panic or I'll go nuts." It's a celebration of mental illness and a throwback to the Middle Ages when one man's demonic possession was another's saintly ecstasy. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:43, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Greta needs to start naming names and pronto, so we can know towards which high-ranking government officials we should lob hysterical climate shrieks next.  You know, co-ordination?  A good way to make them nervous is to sit in on televised committee hearings and dress like a protester but only erupt in small-sized groups at key moments, because you know, no prior restraint?  On the other hand does that mesh well with prior restraint campaigns against conservatives that might begin on social media? Worth checking out. Wait...what wiki is this? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 06:45, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
There has been virtually no MSM coverage of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzufjsnCa7Y Trump's speech at the UN] denouncing globalism due to the Dems making a query of impeachment against Trump, just thought that's worth mentioning [[User:Real45fan|Real45fan]] ([[User talk:Real45fan|talk]]) 02:46, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:There is no impeachment inquiry. Congress has to vote to authorize the Judiciary Committee to do so. There is no vote scheduled. Pelosi did not announce a vote. It's [[fake news]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 02:56, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Pelosi's son boarded recently on an oil company called Viscoil that did business in the Ukraine.
 +
::She was in a YouTube ad they ran too! Maybe she wants to stave off the company being included in an investigation that Trump suggested to the President of the Ukraine, and that's why she can't "find" the votes, at least until she gets re-elected. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 06:45, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Two-front war?==
 +
 
 +
Everybody hates Hitler.  Except the Left chooses to hate him because he turned his National Socialism against Stalin's international socialism, not because he tried to conquer western Europe with Mussolini.
 +
 
 +
Hitler's "second front" was already being menaced by Stalin since the beginning of the war.  Stalin would never stop relieving the troops stationed near Hitler's only access to a regular supply of petroleum fuels.  And Stalin's delay in invading Poland was just long enough after Hitler did to insure Hitler would be held responsible for starting a European war.
 +
 
 +
You'll notice just before Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico by Soviet agents.  Trotsky was in a position to know Stalin's war plans and had outlived his usefulness as a show of toleration for dissenters.
 +
 
 +
<s>In his propaganda press, Stalin held up the European war as an example of a war-mongering that was an inevitable result of imperial and capitalist countries.  Then he shifted and talked about the virtue of war bravery.</s>
 +
 
 +
In his propaganda press, Stalin talked about the virtue of war bravery.  Then on May 6, 1941, ''Pravda'' disavowed the war, stating "The whole weight of its incalculable misfortunes is laid on the shoulders of the workers.  The people do not want war.  Their gazes are fixed on the countries of socialism which are reaping the fruits of peaceful labor."
 +
 
 +
You can't say Hitler didn't make rapid progress in his second-front invasion of the Soviet Union.  So how could Stalin's war measures have been that inept?  A milder winter could have had the Soviet regime fatally decapitated.  A question that might be worth asking is: how much did Stalin spend for war preparations and how (or where) were they applied? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 12:37, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:[http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/ You might be interested in this.]
 +
 
 +
:Soviet unpreparedness was the result of Trotsyite purges of 1938, where Stalin executed the top leadership he feared was loyal to Trotsky. Trotsky was No.1 on the execution list, and they got to him eventually.
 +
 
 +
:The rest of your questions I'd direct you to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLc53JhyFcU Victor Suvorov's] ''[https://archive.org/details/ViktorSuvorovIcebreakerWhoStartedWorldWarTwo Icebreaker]''; [https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov) ignore what Western critics say about it until ''after'' you become familiar how Russian's themselves have reacted to it]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:24, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:The Stalinist purges of Trortskyism cannot be underestimated in the scheme of things (even the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] has to be seen in this light); in America, it was the murder of [[Juliet Poyntz]] that caused [[Whittaker Chambers]] to defect, rat out [[Alger Hiss]], and the rise of [[Richard Nixon]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:32, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:In the period of September 1, 1939 to June 22, 1941, Hitler and the Nazis were praised and hailed by communists {Stalinists) as heroes of the Revolution, taking on and taking out French and British [[Imperialism]], paving the way for the establishment of the Socialist world order.
 +
 
 +
:The Crimes Against Peace charged at Nuremberg included a violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (the USSR was not a signatory to the original Versailles Treaty), thus imposing ''de facto'' recognition of its validity on the Western Powers; this became quite a sticking point throughout the Cold War as the U.S. never recognized Soviet Annexation of the Baltic States. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:39, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Oh, and Mussolini tried to conquer Western Europe? That's news to me. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 15:01, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::Hitler did...with Mussolini ''as an ally'' who tied down many Mediterranean nations. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 15:14, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::The Mediterranean is Southern Europe, not Western European. You're the victim of Hollywood propaganda, fake news, public school education and brainwashing. How's it feel now being called a fascist for pointing out obvious facts? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:11, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Rob, France and England were big powers! And Southern Europe is relevant because English protectorates and allies there like Greece whether occupied by Germany or Italy couldn't render support.
 +
 
 +
::::And how am I supposed to believe these accounts of Polish atrocities against Germans?  National Review Online said nothing about them! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 16:46, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::"allies" and "tied down" are not really apt descriptions. Hitler and Mussolini were not "allies" in the sense that FDR & Churchill were, co-coordinating strategy and actions together such as the [[Manhattan Project]] or [[Operation Overlord]].  Mussolini and Hitler did not act or coordinate together. In fact, Hitler blamed the loss of the War on Mussolini, claiming Mussolini's failed invasion of the Balkans delayed [[Operation Barbarossa]] by several weeks, and the Germans didn't reach Moscow until the snows started to fall.
 +
:::::But it was convenient to link Mussolini and Hitler together for propaganda purposes. Mussolini's granddaughter ran for the Italian parliament, and some idiot American reporter started asking her about anti-Semitism and the holocaust. That's how brainwashed and ignorant of history Americans are. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:01, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::Did I ever mention, I met Herman Goering's daughter here in New Mexico? I went on a sales call to her house in a remote area up in the mountains. She was living under her maiden name. I didn't ask at the time, but my suspicions were confirmed when I saw the film, ''[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2359085/videoplayer/vi1948104729?ref_=tt_ov_vi Hitler's Children]''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 17:19, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::I suppose we may encounter members of famous families more often than we think.  But only the observant, like yourself, are the ones who are treated to the surprise of noticing. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 18:27, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::This place was so remote, and I never met or seen anyone with the name before, I joked to myself on the drive out there that if a Goering was looking for a place to hide out, this certainly would be the spot. I'll give you a clue: it's a little north of [[Jeffrey Epstein]]'s 10.000 acre ranch. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:10, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::::Please remain in those larger states, Rob, where it's more difficult for the enemies of conservatism to zero in on you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 23:17, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
The Conservapedia "[[Causes of World War II]]" article isn't very helpful.  The article leads the reader to induce that since Germany sought ''lebensraum'', and Germany invaded Poland, that invading Poland was part of Germany's seeking of ''lebensraum''. Worse, it doesn't mention that Russia reneged on their planned simultaneous invasion, or the claim that Lord Halifax? was intent on destroying Germany. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 18:45, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
Or whether Poland was influenced or not by Germany's treatment of Czechoslavakia. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 18:49, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:It's an incomplete article from the early days of CP. Historians now are beginning to date the War from 1930 - 1945, which in my opinion is more accurate. It's an age-old debate; typically the answers have been ranked as follows:
 +
:*''What caused WWII?
 +
:#Adolf Hitler.
 +
:#Treaty of Versailles.
 +
:#Great Depression.
 +
:The politically correct answer has always been #1, but in recent decades historians have been moving away from that. Those who vocalize it risk being called fascists.  OTOH, judging from the reaction of students who hear this answer, and given the effects on the world we live in, the answer can seem simplistic, which then has the opposite and negative effect of evoking skepticism. 
 +
:Churchill called it "The Unnecessary War," which barring Hitler, is true. But that again only speaks to British experience, reduces and leaves out the whole Chinese experience of the War, which in this "Global Age" China is having none of it. So it does seem kinda racist to ignore China and sell the Angelocentric version to the whole world. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 20:27, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Thank you for your considered opinions, Rob.  I had prepared a number of my own as well, but this has to be a really depressing subject for some, so your versatile question-fielding notwithstanding, I'd like to take this up at another time when I'm capable of dealing with it in a more measured conversational approach.  You almost have to be an expert to talk about certain types of things, and I think this is one of them.  We've had some disturbances in our family, and this sort of thing takes my mind off of it, but I realize not necessarily in a way that is helpful to anyone else.  But thank you again. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 23:17, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Evolutionism played a key role as far as the cause of [[WWI]] and [[WWII]]. See: [[World War I and Darwinism]] and [https://creation.com/darwinism-and-world-war-one Darwinism and World War One] and [https://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust] and [[Social effects of the theory of evolution|Social effects of evolutionary ideology]].
 +
 
 +
:::Darwinism, WWI and WWII all weakened Britain which lead to the decline of British empire.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 23:40, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::If evolutionism/atheism didn't weaken Russia and the geographic area of the Soviet Union, maybe Germany would have been reluctant to attack the area. See: [https://creation.com/what-happened-when-joseph-stalin-read-charles-darwin What happened when Stalin read Darwin?].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 23:46, 30 September 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::Vargas, sorry to hear, but when ever your ready let me know. The article you cited definitely needs some improving.
 +
:::WG, Yes, most definitely. While atheism and evolution played a big role going back a lifetime (1914 = 1848 = 65 years) leading up to WWI, WWII was the same unresolved issues on bigger scale. I discovered this as a student of history trying to understand the Cold War, which had its roots in WWII, which had its roots in WWI, which had its roots in the second half of the 19th century. As a high schooler during the Vietnam War draft, I figured if I was gonna get killed, I should at least know why. I started studying then and haven't stopped since. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 00:36, 1 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Glory to Hong Kong ==
 +
 
 +
On October 1, the first serious injury in three months of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong occurred. A high school student was shot in the chest at point blank range by a police officer. Listen to "[https://youtu.be/llTR9kb_n70 Glory to Hong Kong]," the anthem of the city's protest movement. Christians are the vanguard. There are prayer rings before each protest with black clad youths psyching each other up before going into action against the police. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:34, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
==Why are Conservative Girls So Attractive and Liberal Girls So Ugly?==
 +
Have you ever seen Scandinavian women? Very beautiful and very liberal.--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 12:03, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Really? Why do the religious Filipinas dominate the world's beauty contests? See: [[Religious Philippines winning streak in the major international beauty pageants]]
 +
 
 +
:"Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize?" - The Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:24.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:13, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::So you do not find blond haired blue eyed women attractive?--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 12:15, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::By the way, the English anthropologist Edward Dutton indicates that using right-wing politics as a proxy for religiosity, there is evidence that atheists are less attractive and he pointed out that right-wing politicians are more likely to have symmetrical faces according to a study.[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201806/defending-atheist-mutational-load-theory-part-2]
 +
 
 +
:::There you have it. Both science and the world's beauty contests point to conservative, religious girls being far more pretty - especially with their long, flowing locks of luscious hair! "But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering." - The Apostle Paul.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:19, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Blond, blued eyed? We all know Swedish, angry, feminists die their short, butch, hair blue! [https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/10/28/aposematism-may-explain-why-so-many-angry-women-have-blue-hair/][[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:23, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::::Take a look at this gallery [https://www.gettyimages.com.au/photos/beautiful-swedish-women?sort=mostpopular&mediatype=photography&phrase=beautiful%20swedish%20women] Do you find them attractive?--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 12:24, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
Science and the world's beauty contests trumps your anecdotal "evidence". Conservative, religious girls are prettier - on the inside and the outside![[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:26, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::::What science? Do you have a link of reference to a respected scientific article that can confirm this?--[[User:Chewy Suarez|Chewy Suarez]] ([[User talk:Chewy Suarez|talk]]) 12:30, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
By the way, slim, Indian, girls are far prettier than secular, European cows![https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM6vpRbyVbM&list=PLc2eSR_oncVgqCs8vXJgu5G7LeV5RR98m&index=7] See: [[Secular Europe and obesity]].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:33, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Notice how slim the Christian, Filipina/Indian girls are compared to their rivals - namely, the secular, European cows:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_obesity#/media/File:World_map_of_Female_Obesity,_2016.svg World obesity prevalence among females].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:38, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Once again, the conservative, religious girls win hands down.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::[https://www.thelocal.se/20150506/obesity-set-to-balloon-in-sweden-by-2030 Obesity set to balloon across Sweden by 2030]. Is there anything more fragile than beauty among women in a liberal nation? Eggs or vases perhaps? No doubt the liberal, Swedish lesbians will contribute to growing obesity problem in Sweden. See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 13:04, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::[https://www.thelocal.se/20180515/young-swedes-eating-too-much-junk-food-study Most young people in Sweden are eating too little fruit and veg and too much meat, candy, and soda, according to a new study.]. Last time I checked, most beauty contests involve young women.
 +
 
 +
:::Is this one of the reasons why Filipinas are triumphing over Nordic ladies in the world's beauty contests?[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 13:11, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Irreligious mutants will never be prettier or more handsome than the religious who will inherit the earth! See: [[Atheists and genetic mutations]] and [[Desecularization]].[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 13:54, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Look, guys, I can't speak for whether Filipino women or Nordic women are more beautiful, since ultimately, it's down to personal taste. I will make this much clear, however: Being religious doesn't necessarily mean one is beautiful. Look at [[Mother Teresa]]. She was very deeply religious, yet last I checked, she would never win a beauty contest. Also, considering several beauty contests right now are little more than left-wing talking platforms right now, I really wouldn't use them as a basis (and for goodness sakes, did you just imply that being vegetarian allows for being beauty. Last I checked, vegetarianism isn't really a hallmark of conservativism, especially when we've got far too many liberals who adhere to that line of thinking. Also, I thought we created Conservapedia to get rid of the leftist bias that was prevalent on Wikipedia, so using Wikipedia as a source isn't good.). Also, we don't know if those Swedish people in those photo galleries are even liberal. For all we know, they could just as easily be closet conservatives. We can't use the photo galleries, or for that matter, beauty contests, as an actual objective measure on beauty and politics (otherwise, we'd have to cite Miss Spain and Miss Polonia as examples of liberal women being more beautiful than conservative women just because leftist women won those contests, one of whom is a practicing lesbian). Sorry, I just get very annoyed by this kind of talk. I do agree on one thing, though: Ultimately, Christianity WILL dominate the Earth, with God as ruler. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:14, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
[[File:Madalyn Murray O'Hair-Wikimedia.jpg|thumb|200px|[[Madalyn Murray O'Hair]], the founder of [[American Atheists]].
 +
<br />
 +
<br />
 +
As you can see above, she was far less pretty than Sarah, the wife of Abraham.]]
 +
[[Abraham]] is often called the "father of faith".
 +
 
 +
The book of Romans say about Abraham: "That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." - Romans 4:16
 +
 
 +
Wikipedia, a website founded by an atheist and agnostic, says about Abraham's wife Sarah: "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all depict her character similarly, as that of a pious woman, renowned for her hospitality and beauty, the wife of Abraham, and the mother of Isaac."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah&oldid=918387599][[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 17:08, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Let's take a look what the fairer sex says about atheists since many ladies are often concerned about beauty and fashion and are therefore experts in this area: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQhjqiyK_d8 All atheists are ugly].
 +
 
 +
:There you have it. An expert in beauty saying "all atheists are ugly".[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 17:29, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::Pokeria, you wrote: "Look, guys, I can't speak for whether Filipino women or Nordic women are more beautiful, since ultimately, it's down to personal taste."
 +
 
 +
::Absolutely not! Since objective beauty exists and beauty is not merely subjective in nature (see: [[Argument from beauty]]).
 +
 
 +
::God and the religious Filipinas who win the international beauty contests are all objectively better looking than [[Madalyn Murray O'Hair]] was.
 +
 
 +
::"One thing I have asked from the LORD, that I shall seek: That I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, To behold the beauty of the LORD And to meditate in His temple." - Psalm 27:4[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 17:49, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::I never said anything about whether the Filipinos were prettier than O'Hair. Yes, the Filipinos were most certainly better looking, objectively speaking, than O'Hair. However, to be fair, even the Swedish women in that gallery that Chewy Suarez posted, most of them on at least the first page anyways, actually DID objectively look better than O'Hair, as well, so that really doesn't mean much. Besides, technically, [[Mother Teresa]] is objectively ugly on the outside, yet she's very pious and more likely than not beautiful on the inside. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:13, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Chewy is rather silent now.
 +
 
 +
::::Evidently, Chewy could not handle all the proof and evidence I rained down on him showing him that conservative, religious women are prettier than secular, leftist women!
 +
 
 +
::::"By sheer weight of fire, morale is lowered. Observation and movement hindered. Control disrupted. And weapons become less effective... These are the neutralizing effects of artillery."[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrubDDcygb4][[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 19:17, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::::To be fair, we really don't know the political affiliation of those Swedish women in those galleries that Chewy posted. For all we know, they could have just as easily been conservative. After all, France is generally considered a very secular and leftist country (about as far left and secular as Sweden, as a matter of fact), yet even THAT has a conservative segment of the population (not to mention the [[May 1968 riots]] participations being exaggerated as I myself verified with a French family at my parish a couple years back). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:21, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
In 2011, only 2 of the 50 [[Miss USA]] contestants thought [[evolution]] should be taught in schools.[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/miss-usa-2011-evolution_n_880749.html] Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists or [[agnosticism|agnostics]] (see: [[Evolution]]).[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 19:42, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::How about that other theory of evolution&mdash;the one that does ''not'' employ methodological naturalism?  Are its defenders agnostics too?  I have attempted, many many times, to teach the Cons people about the correct grammatical use of nonrestrictive clauses.  I can't be bothered to look those lectures up; I'd suggest you ask the Cons people about them.  Your writing style seems rather similar to that of the Cons people&mdash;including choice of topics, stylistic approach to those topics, utter insanity of positions (conservative girls are attractive and liberal girls ugly????), and intensity of editing.  It's almost enough to make me think you are a sockpuppet.  I can't be bothered to check your footnoting style.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:53, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:True, but then again, Miss America went far left recently thanks to Gretchen Carlson (herself a former Miss America winner) demanding they emphasize philosophy. And besides, Miss Spain and Miss Polonia weren't exactly conservative either, the former being an open lesbian, and the latter basically describing as her ideal man a bunch of polish political leftists. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:45, 2 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::JohnZ was blocked. Apparently, he thought it was a sign of mental illness to talk about whether secular leftists were less physically attractive. That is rather ironic considering that both science and international beauty contests indicate that the religious are more beautiful that their mutant, secular leftist counterparts. This is yet another case of secular leftists hating science! Futhermore, atheism has been tied to mental illness (see: [[Atheism and mental illness]]).
 +
 
 +
::Another irony is that Edward Dutton, who goes by the name the "jolly heretic", is the main proponent of the mututant/ugly atheist theory and he appears to be a fellow British atheist/evolutionist.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLZVsTf99gc]
 +
 
 +
[[File:Nuxated iron.jpg|right|425px|thumb]]
 +
 
 +
::The topic appears to get under the skin of some atheists and a NZ atheist even tried to convince me that he resembles [[James Dean]]. The topic also appears to be one of the more popular items I have written about and the [[atheists and physical attractiveness]] article gets about 25,000 page views a year. So in 10 years, the article will have obtained about 250,000 page views.
 +
 
 +
::My all time favorite atheist is Edward Dutton. He is rather funny and entertaining. [[Eric Kaufmann]] is my favorite agnostic.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 01:43, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::Oh, I agree that atheists tend to be hideous (just look at Jean-Paul Sartre, for example). That said, Mother Teresa certainly wouldn't be the type to be able to win a beauty pageant even if she wanted to, and she's pious and devout to Christianity, so I really am not fond of saying all Christians are beautiful due to it being inaccurate (if all of them were physically beautiful, then what does that make Mother Teresa?). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:40, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
====Conservative proven right====
 +
 
 +
I thought I knew the health and beauty benefits of luxated iron on proud American women, and that was all there was to say.  But look, it also produces "strong, sturdy men" here in America too! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 23:21, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== How did Amber's key even work on the guy's room? ==
  
 
Hi.
 
Hi.
  
I have a suggestion for the news section due to a famous, or rather, ''in''famous moment for one of PBS's flagship children's series. Another reason why PBS needs to be defunded has appeared: The longest-running children's series Arthur has Mr. Ratburn coming out as homosexual and entering a homosexual "marriage" in a celebratory manner. [https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/05/14/arthur-features-gay-wedding-in-season-premiere/] [https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/05/14/arthur-features-gay-wedding-in-season-premiere/] [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 21:59, 16 May 2019 (EDT)
+
I don't think this question was ever asked, so forgive me if I am mistaken about thinking it wasn't asked during the trial, but... how on earth did Amber's key work on a room that wasn't even hers? My parents and I went to hotels with card keys, and they're usually reserved strictly for the room we're assigned to. It seems odd for her key to work in a room that wasn't even supposed to be hers. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:40, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Guyjer brought in two witnesses who both said they had also accidentally parked on the wrong attached parking level and walked down the hall to the wrong apartment; one witness said she was at home one time when a homeless guy let himself in with a card key. She chased him out, and said he just opened another apartment down the hall.
 +
:The complex evidently is a real hellhole, with homeless people sleeping in stairwells, etc. The places are easy to break into by attached balconies. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 21:34, 3 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::I read the account in the ''Daily Mail'', and it said she noticed that the door was unlocked (thinking it was her apartment)—and if true, it's understandable if she expected an ambush.  But Conservapedia Main Page Right has a point, The ''Daily Mail'' could be promoting an abusive leniency toward majoritarians, in this case men's larger membership in conservative groups than women. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 07:26, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
  
:That figures. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 22:37, 16 May 2019 (EDT)
+
==Trump declares Mar-a-lago "sanctuary resort", seeks refuge==
  
::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)
+
A beleaguered President Trump, tired of "impeachment nonsense" has moved his operations to Mar-a-lago, his resort in Florida this weekend.
:::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)
+
::::Not sure what you mean by bait. We really should note it somewhere. Besides, they've advocated for defunding NPR after it brazenly pushed several left-wing messages in their broadcasts in some of the news sections, so I see no reason not to exempt it. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:22, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::[https://twitter.com/i/moments/1130647149023154176 "Alabama Public Television refused to air an episode of Arthur featuring same-sex marriage"] (May 20, 2019).  Twitter Moments.
+
::::::By bait I mean, the homosexual agenda to "normalize" homosexuality is to brainwash young people into believing any criticism of homosexuality are efforts to stigmatize the practice by neanderthal bigots. Their mind becomes closed to any alternative views. The truth is, many gays are not comfortable or happy with their lifestyle choices. We should chronicle these efforts to politicize homosexual practices by extremists who have infiltrated government-funded programs and civil service, but not treat each event as some outrage on MPR, and marginalize what is really a mainstream view. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:07, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
== China will lose the trade war and will experience economic pain. Very bad news for militant atheists ==
+
"I'm seeking refuge here. If city councils can do it for illegals, why not me?  They say nobody is above the law.  But then they get a better coverage than I do—is that above?  Nobody should be below the law, either," Trump said.
  
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)
+
"People can still visit the resort—they just may have to watch their step for the transmission cables for the White House TV production set."
  
== Another article relating to the speed of light changing ==
+
"I said that's it—the people in this country want us to do our jobs to Keep America Great!" referring to his updated slogan for the 2020 presidential race.  "I just declared myself immune.  And if they don't like it, they can clear out the sanctuary cities and states, first. Then we'll talk."
  
"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...  
+
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi expressed surprise when she heard the news. "He's got us there. Wow. I didn't think... Even if we impeach him, we won't be able to remove him from office—he's in a sanctuary.  I'm flummoxed."
  
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...
+
Constitutional scholars have been poring over U.S. law, seeking an end to the standoff.
  
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.
+
"Trump is right when he suggests he has more legal standing than an illegal immigrant to seek sanctuary," said one expert. "But hey, when was the last time the Constitution stopped the U.S. Government from doing anything?"
  
“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...
+
"Like every time they hold a press conference to launch a government program that expands the government's purview into yet another lighting fixture!" continued the cynical expert, who probably needed a vacation himself. "Funny how they're always in a rush acting like they're in the middle of something and don't have time to show that little "constitutionality" part of the law—constitutional scholars gotta eat too, you know!" [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 09:47, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
  
'The ‘tension’ between measurements of the Hubble-Lemaire constant, H<sub>0</sub>, (which is known to be changing over time) shows that old theories of the Universe are missing something. If H<sub>0</sub> 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)
+
==Too "on the nose"==
:[[Conservapedia proven right]], again!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:13, 17 May 2019 (EDT)
+
No matter how much Dems and the MSM lie to you,  
::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)
+
It is not illegal for a POTUS to request mutual legal assistance from another nation in an evidence based investigation
  
:::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>))
+
What is illegal is weaponizing allied IC services to spy on Americans then fabricating evidence. —John Cardillo
  
:::Except how do we know those two "fundamental" constants aren't really variables and change as different places and times in the visible universe change?  If we could detect it, we would be able to solve for ''c'' and get the changed speed of light. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 00:31, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
+
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Sunday, 19:46, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
::::My relativity sycophancy alarm is ringing very loudly.  You have correctly identified the formula relating &epsilon;<sub>0</sub>, &mu;<sub>0</sub>, and c.  You say that I said it myself.  I don't think I did, but the formula is nevertheless correct.  Since you are claiming that measurement of &epsilon;<sub>0</sub> and &mu;<sub>0</sub> in deep cosmological time might be easier than measuring the speed of light, why don't you demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of these constants by addressing these issues for me:
+
:::::*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)
+
:::You can do better than that; the word "permittivity" isn't found in the Conservapedia article I cited to begin with.  In addition to the other signs of "tells" found in that "2nd User", it's already well-established that you've used pseudonyms, SamCoulter, and those who've used them in the past are not unlikely to do so afterwards as well.
+
:
+
:::But you'd never know it from your shocked reaction; it was as if you'd never heard of such a thing.  Is that how an innocent person acts?  See what I mean by "a few steps away from common sense"? Apparently that carries with a certain professed scientist in casual encounters, not just materialist scientists engaging in cover-ups. Or was this a kind of cover-up as well? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 01:40, 21 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)
+
::::Others have already done it for me, but like your questioning about generalizations, which was followed by your own substitute generalizations found nowhere in my reply, you can't seem to find "clarity" in my simple remarks after doing so, probably for the same reason why a thief succeeds in convincing you he can't find a policeman after pretending to look hard, or even perhaps why another one cries "stop thief" at an innocent party so the police arrest the wrong person.
+
:
+
::::There was nothing "scientific" about the embargoing of results of others by the materialist scientists, especially in Louis Pasteur's case, the abuse of whom became quite vicious, and that you dismiss Pasteur, whose achievements were tremendous and not just theoretical, so casually, strikes me as sad though not surprising. By the way, as Andy once said, open-mindedness can be ''quantified'', and I can only see that you don't aspire to rank too highly with regard to it, even during the very act of complaining about open-mindedness—specifically within the brief subject matter that surrounded it! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 01:40, 21 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 guff is getting zero traction beyond the base. Trump will be impeached. That much is certain now.  
  
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]
+
:Whilst it's still anyone's guess what happens in the Senate, I think it's safe to say there are plenty of GOP senators who, absent electoral anxieties, would dearly love to pull the trigger.  
  
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.
+
:How many True Conservatives<sup><small>TM</small></sup> can you lot come up with who'll stick with Trump no matter what? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 22:45, 6 October 2019 (EDT)
  
Consider the information in these articles:
+
::I would recommend a little less gloating.  We all have a pretty good idea (well, at least you and I do) how this is going to turn out.  I'm sure you've seen the signs in zoos, on the cages of dangerous animals: "Do not annoy, tease, or harass the animals", or words to that effect.  The creatures you are taunting, while they can't maul you to death, have block powers and aren't afraid to use them.  Gloating simply gets you a 3 day rest, which slows you down.
 +
:::> How many True Conservatives<sup><small>TM</small></sup> can you lot come up with who'll stick with Trump no matter what?
 +
::Well, I can suggest the person who has made thousands of edits to the "Donald Trump Achievements" articles.  Whether he's actually a conservative I can't tell, because I don't read those articles.
 +
::The nation is going through difficult times.  But it will get better.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:17, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::I think the Commander in Chief should just declare Martial Law and end this insurgency. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup>
 +
JohnZ it is time for you to get out of leftist La La Land and come back to reality. Trump has a 90% approval rate among Republican voters.  The Senate is not going to impeach Trump. Even Nancy Pelosi is afraid to bring it to a vote due to Trump winning in the districts of 31 Democratic congressmen back in 2016. The GOP will win back Congress if Pelosi goes forward with impeachment and she knows this.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 01:32, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:It's a shame to see the First Woman Speaker of the House end such a storied legacy so pathetically. What an inspiration for young women to follow! And we thought Biden was the only one losing his mind. Hey girls! This is what you should strive for! Promoting hate, division, and corruption, only to end in failure. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:40, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:[https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/434892-senior-ukrainian-justice-official-says-hes-opened-probe-into-us-election Barr needs to appoint a Special Prosecutor] to look into the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Obama administration's collusion with foreign governments and meddling in elections. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 01:59, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
  
*[http://pnis.co/cracked.html 7 Crazy Realities of Scientific Publishing]
+
::Barr needs to practise his Nuremberg defence. It's ''obviously'' not his fault if Trump orders him to investigate thoroughly-debunked nonsense, and - if you squint really hard - not his place to question whether Trump's motives are corrupt. (Note also that Sessions refused to touch the DNC / Ukraine collusion guff with a bargepole).
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-intrinsic-unreliability-of-science.html The present scientific community and character issues]
+
::I'll ask again: name the True Conservative<sup><small>TM</small></sup> GOP senators who'll stick with Trump no matter what. Fabulous prizes to be won if you can get to 34! [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:20, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::"The media seems to think that if it just says the magic words often enough, the problem goes away. We already know that Creepy Joe lied. We already know that his adulterous, crackhead son who banged his brother's widow was being paid ludicrous sums of money for doing nothing by the Ukrainians.
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-business-of-progressive-science.html The business of progressive science]
+
:::The word "debunked" clearly no longer means what it used to mean. But what level of truth can you reasonably expect from people who also claim that "man" means "woman", "cat" means "dog", and the number six means "purple"." - [[Vox Day]][[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 18:37, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/if-you-hand-us-hammer.html Scientific fraud problem in science community]
+
::::Can't see any GOP senators in there, like. Maybe you missed a bit in your copy/paste. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:57, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/10/peer-review-is-joke.html Peer review problems in science]
+
::JohnZ, Thoroughly debunked nonsense? Like what?
 +
::#That [[Mifsud]] was a KGB agent working for Putin?
 +
::#That [[John Brennan]] told [[James Comey]] that [[Papadopoulos]] was having contact with Joseph Mifsud, a KGB agent so the FBI could start a counterintelligence investigation?
 +
::#That Russian's hacked the DNC?
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/10/science-has-lost-its-way.html Scientific replication problems and current published science articles]
+
::John, gimme a cite where all this nonsense was debunked? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 19:02, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
  
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-adjective-modifies-noun.html 60 percent of "important" social science studies could not be replicated]
+
:::Try [https://www.thedailybeast.com/crowdstrike-the-truth-about-trumps-insane-ukraine-server-conspiracy?ref=scroll this] for starters. Trump would do well to (but almost certainly won't) heed his [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/enough-trump-s-former-homeland-security-adviser-disturbed-ukraine-allegations-n1060051 former Homeland Security Advisor].
  
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)
+
:::Still waiting on those GOP senators. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 20:06, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::HAHAHA! [[NBC News]] see [[Shawn Henry]] (coming soon). And [[Atlantic Council]] for [[CrowdStrike]]. Why was the founder of CrowdStrike tweeting [[Fancy Bear]] (a Ukrainian hacker group that hacked the DNC)? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 16:38, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::JohnZ is right.  We need to answer his question which presupposes arguments whose refutation he entirely ignored ''one! last! time!'', or it ''proves'' that we're ''afraid!'' Check the British odds-makers about the odds of Trump being removed.  The odds are ''exactly'' the same since one week ago.  JohnZ is just here (in a section that I originated) to make noise and try to move the needle—which he clownishly failed to do. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 16:52, 8 October 2019 (EDT)
  
:If you haven't already, check out this one, Conservative:  Bokhari, Allum (March 31, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/03/31/j-scott-armstrong-no-one-asks-researchers-scientific-method "J Scott Armstrong on Breitbart News Daily: 'No one asks' researchers to follow scientific method"]. Interview with Dr. J. Scott Armstrong and Dr. Kesten Green.  Breitbart/Radio website. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 18:31, 24 May 2019 (EDT)
+
==An example how to use Sorcha Faal==
 +
Today's Sorcha Faal entry is a good example how to use the website.
  
== Tax returns ==
+
The January 11, 2017 ''Politico'' article, ''[https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446 Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire]'', which exposed the [[Ukrainian collusion]] scandal, [https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTzsq77piHtkJwCyoRunJkA2irPkQ%3A1569435054981&source=hp&ei=rq2LXaf-OJDY-wSu2qmIAQ&q=Ukrainian+collusion&oq=Ukrainian+collusion&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i10i30.2259.2259..4736...0.0..0.124.124.0j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.ciUkllILoc0&ved=0ahUKEwinjcqXyezkAhUQ7J4KHS5tChEQ4dUDCAg&uact=5 presently remains at the top of Google results], providing a factual counter-narrative to the [[impeachment inquiry]]. (IOWs, a nearly four year old article is drowning out the impeachment spin). The article became obscured by Trump-Russia and the Mueller probe.
  
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)
+
Sorcha Faal provides context, and this underlying link: [https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/biden-meet-poroshenko-ukraine-jan-15.html Biden to meet with Poroshenko in Ukraine on Jan. 15], dated the next day, January 12, 2017. Factual evidence investigators can use to demand the substance of those discussions between Biden and Poroshenko after the ''Politico'' leak.
: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)
+
::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)
+
The ''Gatewaypundit'' article, [https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/you-fcked-up-exclusive-report-joe-biden-blasted-ukrainian-president-after-politico-report-reveals-bidens-role-in-2016-dnc-election-interference/ citing the same January 12 ''Kiev Post'' article], provides no evidence for the claims made in the headline. Context is more important than sensationalism.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 14:37, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
  
::::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)
+
==United States fiscal year 2019 ended==
:::::BTW, that reminds me, think you can provide a reference or link to the whole Nixon tax leak thing and how that started the "tradition" of presidential candidates releasing their tax returns? That might be something worth noting on Nixon's article. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:12, 24 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::::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)
+
::::::::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)
+
::::::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)
+
::::::You're over the cliff on this one, before you even managed to make your point.  Uninformed people cry "He's been spending millions of dollars flying to Mar-a-lago every two weeks!  Spendthrift!"  Within the last week, it was revealed that corrupt U.S. intelligence agencies were spying on Trump.  Earlier in his term, Trump was lied to by FBI director James Comey that he wasn't being investigated.  It turns out they were wire-tapping his campaign.  At the beginning of his Presidency, Trump was warned by a whistle-blower FBI agent that he was being spied on.  With this security breach, Trump was forced to make Mar-a-lago his second White House.  If you want to blame someone for the cost of traveling there blame the conspirators who planned an "insurance policy" operation to be carried out in the event Trump was elected, where he was spied on in the White House itself. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 02:09, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
+
:::::::::Right - but that’s only one small part of it (and do you really believe all that?). He could settle it all by doing what he promised. Released his returns. Now if Biden refuses to release his tax returns and enriches himself through the presidency then conservatives have NO argument. It doesn’t matter what side of the fence you are on - integrity is integrity. Trump has none and now conservatives have lost the argument by refusing to call him out. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 02:58, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
+
In fact - just block me please. I have no time for fake conservatives like the people here. Selling out their principles for power. Trump is liar and a crook and I’m disgusted by what used to be the party of R. Reagan. Trump is the used car salesman of politics. Please remove me from CP. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 03:01, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
:Of all politicians in the U.S. and the world with genuine political power, Trump adheres very closely to conservative principles. Look at the facts, rather than repeating the MSM's left-wing/establishment criticisms. In his first year, [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/heritage-foundation-64-of-trumps-agenda-already-done-faster-than-reagan Trump implemented 64% of the Heritage Foundation's recommendations, versus only 49% for Reagan]. His policies are even more conservative than Reagan's: [http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oe-election-anniversary-updates-despite-his-many-foibles-trump-has-1509748851-htmlstory.html] The American Conservative Union has rated his [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cpac-acu-trumps-cabinet-the-most-conservative-surpassing-reagan cabinet as even more conservative than Reagan's]. The judges he's appointing are more consistently conservative than the ones Reagan appointed: [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/trumps-supreme-court-legacy-could-be-more-conservative-than-reagans] And he's going right at our migration and trade problems (among others), things other politicians overlooked for years. Trump is even more pro-life than Reagan was, based on his policies ([[Donald Trump achievements: Abortion]]). An establishment person like Bush, Kasich, or Romney wouldn't have governed so conservatively, and they would have likely caved to the Left on multiple issues.
+
On September 30, 2019 the United States fiscal year 2019 ended. About that time, the advance GDP (gross domestic product) and national debt figures were released:
  
:If anyone is a fake conservative, who claims to be conservative while advancing left-wing policies, it's you, JohnSelway. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 03:13, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
+
For FY 2019 beginning October 1, 2018 and ending September 30, 2019, the United States production that was consumed this fiscal year (called gross domestic product or GDP) increased by about $858 billion, adding up to a total of about $21.2 trillion GDP for the year.  On the other hand the national debt increased by about $1,203 billion.
::I haven’t advanced any policies - left wing or otherwise. And yes, POLICY wise Trumps agenda is fine but he is a liar, a cheat and a narcissist. He fails at displaying any type of integrity whatsoever. So yes, the conservative principles have been forgotten in the pursuit of power. I don’t care what his policies are when he fails to even have any association with the truth. Please remove from CP is you have blocking rights. No one here seems to care about having a demigod of a president as long as he advances their brand of conservatism. You’re a sellout. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 03:25, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
+
  
:::I (and most other editors on CP, I suspect) am a pragmatist who is not going to sell myself to the Left by opposing an effective conservative leader just because  his personal life isn't great (but few high-profile people have great personal lives). That said, I'll repeat that the only people who even care about his tax returns are hacks at the MSM. Since 1789, we've been electing politicians, not pastors, and presidents as early as Jefferson and Cleveland (both being strong limited-government presidents highly regarded by modern conservatives) have been caught in sex scandals during their presidential campaigns.
+
The new $1,203 billion debt divided by the total GDP (GDP also being what is the United States' yearly income, in a way) for this year (the total GDP including the $858 billion increase) is about 5.7% (called the new debt per GDP ratio).
  
:::You continue to downplay Trump's success at advancing conservative policies ("''as long as he advances their brand of conservatism''") -- if you look at Reagan's policies and public statements, Trump is doing and saying the exact same things as him, except that he's even more consistent on policy than Reagan. For example, Trump has reinstated ''and even expanded'' several government abortion spending restrictions first enacted by Reagan, and he's tough on trade similar to Reagan (remember the Japanese car restrictions). This is about conservative public policy, not anyone's personal agenda.
+
But comparing the ''new'' debt to ''total'' GDP doesn't show the most important effects of the United States governments' total debt.  As far as measuring debt increases goes: firstly, the new debt per GDP ratio is like comparing the price of the car you bought to your total household income for the year—if you already owe a lot of money, your new debt proportion will still change more than someone who doesn't have a lot of debt, so it won't show your ability to borrow more, and secondly, nor will it show comparisons well to changes in new income.
  
:::Your block request is denied. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 03:49, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
+
Comparing GDP ''total'' to ''total'' national debt includes those important effects every year it is applied, so taking increases ''after'' this ratio is applied, one year upon the other, one can get a more accurate picture of the change in debt burden.
Trump is a breath of fresh air. He opposes China's state funded mercantilist system and has pared back the job killing administrative state in the USA.  One of the biggest problems of the USA is that its populace adopted a consumer based outlook instead of a producer outlook and used debt to finance it. Under Trump the civilian labor participation rate has gone up, and wages have gone up.[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060]
+
  
While some find Trump's right-wing ideology mixed with New Yorker bluntness/brashness offensive, many delight in it because it has put a big dent in political correctness.
+
{| class="wikitable"  style="font-size:98%; margin:left;"
 +
|+Recent ratios of totals of U.S. federal debt to totals of GDP and trade deficits, trillions
 +
!
 +
!align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|2008
 +
!2009
 +
!2010
 +
!2011
 +
!2012
 +
!2013
 +
!2014
 +
!2015
 +
!align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|2016
 +
!2017
 +
!2018
 +
!2019
 +
|-
 +
!China trade<br>Defic. (prelim.)
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|-$0.27
 +
|align="right"|$-0.24
 +
|align="right"|-0.26
 +
|align="right"|-0.29
 +
|align="right"|-0.31
 +
|align="right"|-0.32
 +
|align="right"|-0.34
 +
|align="right"|-0.36
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|-0.35
 +
|align="right"|$-0.37
 +
|align="right"|-0.41
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|-
 +
!Business<br>debt
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|$10.55
 +
|align="right"|$10.30
 +
|align="right"|10.05
 +
|align="right"|10.20
 +
|align="right"|10.65
 +
|align="right"|11.15
 +
|align="right"|11.80
 +
|align="right"|12.60
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|13.30
 +
|align="right"|$14.15
 +
|align="right"|15.10
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|-
 +
!Household<br>debt
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|$14.15
 +
|align="right"|$14.00
 +
|align="right"|13.80
 +
|align="right"|13.65
 +
|align="right"|13.60
 +
|align="right"|13.70
 +
|align="right"|13.90
 +
|align="right"|14.10
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black" align="right"|14.50
 +
|align="right"|$15.00
 +
|align="right"|15.50
 +
|align="right"|
 +
|-
 +
!New GDP<br>(prelim.)
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|
 +
|align="right"|$-0.3
 +
|align="right"|0.4
 +
|align="right"|0.55
 +
|align="right"|0.65
 +
|align="right"|0.55
 +
|align="right"|0.75
 +
|align="right"|0.75
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|0.45
 +
|align="right"|$0.75
 +
|align="right"|1.05
 +
|align="right"|0.85
 +
|-
 +
!Total GDP
 +
|align="right" style="border-right:1px solid black"|$14.75
 +
|align="right"|$14.45
 +
|align="right"|14.85
 +
|align="right"|15.40
 +
|align="right"|16.05